"I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”
Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.
I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
An excerpt from his piece in Shouts & Murmurs in The New Yorker, read the rest here.
2 comments:
While I’m a big fan of David Sedaris, he (like most voters whose voting pattern was pre-determined years or decades before the current candidates were nominated) confuses thinking about the important issue of who to vote for (which many undecideds are doing) with not thinking about it (which, by definition, most decideds have stopped doing). My reply to Mr. Sedaris can be found at http://www.undecidedman.com under “Naivite”.
ooh fabulous! a reader! one i don't know by name, address and intimate relation! and a smart one at that! well thank you undecidedman, for your decidedly worthy comment and even worthier blog. How wonderful to set an example as a father of a truly open mind, what a learning experience for both you and your son. I must say in most ways and on most points i agree with you. There is a point at which we diverge, however, and we passed it about two weeks ago.
Its all fine and good to keep an open mind, explore possibilities, use "the time available to explore the virtues of two remarkable men" but at a certain point the learning curve flattens out and its decision time. I respect mccain for so many reasons and I can understand what his selling points are so in that respect sedaris goes a little far. mccains not quite a meal of shit and broken glass. But i think sedaris describes obama perfectly as the airplane chicken. Hes no cordon bleu free range and frankly I have serious concerns about him as our president. but its the comparison of our options that we are talking about because its no use wishing we'd ordered a different dish. And while exaggerations are flying on both sides, the one you described about mccain: "a cranky, hypocritical old goat teamed up with a hillbilly reactionary, both dedicated to turning the clock back on minorities 100 years and women 500 in order to usher in an era of endless war and plutocracy" is, in my opinion, much closer to reality than the slander being aimed at obama. And for the degree to which that hyperbolic description rings true, I am terrified to have mccain as my president. I am actually scared of what would happen, as a woman, as a young person entering the job force, as someone with friends in the military, as a citizen of this country who has travelled a fair amount and felt first hand the animosity our lack of diplomacy has developed. Is it right to vote out of fear? maybe not. but fear is our reality, and i am afraid that if people continue to keep an open mind as part of some educational experiment, they will risk giving a truly unqualified candidate more credit then he deserves. they risk swinging a vote that is undecided not because of an open mind but because of ignorance. and we need that one vote.
Post a Comment