It’s time we stop voting based on perception and stick with reality.
The following is a direct quote from Harold Perrineau, better known as Michael from “Lost.” He was asked by Entertainment Weekly to list the top ten dance moments from the last 25 years of television for their 1000th issue. Here is his number four moment.
“Barack Obama dances with Ellen on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. It’s the first time you got to see him be human. I signed on then.”
Read that quote again. Ponder it, reflect on it. Soon you will realize what I did: Perrineau essentially states that it wasn’t until he saw Obama cut a rug with Ellen that he felt the candidate deserved his vote.
A dance move says nothing about a person’s foreign policy, nothing about health care, education or defense. No, all it can tell you is whether or not a person has some rhythm. Yet Perrineau saw Obama’s skills on the floor as the defining reason to cast a vote for him.
It would be easy to pass this off as a single off-handed statement or one guy’s making the point that dancing reveals more about a person than a million words ever could, but I think it underscores a growing epidemic in America. Voters choose candidates based on what they think they’d be like to hang out with rather than how they’d perform as President.
This is nothing new. It certainly didn’t start with Obama’s “Ellen” boogie. It could probably be traced much further, but the watershed moment for this new voting criterion has to be when Bill Clinton donned a pair of shades and rocked out on his saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show.”
Before that night, Clinton was a little-known Arkansas governor trailing in the Democratic Primaries. One rendition of “Heartbreak Hotel” and all of the sudden Clinton became the hip candidate, the voice of the youth, and the bridge to the next century. The press, and in turn the public, gleaned all this from a one-night gig with Arsenio’s band. Soon, Clinton shot to the top of the polls and was on the road to the White House.
Of course, it didn’t end there. The chad-thin election of 2000 was basically decided by the Al Gore’s appearing pompous and wooden while George Bush seemed like the type of guy you’d want to have over for a Barbecue. This year, Hillary Clinton surged in the polls after a few crocodile tears made her seem more like a “real person” and less like a pantsuit-clad Stepford Wife.
Recently, the personality microscope’s focus has shifted to the candidates’ spouses. Whether it’s Michelle Obama’s fist-pound on “The View” or Cindy McCain’s always appearing as a doting housewife, the perception parade knows no bounds.
What’s next? Will debates be eschewed in favor of sports discussions? Will the candidates’ platforms now consist only of their favorite movies and TV shows? Will a suit and tie be replaced by a style of dress reflecting the nominees’ musical preference? As long as we continue to cast our votes based on a candidate’s perceived social prowess rather than his evident qualifications to hold the office of the President, none of this can be too far off.
I won’t tell you who to vote for, but I will implore you to cast your vote for the right reasons. Please listen to what a candidate has to say, his stances on the issues, and his service record when you make your decision. The future of elections depends on this; otherwise we’re on a path where candidates are expected to do nothing more than shoot the breeze than prove their ability to run this country.
If that’s the case, kids with future leadership ambitions are best served by dance lessons.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed And checkout our coffee competition to win a $30 gift voucher to your favourite coffee shop : click here
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
0 responses so far ↓
Subscribe to our RSS Feed and leave a comment to enter the commentator of the week competition and win a $20 Amazon.com gift voucher.
Leave a Comment