Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Me-first Politicians (sorry, I repeat myself)

You know what really tweaks me about politics? Politics. That's what tweaks me.

Before you declare me intellectually incompetent, let's review:

- Politicians "lobby" for your vote. Believe it or not, not only PAC's lobby; politicians do, too. It's called "campaigning". Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about the non-PAC groups, which "advocate". It's still lobbying.

- You vote. At least, I hope you do. You either pick the candidate you like, or pick the candidate you least dislike. The definition of "like" is subjective, usually a matter of personal values and taste.

- The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes is declared the winner.

- The winner is inaugurated.

- Then, the trump card. The winner governs - makes tough decisions, does what's right even though it's not popular. Protects the freedoms and liberties defined by the Constitution. Defends the country.

Gasp! Who let the air out of the room?

Okay, so I'm wrong on the last one. I should have written, "The winner continually puts himself in a position to effectively win the next election, governing be damned."

That is what I hate about politics.

Candidates are elected to govern, not to politic.

Politicians no longer do what's best for the nation, but what's best for their re-election campaign. Polls tell candidates how to increase their popularity with their base and with undeclared moderates. There is very little thought to doing what's best for the country at the time it's needed. Anything can be whittled down to a sound bite that can hurt you when you are up for re-election, so it's better to do nothing at all, or criticize the other party for their position.

Grumble.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Welcome to another election season in the US. I predict devastating losses for the R side of the coin.

But the point I want to make/repeat is this:
Voting for the candidate you "least dislike" is stupid. Voting for a candidate because he has "a chance to win" is stupid. Neither of these is what the founders had in mind. Neither of these puts good, representative government in place.

Vote for the best man. Do NOT vote so you can be on the winning team. Your ego can take it, trust me.

(The second person pronouns used herein are general and not specifically directed at Quipper, but to all. Thank you, Schreibenvonschreiber legal dept.)

Quipper said...

Yep.

My post was to serve two purposes:

1) To show that party is relatively meaningless, since both major parties only care about re-election anyway. And, therefore...

2) To show that there is no such thing as a truly viable candidate coming from either political party.

'Tis time for a change.

I could blog for days about "path of least resistance voting", er, voting on likes or dislikes. It was very difficult not to veer into that arena on this post.

Anonymous said...

Quipper,

It's an old, old story -- as old as politics itself.

How's that joke go? "They say politics is the second-oldest profession -- and it shares a lot in common with the first." Something like that.

I think part of the problem is the fooling around with redistricting. People get in office then rejigger districts to guarantee overwhelming majorities. District A becomes 80% Democrat and Disctrict B is 80% Republican. No need to campaign, no need to negotiate, to moderate, to listen to people's concerns.

Politics becomes nothing more than a raw power play, and it's disgusting.

Quipper said...

Pastor Jeff,

Agreed! It's all self-preservation.

Very disgusting.