Looking Back at Election Day 2009: Scott Hinkley

I was very disappointed after this past round of elections.  I don't think there is anything particularly concerning about a slight shift towards conservatism and familiarity after Americans voted so brazenly a year ago.  I am concerned by the media coverage and the political responses it drew out, most notably from a White House I have otherwise admired for its press-savvy.  

If there is any overriding message I find in our recent presidential elections, it's that Americans have a lot more in common with each other than our local cultural quirks might allow us to see.  Obama attempted to galvanize support from within that similarity, in the form of "hope," but the less campaign-friendly bonds of "fear," "anxiety," and "despair" have also been highlighted by our recent turns-of-fate.  I don't mention these to draw dramatic focus to our circumstances, but rather to suggest that the current “celebrity-break-up” flavor of political news coverage is undermining our potential for success.  Americans should be able to feel connected, and yes, hopeful, even when we are not moving in lock-step (some might say “especially”).  My hope is that we, as citizens, continue to reject a consumer-tested message of division that proves much more profitable for the preachers than for their congregations.  Red vs. Blue is boring.

As for the White House response that got me all bothered, the White House released a statement referring to the deciding issues in these elections as "local."  I appreciate that they were attempting to preserve their claim of popular approval, but it seemed to be a belittling and off-putting comment to make to your supporters.  I can only speak for myself, but I don't categorize my opinions geographically, and suggesting that my local and national votes are not driven by the same set of concerns is insulting.

Email Scott