Earlier today I came across an interesting blog which really got me to thinking about November's election. I don't usually like to discuss politics - everyone has an opinion and sometimes these opinions are MUCH too volatile. However, the ideas presented in this blog were really quite intriguing and got me to thinking about the actual candidates and our (America's) expectations of the Oval Office. Sometimes I think we don't expect enough from our leaders and, in doing so, put up with too much crap. But, then, I wonder if expectations we hold of them are in fact realistic. Often we tend to view our nation's leaders, and potential leaders, as infallible, forgetting that they are indeed human beings. With that comes the obvious - like most of us, they are not perfect.
However, imperfection should not excuse basic moral fibre. I am struggling with reconciling what seems to be issues that can't be overlooked and simply chalked up to imperfection. In particular I'm referencing the media blast over the past several weeks regarding Reverend Wright's comments and Obama's response to the perceived racial divide, as well as Hillary's misrepresentation of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. While I don't view these instances in the same regard, I grapple with what the implications mean when considering our potential future president.
Did Hillary lie on purpose, or did she simply misspeak, meaning there was sniper fire in the nearby Bosnian hills? Should we associate Barack with his minister (the same one who preformed his marriage) or overlook that very important aspect of Obama's upbringing?
The problem is our political structure has become too polarized. We are moving into a world where things are no longer black and white. There is a lot of gray area - especially with the emergence of WEB 2.0. Yet, our voting system still only offers two primary run-offs (Democrat and Republican), forcing voters to initially vote as registered in order to have their voices heard in the primaries. So, what happens if I want to vote for the opposing party but, because of my registered political affiliation, the candidate I truly want to run for office is voted out before I even get the chance to have my say in the formalized November election?
Our country has evolved, technology has evolved, and our political system needs to follow suite. No, the candidates will never fully meet our high expectations. There will always be fault, which we need to remember is part of their human appeal.
Nevertheless, they still have an obligation to address and work at solving the real issues. (Have things like education, medical care, the fledgling economy, rising gas prices, non-rising minimum wage, increased cost-of-living and the national debt truly been addressed?) Again, I struggle with all of the candidates because, at this point in the game, they can say whatever they chose to in order to get elected. But, what happens post-election? How do we, as tax-paying citizens, KNOW that these important issues (unlike sniper-fire in Bosnia or Wright's remarks) will be addressed come January 2009? Maybe the candidates should have to sign a contractual obligation, addressed to the American people, promising to fulfill ALL of the promises made during pre-election speeches. If their salary was performance-based, and hinged on completing promised tasks, I guarantee they would re-think their speeches and perhaps put the American people at the forefront of their intentions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment