Last night in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes had a discussion about concensus. The thesis of this argument was that when one candidate is weak on a particular issue, he simply defers to the opponent’s position. This creates a false sense of concensus and, in most cases, moves the discussion on to other issues where the two actally disagree. Rachel and Chris pointed out that this leaves a dangerous dearth of dissent. It posits the false claim that there is only one course, one correct opinion and does not further a national discussion or even a proper airing out of the issue. In this case, the issue at hand was our course in Afghanistan, but a similar argument could be made for any issue not given attention or time in what has been a long, long campaign.
Campaigns cannot cover everything, I will admit. But, they are not necessarily about the most important issues, or the ones people care about the most. The campaign, and to some extent the media, but mostly the candidates, decide what they want to talk about and build the discord themselves. Food, it seems, has fallen prey to this phenomenon. Food policy affects all of us, yet in this election cycle, it is boxed into the frame of Prop.37 and allowed no larger scope. So I ask then, what if I were a food voter?
If this were the only topic I cared to base my vote on, who would I choose?
Honestly, at this point I have no idea. But I am sending in my absentee ballot tomorrow, so before I do, I’m gonna find out.