August 26th: Grossly Overly Politicized

Watching the 2016 Presidential race heat up from outside of the country has been a fascinating cultural experience. As a general rule, the information is mostly volunteer access, meaning that I have to go find the information, rather than the more standard American access, which is less of a choice and more of an overwhelming avalanche. That being said, it puts the burden on the consumer of the information to look for a balance of opinions and to see a variety of perspectives.

Take, for example, the recent GOP debate that took place in Cleveland earlier this month. I was unable to watch the debate first-hand live; it was taking place at 3 AM local time. Waking up the next morning, every news source and social medium had an influx of information, not only breaking down the content of each candidate’s platform, but also dissecting every detail of HOW that information was presented.

I started on social media (my favorite and most biased outlet), which primarily consisted of reactions from non-professionals. These were everyday Americans, the voters, commenting and critiquing the candidates that they would one day see on a ballot. The opinions generally skewed to the left, as most of my digital community share my liberal ideals.

Next, I moved to my news outlets of choice. Primarily, I like the coverage of USA Today, because it is one of the few newspapers in the country that has done the best work to transition into digital and online formats, making it easy to access traditional journalism styles in a modern format. I explored what the journalistic community had to share about the event. Again, USA Today tends to sit on the left side of the aisle, and even more so CNN. Much of what I found on these pages were breakdowns of the ways that candidates presented themselves, the politicking between individuals on the podium, and collections of soundbites that had Republicans digging at each other and looking to crack holes in their opponents.

So far, I had found almost no actual issue-based coverage so I gritted my teeth and headed to Fox News. I generally don’t enjoy Fox’s coverage, as they are way too far to the right for me, and their bias is far too easily identified, but in this case, when looking at a GOP debate that was, in fact, hosted by Fox, I was intrigued to see how they would cover it. Better than any other news source, there were details about what exactly each candidate stood for, and how well they got that point across.

After almost 2 hours of research, I felt like I had a decent understanding of what happened and where each candidate stood on various issues. Considering how easy it is to find SOME information, I was very surprised to learn how hard I had to work to find ALL of the information.

It is easy to blame my absence from the country for the difficulty. In reality, though, it is just as hard in America to see through all of the biases and angles to get to the real issue: the issues. We can find easy information about the feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell (ok, his feud with women in general), but what will he actually do to create greater stability in the Middle East? We know that Rand Paul is being a child in criticizing Chris Christie for hugging President Obama after Hurricane Sandy, but where does Paul stand when it comes to disaster relief?

Our gathering of information has turned into a full time job. We are bombarded with so much information about the political world that we now need to distinguish between what is real and what is crap. As hard is it might be, we need to do it, for fear that we will be unwitting bystanders in a system that encourages our politicians to belittle us, condescend us, and avoid us, for fear that we may actually demand that they lead.

The major theme of the Zoot Perspective’s evaluation of the next 15 months of the Presidential race is that we need to elevate the level of debate. We need to be asking the right questions and demanding that our politicians give us real, honest answers. I only get one vote, but I am going to make you earn it, Mr(s). Soon-To-Be-President.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

April 13th: The People's Candidate

After months (ok, maybe years) of speculation and preparation, Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for President of the United States. In a video shared on social media on Sunday, Clinton featured many Americans of every age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, discussing the challenges and opportunities in their lives. Some face economic difficulties, some run small businesses, others are excited to finally get married. When Clinton finally takes to the camera, she acknowledges that she too has goals. She’s running for President.

The most pivotal quote from her speech was: “Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion.” And she’s absolutely right. The American people need a champion who will look out for their best interests. A candidate who will tell them how it really is, rather than putting spin on every little statement. A candidate who will run on values and purpose, rather than a cutthroat campaign, with winning as the only goal.

A calculated launch of her campaign wasn’t necessarily the best foot to get started on. We all knew she was running. Why did she need to delay, to play games with the public until the timing was absolutely perfect? It is understandable to want to have control over the release of that information, but this presents a huge opportunity for Hillary to stop her political spin right out of the gate and to run a campaign that has the correct focus and dedication to what is truly important.

The last thing we need in America right now is an election wrought with politicking and manipulation. There are so many issues that divide us, and we need to know exactly who we are about to elect, so that we can choose a candidate that best serves our needs. The Democratic Party has frequently referenced that they do not want a “coronation,” an easy, single horse race for the Democratic nomination. My question is: why not? Why not pick a candidate, one good candidate, who can accurately reflect the views, opinions, and direction of her party, and allow her to stay true and honest to her platform, rather than struggling through the in-fighting of a tough primary season?

