upworthy

john mccain

My Gen Zer's reaction to the McCain/Obama debate was shocking

Gen Z is a very politically aware generation, though many of them are still in high school they keep up with the political landscape of the world. There are many Gen Z political and social movements as well as official organizations fully run by these young people. Given how politically active Gen Z is, sometimes it's easy to forget they weren't old enough to be politically conscious when Barack Obama was running for president. It wasn't that long ago but some people, it's already history.

Their exposure to politics came to be in some pretty harsh and polarizing times where they were often at the center of the discussion. For many of the older Gen Zers, they felt thrusted into the political sphere to fight for gun reform whether they were ready or not.

Because politics has never been off limits, and I encourage them to research policies to form their own opinions, I hadn't realized there was something missing. Just like nearly every geriatric Millennial I waste a good amount of time scrolling through TikTok while doing mundane chores. But this time my 16-year-old was watching over my shoulder. I was stopped on a video clip of John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential debate in 2008, which happens the be the year my 16-year-old was born.

After a brief comment about how young former President Obama looked in the clip, my child asked, " who is that guy," pointing to McCain, "and why were they so nice to each other?" Admittedly I was baffled by the question and sought clarification to which they explained, "If the old guy is a Republican and Obama's a Democrat then why are they just talking like normal people? If politicians could talk like that we would probably get a lot more stuff done."

We both left the video shocked for very different reasons. It was then that I realized my kid's only conscious exposure to American politics was post-2016. It was hard for them to comprehend that politicians being cordial and respectful toward each other was normal prior to the end of Obama's second term. Of course there were cheap shots taken here or there but they didn't consistently devolve into the shouting matches Gen Z has become accustomed to witnessing by our elected officials.

Joe Biden GIF by PBS NewsHourGiphy

My child couldn't quite understand how American politicians went from being able to have respectful conversations while disagreeing to shouting slurs on the House floor. They were equally as taken aback by the content of the conversations the two men were having noting that they were actually talking about political differences on how to help people and they both seemed to "actually care." In the short three-minute video both men were calm, respectful and didn't attempt to shout over one another. They followed the rules of the debate while still countering each other's stance on issues that impact the daily life of Americans.

McCain and Obama's mutual respect wasn't something that was just for the cameras. While they disagreed on a lot of things politically, they both understood that they had different approaches to doing the same job: caring for Americans. The political opponents weren't waiting for an opportunity to make the other look bad publicly, they saw each other has human first and politician second which is why it wasn't surprising that Obama delivered McCain's eulogy after he lost his battle with cancer.

As an adult that has been voting since George W. Bush ran for president, I was familiar with the normalcy of healthy cordial debates, my kid on the other hand was convinced that this debate was an anomaly. That's when we watched another video of McCain defending Obama at a town hall to solidify how normal it was. Their disbelief of political decorum and their categorization of "red bad, blue good" based on videos coming from our political leaders was a glaring condemnation of what American politics has morphed into.

People pick a political party like they're picking a sports team and have become accustomed to seeing them speak to each other in a way that wouldn't fly in any middle school in the country. This political devolvement has trickled down onto the American people and the younger generation is consuming this via social media as "normal." If this is our normal now then how far will we devolve before the pendulum swings back in the other direction? Is it too late to require better behavior from our politicians so we can course correct before the youngest Gen Zers are of voting age?

Though my child and I had very different reasons for our mutual shock after watching that video, I certainly agree with them. If politicians spent more time speaking to each other with respect and actually taking time to listen to the points made by their counterpart, we would have a much better outcome. Politicians are meant to compromise to find the best solution for all Americans, not just the loudest but that can't be done without listening to understand and treating your colleagues with respect.

More

5 messages from losing candidates to look for in tonight's concession speech.

Win or lose, the candidates have an important job on Tuesday night.

It's going to take a lot of work to mend the divides our country will face after the 2016 election. Historically, it's been the role of the losing candidate to offer that first spark of hope during their concession speech.

You don't have to look any further than the past few decades of concession speeches given by losing candidates, messages they'd rather not have had to share, before it becomes clear how important the humbling act of placing the good of the country above one's own ego is for the post-election healing process.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney concedes in Boston in 2012. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.


"The nation, as you know, is at a critical point," 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney said in a speech conceding defeat to President Obama. "At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work.”

Good concession speeches find a way to express the disappointment of losing an election along with a call to action and a pledge to lead by example moving forward.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Four years prior, Sen. John McCain offered his own heartfelt election night message.

"Sen. Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed," McCain said in 2008. "No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country, and I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.”

