I received a couple of pro-McCain, pro-Palin e-mails from an aunt of mine yesterday, which was a little weird. I've gotten forwards from her in the past, but always in a benign, non-political nature. In fact, I've not heard her ever talk much about politics, so I didn't even know that she identified as a Republican, although I assumed from some of her husband's comments about books and commentators that her husband identified with the party's rhetoric.
Normally, I would have just skimmed it to see if it was worth reading and clicked on delete, but this time I felt the need to respond for some reason. The one message was supposedly written by a woman in Alaska whose son attended high school with Palin's son. The whole message seemed to reinforce the party message that Palin is a regular person with a regular middle class/working class life.
You know what? This is all fine and dandy. Good for her. She's lived a respectable life. I'll even buy that she's really dedicated to her brood. She was known to have kept a crib in the governor's office and governing Alaska isn't quite as busy of a job as governing other states or even being mayor of a major city. The state legislature is in session for less than three months each year. Besides, I don't believe that mothers have any more of an obligation to put family before career than men do, although I do think any politician who uses their parenting as a major part of their campaign opens themselves up criticism for hypocrisy if they aren't actually spending much time with the family.
But the real issue is that none of that even matters. You should care that your political leaders have enough integrity, or at least enough political sense to know when to show integrity. Criminal people are going to be criminal politicians. People who show no loyalty could be risky choices for important positions, but being a good parent, normal person, or having a blue-collar background has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run a country. To think so is entirely ridiculous. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of blue collar types are criminals, lazy, drunks, and irresponsible too. Those qualities aren't just limited to the educated elite.
It's actually a little sad that the mass media era has made it possible to run a successful campaign based entirely on likability. It's why Bush managed two terms in office. If people would have been forced to get all of their information to make a decision from the newspapers, Bush would have looked like a severely inferior candidate. His quotes would be garbled and his arguments would have seemed poorly constructed while Gore and Kerry would have come across as the much more intelligent candidates and wouldn't have suffered from their intense lack of personalities shining through on the little screen. Gore really is a pompous blowhard, but I don't think it would have come out like that in this hypothetical campaign. He really didn't come out as his true self until after he lost the campaign and moved into film making.
But we really can't put the blame on the media. With television, radio, and the Internet, it's actually much easier to find even more information with which to make an informed decision. The only problem is that too many people don't realize how to make an informed decision. To pretend that I'm going to help (or really just vent in a formulaic manner), here are my rules for making voting decisions:
1. Don't vote on who you like better, vote on who you think would be a better leader. This means the "Who would you prefer to have a drink with?"standard is a totally idiotic guide for deciding. Sure, charisma is important for a politician. The guy has to work with and influence other powerful people to get things done regardless of the level in which he works. If they guy is a total jerk, he's probably going to make more enemies than allies, which is never a good thing. Also, remember that the guy isn't involved in making things happen at the local bar or church. The people he has to work with are typically very well educated, wealthy, and used to fine living. If you can't see the guy fitting in seamlessly at a formal dinner party in Paris, it doesn't matter if he'd be a great guest for your backyard cookout.
2. Forget their personal life. That is, as long as it doesn't have an effect on their work life. Has the guy managed to be an important part of the Senate (or city council) despite being a philanderer, drinker, or lousy father? If the answer is yes, don't worry about it, unless there's a candidate whose platform you find yourself agreeing with as much or more than the jerkoff. Does the guy have a knack for not showing up for votes or makes political blunders because of his off-work behavior? You may not want to vote for the guy. Actually, if the guy has real issues and isn't a Kennedy, you do have to be concerned if his personal vices can come back to haunt him politically. It would have really sucked for the Democrats had Edwards made it through the primaries and then handed McCain the atom bomb that was the discovery that the guy had been cheating on his wife while she was recovering from cancer. Just because you may be a thoughtful and pragmatic voter doesn't mean the rest of the idiots out there with voting cards are.
3. Don't make the mistake of buying into the waffler criticisms. Not changing your mind is a sign of stupidity, stubbornness (not persistence), or petulance. None of those are qualities you want in a leader. Plus politicians are forced by their careers to be willing to compromise. Changing his stance should not be considered a major flaw. Sometimes new information changes things. Something you have to be for a smaller issue you don't really like in order to make headway on a more important issue. Besides, they all do it so it's a stupid thing to hold against the guy you don't like. McCain has flopped on some of his stances to appear more conservative to appeal to the base. Obama has shifted more toward the center to have a broader appeal.
