Thursday, December 20, 2007

Candidates- Always The Lesser Of two Evils

I can’t think of an election gone past where the two candidates that ended up becoming the nominations were certainly not the best candidate. Most of the time they are the worst. By “worst” I mean the most connected, unmoral, obligated, backwards thinking individuals in the primary. This next election is well on course to be the exact same way.

In the post Election Reform The Logical Way is one way to curb the “two evils” outcome. The other obvious question is “why does it always end up as the same old politics with just different faces.” More and more they don’t even have different names. This is a democracy where the voice of the people dictates the policies of the country. If that is true, then why is it that the only thing the average voters can agree on is that things are screwed up? Why is this a fact when most good people want the same goal? Issues like a strong economy, better educational system, more affordable healthcare, a reduction in people that depend on the government and safety from foreign threats are universal. So why has president after president, congress after congress, and election after election yielded trillions of dollars spent and yet these issues only get worse instead of better? The answer is because we continuously “hire” the wrong people to run the company.

Think about it. If you are 20 years old today, you would be lead to believe that to be president your last name must either be Bush or Clinton. The stage is set to extend that belief to people who are at least 24 years old. Had Jr. not screwed everything up we could have been in the middle of a race between Bush and Clinton again. So why is this a prominent phenomenon?

The answer is simple. We are all vane. We don’t pick presidents because we like their platform, background, or ideas. We pick presidents because they look like “us”. Or at least they look like what we think we look like. We all want to believe that we could be president if we had the opportunity. Just like we all think we can sing, dance, and play sports like the professionals.

When I say “us” I don’t mean anybody reading this blog. Especially, not one who has gotten this far in the post. It means that you have a thirst for answers way, way beyond Joe voter. It more then likely meant that you are no fan of either of the two parties past or present offerings for candidates.

If you don’t believe me, ask somebody willing to share their political views. (In this country we do not discuss the three most influential issues in our lives with friend in public. No politics, sex, or religion.) “So you like Giuliani, why?” they will at best answer, “ because he showed good leadership skills during 9-11.” To which you ask, “Oh really, which leadership skills did he show that would have been any different then anybody else in the same situation?” This I guarantee will draw a blank stare and a shrug. If they try to come up with anything, ask them if they knew that the NYC firefighters union have shunned him and blame him for not equipping them with communication equipment that would have saved hundreds of lives. If they favor Giuliani, it must most likely be republican. Last ask them how they felt about Bill Clinton. Undoubtedly they will spew something about Bill getting a blow job and being immoral. Ask them if they were aware the Giuliani had been divorced 3 times and has been caught hiding taxpayers funds that he used to protect his mistress while still married? This should leave them dumbfounded.

The same can be repeated about any candidate. The ones they do like you can ask why. “Because he is going to be tough on immigration.” “Really what is his plan?” “I don’t know but he said he would be tough.” Ask them about why they don’t like the other candidates you will get answers that have nothing to do with policy or holding office. “This guy got a $500 haircut.” “This guy’s last name rhymes with Osama and middle name is the same as that evil dictator.” “this guy is a Mormon,” “that guy is an “evangelical” or “that guy movie actor”. Never will you get, “well he says he can fix the healthcare system by doing “x”, but clearly “x” will only make things worse because he failed to consider “y” and “z”. They might know that a candidate wants to get rid of welfare. But they don’t know first how he plans to do it, and second how we plans on getting congress to accept his proposals.

So it all comes down to money. The more you have, the more you can spend putting your name and image in front of people telling them hose good they will have it if they elect you. The really successful ones have enough money to spend highlighting either unrelated or out of context negative light.

If you want the countries ills to be fixed, you need to vote for the weird guys. The ones who have the outlandish strange ideas about how to fix things will be your best bet. “He wants to do what with the IRS?” You need a guy who will bring charts and photo slides to the debate because his ideas are deep and hard to grasp. You can not be president. This is because you don’t sit around working out financial theories, reading about war strategies, and discussing the physics of nuclear fusion. The ones that are “like you” are not at all like you. This is because they have lots of money. The ones with a lot of money, well that money didn’t come for free. People are expecting to get returns on their investments.

It is no longer enough to just vote. You now need to research. At least the guy you are voting for. Know if you agree with his approach not just his position. If you don’t research, then you no longer have bitching rights. If you are uneducated, please stay home and vote for your favorite dancing star. Let those of us who understand the different positions and have valid debatable positions on the best course of action elect a Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, or whoever has the best ideas.

Politicians know it's not necessary to fool all the people all of the time -
just during election campaigns.

No comments:

Counter text

New counter