Those words — "No doubt many of those differences remain" — are key. An election cannot and will not wipe away differences; it can only help guide us in how we work to resolve them. After all, McCain and Obama had the same goal: to make America the best it could be. They just differed on how to accomplish that.

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

“I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together," McCain urged his supporters, "to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited."

Democratic nominee John Kerry also made American unity a central point in his 2004 speech congratulating President George W. Bush on his re-election.

"Today I hope that we can begin the healing," said Kerry. "But in an American election, there are no losers. Because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning, we all wake up as Americans. And that — that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth."

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

“With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country," Kerry said. "In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.”

“This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done," Vice President Al Gore said in his concession speech after a highly controversial election.

The election of 2000 will remain one of the most controversial moments in our country's young history, with the Supreme Court issuing a ruling that effectively declared George W. Bush president amid a recount in Florida. Though he strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision, Gore conceded with a speech intended to urge the country into unity behind President-elect Bush.

On December 13, 2000, Al Gore conceded the race to Texas Governor George W. Bush. Photo by Luke Frazza/AFP/Getty Images.

"[While] there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us," Gore reminded his supporters. "While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president.”

We may disagree, and we may at times consider ourselves opponents. What we must never do, however, is consider ourselves enemies of one another. From Mondale to Dukakis to Carter to Ford to George H.W. Bush, history is filled with truly great, healing speeches delivered by the losing candidates at the end of an election.

The most notable concession message, however, may have come from Sen. Bob Dole in his 1996 loss to President Bill Clinton.

Photo by J. David Ake/AFP/Getty Images.

After telling the crowd he had congratulated Clinton on being re-elected, Dole was met with loud boos. That's when he delivered a line that remains as important today as it was 20 years ago.

"No, wait a minute. Wait a minute," Dole said, trying to regain the crowd's attention. "No, I've said repeatedly — I've said repeatedly in this campaign that the president was my opponent and not my enemy. And I wish him well and I pledge my support in whatever advances the cause of a better America because that's what the race was about in the first place — a better America as we go into the next century."

As we close the book on the election of 2016, let's remember that while differences exist, we are neighbors and not enemies.

Whether a Tuesday night speech from one of the candidates helps prompt the healing process or the losing candidate deviates from this important historical tradition, it's on us to come together, to work together, and to be Americans together. There's a reason concession speeches have shared common themes election after election: because the message remains true, even as our country is forever changing.

On Wednesday morning, the world will still be here. Let's do what we can to help make that existence one we can all live with.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

Remember back in 2008 when Obama said he disagreed with John McCain, but would always honor his military service?

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.


That feeling of niceness was great ... but it seems to be short-lived in political campaigns. The closer it gets to Election Day, the meaner the candidates seem to get, especially when it comes to each other.

We know that mean language weakens people's faith in the system, which isn't great.

Previous studies have shown that going negative can also be dangerous for the candidates themselves. When you start slinging mud at your opponents, you might get splashed yourself.

But what would happen if, instead of criticizing your opponent, you complimented them?

Professor Nicoletta Cavazza at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy wanted to find out. To do this, the researchers asked 90 students to sit down and read fake political speeches. Some of the speeches had the typical mostly-negative political cadence you'd expect.

But half were tweaked to include a compliment toward the opposition. For example: "I believe that my competitor, who is an upright and smart person, will agree with me about the need to change this situation."

What did Cavazza find? In the end, the students rated the complimentary politician as being more trustworthy overall.

Unfortunately, we're not likely to see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump getting all buddy-buddy.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

But this research does show us something interesting about our brains.

Cavazza cautioned that the study did have limitations, such as the fact that the politicians were made up, which might limit how much we can apply this to real politics just yet. More research will need to be done to tease out more nuance in their findings as well.

But the study does teach us that we tend to trust people more if it looks like they're going against their own best interests and acting in someone else's best interest instead.

In the case of politics, this can look like being nice to your competition.

But in real life, it can also look like helping someone out randomly. Imagine going to a car mechanic for repair. Maybe there's been a weird thump when it turns on or a little jingle-jangle noise when you go over 40 miles an hour. You leave the car with them for a few hours and when you get back, they've not only fixed the problem but also changed your oil for free!

What a standup bloke. You'd trust him with your car next time, right?

One of the most interesting things about politics is how it lets us see human nature played out on a national stage.

Next time I watch politics, I'll keep an eye out for any flattery because it could be the trick to winning ... although this year, I may have to wait until after Nov. 8 for that.

History's latest gladiator match took place Thursday when His Holiness Pope Francis took on His Hairpiece Donald Trump.

The pope and Donald Trump came to blows when, while flying from Mexico back to Rome, the pontiff said, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian."

