Some of Nothing

Flash!
Monday, February 4, 2008

The Church of Pugilism taught me something yesterday. I'm biased against flash. By flash, I don't mean the software or the sci-fi character--although there is some of that. I mean the superficial showy stuff. Sometimes flash takes the form of "bling" (to quote Willard Romney) or swanky cars. Other times it shows up in the form of expensive and impractical tools and gadgets (e.g., the new MacBook Air). In the case of the Bush Administration, flash came as a fake cowboy hat, an extensive series of vacations, fundamentalist rhetoric, and a glib sense of humor. At the church of pugilism, it presented itself in the form of a bunch of bulky neophytes who spent a lot of time grunting and trying to see how far they could make the heavy bag move when they punched. In any case, I really don't like it.

In fact, the more I thought about flash yesterday, the more I realized how extreme my bias against it was. Even the slightest whiff of flash makes me squint suspiciously, wondering what that flash is trying to cover up. To me, it smacks of pretense and subterfuge. And in ordinary situations, I have found that flash is what often gets people what they want at the expense of others more deserving. Nonetheless, I have come to realize that my deep bias against flash--for all of flash's faults--can be just as irrational as a bias for it (that's kind of what bias is).

In the case of this election, John Edwards was, ironically, the potentially electable anti-flash candidate. His policy positions were thorough and well-grounded (although I would have liked to have seen more on limiting executive powers). All the work he did early on was quickly usurped by his rivals. His campaign was a tough one with no free rides since he was virtually ignored by the media. Plus, all the flash that rubbed me the wrong way in 2004, I had gotten used to by this time around. Any flash on Edwards came by way of expensive haircuts, which to me, was all overblown hearsay since I really couldn't tell the difference. And apparently, he has a big house that I never saw, heard about, or thought about, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I would have squinted.

Obama, on the other hand, has quite a bit of flash. He's gotten by on a lot of happy talk and some appropriation of Edwards' policy proposals. His campaign floats around on a wad of cash and good publicity. Some say Obama is poetic, which has its own element of flash. Plus, he's all shiny and new. So, given my extreme bias against flash, all these qualities add up to some serious skepticism that is not easily overcome.

With that said, Obama's impact on voter turnout is one that cannot be ignored. Since a big part of leadership involves inspiring participation, I can't help but wonder if my bias against flash is keeping me from seeing what's truly valuable in Obama. He's clearly got many good points: a unique background, an intelligent mind that can make good sense out of his background, and an obvious interest in public service. And when I overlook the veneer of flash, I definitely appreciate much of what he has to say in his longer, more in-depth speeches. Besides, now that the big day looms ahead of us, I can even imagine being seriously disappointed if he doesn't pull in the people to the extent that he did in Iowa and other states. This realization suggests that, difficult though it may be, even someone like me can actually overcome their irrational biases. So, given the choices on the ticket now, I'm going to have to go with flash.

For those of you who are sad that the Giants won the pennant (or whatever), here's some football footage that might cheer you up:

Nothing New byslag at 4:36 PM