The Scrivener - University Liggett School

The Politics of the Four-Letter WordThe Scrivener’s Election 2008 CoverageBy Claire PeracchioAh, the four-letter word. We utter them when westub our toes, drop our cell phones, or are stuck in traffic.But lately, the four-letter word has been making a comeback.With a sputtering economy and a soaring jobless rate, itseems that these words have become the knee-jerk reflexesthat punctuate our daily misfortunes. They’re short, convenient,and make you feel oh-so-rebellious. But, would itbe a stretch to say that the 2008 election was decided by afour-letter word? My answer, sans four-letter word in deferenceto your prim sensitivities, is simply yes. The truth isthat ever since Moses saw it burn in the Old Testament, wehave held a special place in our hearts for one word: Bush.With over three-quarters of the American people disapprovingof the president’s conduct, it seems that blaming Bushhas become the convenient cure-all for our nation’s achesand pains. It is obvious that Bush bludgeoned our economylike a rampaging Viking, starred in that vapid Oliver Stonebiopic, exiled the Dalai Lama, and went back in time toshoot down Amelia Earhart and start the 1871 Chicago fire.And if you were wondering why last month’s chicken pattieswere black and covered in scales: blame Bush. He whippedup each one just for you. Bush has even been immortalizedon the illustrious web pages of the Urban Dictionary as atransitive verb meaning “to struggle or have difficulty witheverything.” I’m sure John McCain is at this very momentmuttering, “I really Bushed that one.”It didn’t help that McCain ran a terrible campaign.Perhaps his worst sin was failing to distance himself fromthe aforementioned president with whom he voted 90% ofthe time. From the lack of a coherent message to folksygaffes, McCain had it all. McCain’s most salient economicmissteps included a senior McCain advisor’s description ofthe electorate as “a nation of whiners” and McCain’s emphaticdeclaration on the eve of the collapse of the Americanfinancial sector that “the fundamentals of our economy arestrong.” Well, it turned out that this statement was tantamountto mistaking your 78 year-old grandmother for HulkHogan, and McCain paid a steep political price. In the midstof the financial crisis that he had previously denied, the bestthat McCain could do was to “suspend his campaign” for72 hours and vouch that his mere presence in Washingtonwould fix things. Well, the Messiah-complex didn’t work,and McCain left our nation’s capital in the same state as ithad existed when he arrived. His economic policies, withtheir emphasis on the tried-and-true tax cuts and endingpork-barrel spending, failed to register with the Americanpeople as a clear divergence from those of Bush. Yet whatreally got to me was the fact that McCain was always referringto me as one of “my friends,” offering an avuncularlittle smile or a double thumbs up that just made me feel likeI was privy to a disturbing conspiracy. This phrase may haveworked if McCain were the kind of guy with whom I wouldwant to be friends, but his friendship with Sarah Palin mademe opt out of that exclusive club. Although Palin initiallyproved an asset to the ticket by energizing the conservativebase, her stunning ignorance was evidenced by a series ofabysmal interview performances and her inability to name anewspaper that she reads, determine the constitutional roleof the vice president, cite a Supreme Court case, and recognizethat Africa is a continent not a country. Though McCainbased his candidacy on the notion that he was “ready to lead,”his vice presidential pick consistently demonstrated that theonly thing she was ready for was another shot at a gradeschooldiploma. And worst of all, Sarah Palin in all of herword-mangling, geography-shirking glory just reminded us ofall that we find so un-adorable about George W. Bush.In this climate of unprecedented Republican disorderand unpopularity, the Democrat fortunate enough tobe seeking the presidency was Barack Obama. This was anopportunity that even Al Gore would have trouble screwingup. Obama may be the most liberal and inexperienced manto attain the presidency in recent times, yet you would neverknow that from his campaign. Obama had the political acumento run on the one mantra that united the vast majorityof the country: change. He fleshed out his proposals to cuttaxes for the middle class and lower health care premiums ata time when these bread-and-butter issues, not his reportedlinks to middle-aged terrorists, were at the forefront of voters’minds. He was the David to slay the Goliath of thosescheming Clintons, and his life story is multicultural enoughto make even the most callous college admissions officerweep for joy. It also helped that he had more money thanGod (or Mitt Romney) and perhaps the best get-out-the-voteoperation that America has ever seen. Obama shattered allprevious records for campaign fund-raising, and he did mostof it through the Internet with impressive numbers like the$150 million raised in the month of September alone. As forfervent supporters, Obama was able to build his campaignfrom the bottom up with legions of impassioned Obamaniacsstaffing campaign offices in every corner of the country. Yetwhat was most remarkable about the Obama campaign wasits imperturbable message discipline. Not only did he dilutethe Bush-weary zeitgeist into the perennially catchy “Yes WeCan” and “Change We Need,” but he knew just what to say toappeal to the average American voter and to send all the folksat MSNBC into apoplectic fits of Obama-worship. His stumplines about “turning the page on the past eight years” were, inthe words of T-Pain, “money in the bank.” The Obama campaigneven had the genius to convince the American peoplethat Bush and the Republicans were the sole purveyors of a