He didn't directly address Trump, who has famously doubled- and tripled-down on his plans to build the (biggest, best, most beautiful) wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and the Vatican has clarified that the pope did not mean his comment as a personal attack on the business-mogul-turned-GOP-presidential-candidate.


But Trump was not happy about the comment.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful," Trump fired back at the pope in South Carolina, where he was addressing a packed room at a golf resort.

Forget Batman vs. Superman. This is the best.

"And then he said I was 'disgraceful.' No, seriously! He actually said that," I want to imagine the pope said. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Of all the words to call the pope, "disgraceful" is certainly an interesting choice.

Coming from the Italian "disgrazia," the word "disgraced" in literal translation means "without grace" or "without the favor of God."

With all the resources available to me, a millennial with Internet access, I don't think I could come up with a more ill-fitting word to describe the pope than one with Italian origins that means "unfavored by God." It'd be like calling turtles "shell-less" or describing coffee as "constipating."

While I doubt Donald looks up the etymology of every word he slings out as an insult, it does point to an interesting trend of his.

Trump insults a lot of people, but he's not actually very good at it.

Besides tossing insults at basically every presidential candidate on the docket, not to mention the entire country of Germany...


...Trump has lambasted a huge array of public figures, institutions, companies, and even concepts. But his choice words consistently reveal some bizarre word choices.

Take this recent tweet referring to NBC anchor Chuck Todd:

Saying Chuck Todd "knows so little about politics" is really very silly.

Chuck Todd has been working in and around politics since at least 1992, when he worked for the presidential campaign of then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). After that, he was editor-in-chief of The Hotline, a political news briefing from Atlantic Media, for six years.

Thanks, Donald! Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

Todd also was NBC News' political director and chief White House correspondent, co-hosted "The Daily Rundown" on MSNBC, and currently hosts NBC's "Meet the Press."

So, while I'm not president of the Chuck Todd Fan Club or anything (It's a thing. They're called Chuckolytes. I'm hoping to run for treasurer.), I think it's safe to say the guy knows a little bit about politics.

How about this tweet insulting CNN's S.E. Cupp...

Cupp, the bespectacled CNN commentator formerly of MSNBC's "The Cycle," got her bachelor's degree from Cornell and her master's from New York University. Her writing has appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and many other publications.


Do these glasses make me look loser-y? Photo by Angela Weiss/Getty Images.

She's been an accomplished writer and commentator since the early 2000s. Oh, and she was also a professional ballet dancer for six years.

If Cupp is a loser, then you can go ahead and sign me up for loserdom as well.

Or how about when he blasted Sen. John McCain?

You may not agree with McCain's politics. But the guy has served in the Senate since 1986. He was in the Navy from 1954 to 1981. He was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and is chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

What did the orange man say? Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Real dummy.

Trump also used the same word for Arianna Huffington.

Maybe he's thinking of a different Arianna Huffington?

Because the one I know of was #12 on Forbes' 2009 list of the most influential women in media, as well as one of its 100 most powerful women in the world.

Huffington being a dummy at the Global Women Entrepreneurs Conference in China. Photo by ChinaFotoPress/ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images.

She's also an accomplished author, media mogul, and co-founder of the Huffington Post. What a dummy!

He called fellow billionaire Mark Cuban a "loser."

Love him or hate him, Cuban went from selling garbage bags to pay for sneakers at 12 years old to owning the Dallas Mavericks. That's the kind of loser I'd love to be some day.

Or the kind of "loser" that becomes attorney general of New York:


Either one would be fine with me.

I'd even be willing to wear a big hat that says "Loser" in big, bright letters on the front. Misspelled, probably, because I also want to be a "dummy."

But nothing beats my personal favorite: when Trump called actor Samuel L. Jackson "boring."

Seriously? Samuel L. Jackson? Boring?!

THIS Samuel L. Jackson?!


GIF via "Pulp Fiction"/YouTube.

The only way you could think Samuel L. "M*****f***ing" "Hold onto your butts" "What does Marsellus Wallace look like?!" "Say 'what' again" Jackson is boring is if you've only seen him in "The Phantom Menace."

I mean, seriously, do you remember when he got eaten by that shark?

GIF via "Deep Blue Sea"/YouTube.

(Spoilers. Sorry.)

The point is, we should all hope to be insulted by Donald Trump.

If he takes the time to berate your intelligence, merit, or ability, it probably means you're doing something right!

Personally, I hope Trump sends an insulting tweet my way. Maybe then I can finally live out my dream of becoming a millionaire actor, media personality, writer, and NBA franchise owner.

Just like all the other dummies and boring people.

GIF via "Pulp Fiction"/YouTube.

Tasty.