I can never remember a year in my life when I actually knew people who voted during the caucus. I remember hearing of Super Tuesday, but I swear that was during the actual election. This year's presidential race apparently turned out more caucus voters than ever before. People cared about who represented each party. Romney vs McCain. Obama vs Hillary. Throw in a couple of Huckabees, Guilianis, Thompsons, etc and the race was all over the place. So the question is, why do we vote for who we vote for? The common answer is "well the issues." But what does that mean? Is it practical or even smart?
There was this web phenomenon this year of web sites that have these Q & A's that you answer the questions and indicated how strongly you feel about each question and then it tells you who you should vote for. Now while these sites can be fun and they are informative on where each candidate stands on the issues, should you really vote for that person? Isn't this type of selection really just one big compromise? All these sites do is match you with the candidate using a most common denominator type method. Is this how we should select our candidate for president?
Is the candidate's collective stance on the "issues" the most important variable in selecting the President of the United States?
Its not like the "issues" ever change. There is always a "leading" issue in every Presidential election. This year its universal health care. In the past its been the economy. Or war policies. Or abortion. Or gay rights. Or the environment. Or flag burning. Or the war on drugs. Or gang violence. The list goes one.
My point is that these issues will always arise and due to our checks and balances system, the Senate and the House will always have a say in these issues. There will always be compromise. Unless there is an issue that is more important than any other issue, maybe the issues are not the most important factor in choosing a president. When it comes to choosing the leader of the free world, we need a strong leader. A figure head. A non-political intelligent honest person who has not been whored out to the lobbyists. A president that we can look to and say "now THAT person is presidential!" Of the 4 leading party leaders this year, the order of "Presidentialness" is Romney, Obama, McCain, and then Hillary. Romney is the most genuine, honest, business-like leader. Obama also has those qualities and does not come across as "political". McCain and Hillary seem too political to me. They are too well connected to Washington.
This country needs a strong, hard working leader who can be turned to in a time of crisis. (Romney) One who can make good decisions without consulting the polls. (Obama) Not one who might die of a heart attack in the first year of office. (McCain) And definitely not one who is over politically connected and over lobbied. (Hillary)
Do the issues have a place in our decision making? Of course they do. But are they the biggest factor in deciding the President? Well... maybe they're not.
- Demosthenes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It ain't Locke vs Demosthenes if Locke is the only one who does the entries. I think they were a bit more active on their entries as well.
On the subject, I don't think it matters to me much who is running the country. I'm convinced the government is too big a lethargic for any one president to spark change. I would argue that our local city counsel has more of a direct affect on our lives. Yet, it seems people go to the polls to vote for a distant president who visits the state once a term. Then they rush through the random judges and counsel members that take up the rest of the ballot.
My city counsel last met on Wednesday. I didn't go, I have no idea what they discussed and voted on, but I would argue that their decisions have a more immediate affect on me than anything that happens in Washington. My new resolve to attend these public meetings is my last hope that my opinion and vote really matters.
Post a Comment