The Republicans sure won’t have that luxury. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio are the first to throw their hat in the ring, and it doesn’t appear as though that will be the end of it. By the time we are ready to have a Republican primary debate, we might need to hire a carpenter to construct enough podiums. The Republicans will be beating the snot out of each other for months, trying to gain an advantage and to knock their opponent down a peg. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Democrats could have a civil, thoughtful primary campaign that focuses on the issues at hand?

Clinton has already set herself up to be the anti-Republican, especially against the religious right. Her opening video showed a pair of gay couples, and she referenced that “when families are strong, America is strong.” She is setting herself up to be the candidate of the people. Against a Republican party where half of the members have bigotry as their main platform, Hillary can rest easy, knowing that she is going to be the candidate of tolerance and compassion.

In fact, she isn’t speaking like a woman being crowned supreme leader at all. In her video, she specifically says “I hope to earn your vote.” Is that a political move on her part? Sure. That doesn’t mean it isn’t the case. Americans need a candidate who is willing to work hard to earn their votes on their own merit, rather than by bending over backward to say whatever it is that we need to hear to put herself in the Oval Office. This may be America’s opportunity for an election that avoids the political mudslinging and rather focuses on the issues at hand. We can only hope.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

March 2nd: Blowing the House Down

If all of your coworkers looked particularly exhausted on Friday, they were probably binge-watching the new season of House of Cards. The Netflix political drama dropped it’s 13 episode third season at midnight on Friday morning, causing fans everywhere to insist on just one more episode before bed. Ok, maybe two more.

It took me three tries to get through the first two seasons. My first attempt, I didn’t make it past the pilot. My second attempt, I got to episode 4. Finally, I decided to buck-up and get through the 26 episode series that had so thoroughly captivated my friends.

My first reaction to the show was that it was a poor-man’s West Wing. Any time I would say that, I would get in trouble, because the shows are “so different.” Well, for the well-trained West Wing eye, you can tell that there are several instances throughout HoC that attempt to mimic, reference, or downright rip from the great Sorkin masterpiece. Long monologues in a church, a sequence with an egg standing on end, and a government stoppage are just a few instances where Frank Underwood attempts to stand next to Josiah Bartlett, and comes up looking small.

Now, I will admit: it has only been a long weekend, and I’m already halfway through the third season. I get it: the concept of watching a show marathon-style is incredibly engaging, and Netflix has itself a very interesting business model built around a weekend launch. The characters are interesting, the plot is definitely intricate, and any show like this is a boon for a political junkie. Yet the show, as a whole, demonstrates that just because there is huge hype does not mean that the show is particularly well done.

The third season comes with challenges that one would not expect of a show of House of Card’s caliber. The first episode focused far too much on a secondary character, rather than on Frank and Claire. The strength and determination that was so characteristic of Frank early on in the show seems to be replaced by a sense of his constantly feeling overwhelmed. His usual attitude of political savvy has been replaced by a man who is constantly reacting, rather than plotting. While I was never in love with the Frank of the first two seasons, I much prefer him to the Frank of the third, who appears to be a drastic departure from what so many cherished about the show to begin with.

I will, of course, admit that I have not finished the season. For those who have, you may be chuckling to yourself, knowing that I will soon eat my words. If, somewhere in all of this, there is a giant “GOTCHA” twist that I didn’t see coming, I will have to return to the blogging world to give my mea culpa for jumping the gun on writing a review. But, at this point, the show’s writers appear to have taken too long a hiatus.

This is one of the biggest risks of taking a full year between releases. Because of the nature of Netflix’s full-season drop model, there is a lot of time between when a binge viewer sees the characters from the end of one season to the start of the next. The challenge that comes with this is the continuity of character development and driving certain story lines. In that regard, the show has done it’s viewers a great disservice, as the characters have seemingly changed in the “six months” of TV time between the last episode of season 2 and the first of season 3.

House of Cards has always been in the business of creating drama, rather than telling a compelling story. In the coming episodes, there is plenty of drama left to unfold. Let’s hope the story can keep up. So far, it hasn’t.

The Zoot Perspective continues to work to create meaningful dialog and push continued thoughtful conversation. To contribute to ZPMedia, follow this link.