Do people vote on what they know--or what they "see?"

Superficiality is the defining feature in our society. How can it be otherwise when so many people in this country base their judgments not on facts but their visceral reactions? Isn't that what local Republicans are counting on by using Democrat blue instead of Republican red in their roadside candidate posters? Even so-called 24-hour cable news programs like CNN don’t seem to have the time for anything but what will keep people “entertained”—depending upon sound bites from self-serving types without questioning their veracity, or blowhards merely offering an “opinion” usually based on their own prejudices rather than facts. 

Superficiality also defines the current campaign season; Seattle radio stations have been playing anti-Jay Inslee commercials non-stop for months now, as if the Seattle Times’ endorsement of Republican Rob McKenna wasn’t enough; perhaps the right-wing Pacs believe that the Times’ level of credibility is so low that McKenna needs help. The latest ad suggests that investment in solar energy that Inslee supports is baaaad, while the on-going ad with that woman with annoying voice complaining that it seems that Inslee wakes-up every morning wanting to do something baaaad is just plain irritating; I’d vote for Inslee just to shut her up. One thing that fascinates me is that the bespectacled McKenna appears to be bookish and wonkish, and no doubt many people actually see this; in reality he is not the paragon of bipartisanship that the Times calls him. Quite the contrary; during his years on the King County Council, McKenna was so insufferably partisan that King County Executive Ron Sims had to hold special meetings in order to find strategies to counteract him. McKenna was also relieved of his position on the Sound Transit board because he refused to accept the fact that voters had approved light rail, like a petulant child who could not get his way and just wanted to cause trouble. 

McKenna isn’t the only political candidate to benefit from the superficial impressions. Mitt Romney, who has said he will scrap FEMA if elected and force states to handle disaster relief alone, is now interfering with disaster relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and butting-in without permission, since he and his handlers see this as an “opportunity” to buttress his presidential “image.” Romney has always been the conceited, privileged type, but despite the fact he acts patrician and speaks in a suitably patronizing tone to the plebes who don’t understand why he and his billionaire friends don’t have enough money, Romney looks like the kind of man who should be successful; the problem is so was Gordon Gekko in the film “Wall Street,” whose path to wealth was suspiciously similar to that of Romney—no superficiality there. Nor is it superficial that Romney, David Koch (who Romney practically bear-hugged at the Republican Convention, which CNN cameras conveniently cut away from) and his other millionaire and billionaire friends no doubt laugh among themselves at the plebes, in complete agreement with the sentiment that

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy?

Romney may have the look of a “successful” man who will make you “successful” just like him if people are foolish enough to elect him. However, he essentially expressed much the same opinion as in the quote from the aforementioned film during his “secret” fundraiser. That is not superficial. That is who Romney is.

Barack Obama has a different problem. I voted for Obama because he shares some of my concerns and what should be done about them. I suspect, however, that some voters see “black” and they assume that he is “against” whites, or like Dinesh D’Souza, believes that he wants to bring white America “down.” That is certainly the “message” that Romney and all those people chanting “USA! USA!” as if they were caught in a time warp to Nazi Germany are trying to convey. Superficial and simple-minded. Nothing could be further from the truth, but a recent Associated Press poll shows that negative racial attitudes among whites has increased in the past four years—not surprising given the constant racist drumbeat from Fox News,  right-wing radio and the Tea Party that occurred from the moment that Obama won the 2008 primary. They all want to remind you of Obama’s blackness—which is meant to reach into the dark recesses of human prejudices. 

Of course, superficial judgments do not necessarily require that you actually know what the person looks like. For example, just because someone has a classically Anglo name doesn’t necessarily mean they are not complete a-holes. A campaign ad supporting  Richard Sanders' comeback bid claims that he defends “our” rights, but of course only certain people are allowed to have “rights” according to him, like anti-government types—and not, say, black folks, which is why the Times withdrew its endorsement. His incumbent opponent, however, was a “criminal defense lawyer,” which apparently means that such things as due process for those accused of a crime is not a legitimate right either. That’s why I voted for his opponent with the funny name. I’d rather vote right with facts than wrong with superficial notions.