4. Don't be a one-issue voter. Unless you're voting for small town city council or rural county commissioner, there's no excuse for this unless the guy you're voting against is advocating nuclear war, genocide, or releasing all the prisoners in the country. Besides, one-issue voters are trapped by the party that captured them. Republicans know they're not losing that evangelical Christian base because of abortion and gay rights issues. It doesn't matter that many of those people would find that a much higher percentage of their values better match up with the Democrats than with the Republicans because those two issues keep them locked to the party. (Obviously they all wouldn't be Democrats, but there are an awful lot of essential Christian values that align nicely with Democratic tendencies.) What's worse is that Republicans rarely do anything about those issues. Republican presidents from Reagan on have tended to select Supreme Court justices who end up supporting Roe v. Wade from the bench. If Republicans lose that voting issue, they could lose an awful lot of currently dedicated supporters. On the flip side, Democrats know they have one-issue voters who are pro choice or anti-war. In case you haven't noticed, Democrats don't tend to end armed conflicts any more quickly than Republicans. Remember Vietnam?
5. Don't buy the hype. Republicans always talk good game about shrinking government or making it more efficient. It doesn't happen that way. Bush created new executive organizations, grabbed power for the executive branch, increased government spending astronomically and managed to obliterate all of the work Clinton did in eliminating the federal deficit. It's odd how the big government Democrat Clinton managed to balance the budget without really getting taxes increased while no Republican from Reagan through George W. has done anything to decrease the size of government. Similarly, Democrats rarely do anything real to help the poor or working class, at least not since FDR.
In the end, it's all about using a little common sense, paying attention, and not believing every forwarded e-mail that crosses your inbox.
We're so screwed.
8 comments:
I got an email a few months back that said Obama was the Antichrist. I thought that it was pitiful that I actually knew someone (although very very distantly) who would have the guts to send a mass email out that insane.
You're blaming/crediting the wrong set of crooks, a/k/a politicians, for our budget situations: presidents don't deserve much credit either way for balancing/unbalancing the budget; presidents may propose budgets, but Congress controls the purse strings in the end. The only option a president has is to "shut down the government" (hah!) and refuse to sign the appropriations bills Congress sends across the street. The only president I can recall doing that is Clinton, but he did it to increase spending, not balance the budget.
Yeah, it would be nice if everyone voted based on who has the best energy policy or foreign policy or plan for the economy, but the sad truth is that most people are not that complicated and will vote for whomever's haircut they like better. Or something equally ridiculous.
Actually, it's more like they'll vote for the party regardless of the actual person running. But that's why I'm a registered independent.
Nice post, man. And good arguments, all. I'm afraid your last one was the most prescient, though: We're screwed.
I'm also thinking of Justins's repeated assertions that he WANTS the candidate who is an elitist and smarter than the rest of us. If I wanted the guy I could have a beer with, I could just do the job myself, which of course I am in no way equipped for, as are NONE of the people I've ever had a beer with.
Sweet! This is beautiful, sir.
Can I add a 6th bullet?
How 'bout "Know What Each Branch Actually Does?"
I get tired of people voting for presidents, senators, etc. based on the promises that candidate makes when, in fact, the position that person is vying for has little real control over that area.
Take, for instance, taxes. The Constitution is pretty clear that the "power to lay and collect taxes" falls under Congress's umbrella, not the Executive branch's. Yet voters love to talk about how "Obama wants to raise mah taxes!" and "McCain would lower taxes for the rich!"
Granted, as head of their respective parties they do have a lot of influence over their parties policies, but they don't have the power to do everything they claim. If they did, Hillary's health care plan would have become law about 15 years ago when Bill was in the Oval Office.
Very good points. Unfortunately, I identify most with your arguments that neither party ever really does what it's known for promising (opposing abortion, ending armed conflicts, shrinking government, etc.)
This leaves me thinking: What's the point? Do I really have any idea what would happen under either of these administrations? No. Not really.
So I'll try to be as educated as I reasonably can and cast my vote. But either way, Georgia will almost certainly turn red on election night, and the voters in some other state will get to make the real decision.
And yes, we'll be screwed, no matter who wins. But not nearly as screwed as most of the Asian, African, Middle Eastern, Latin American and Eastern European populations of the world.
So, as it has been said, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
There's a better chance of Georgia going blue this year than any in a while. There's a good chance that half of Obama's ethnic background could be a good incentive to mobilizing black voters. Georgia and the other Southern states have a lot of black voters, but they don't tend to vote in very high numbers. He's not going to convert many black Republicans because of his race (which would be a really dumb reason to vote unless you also thought he was better than or equal to McCain), but that's a rare breed. Probably not as rare as the Log Cabin Republicans, but more rare than the southern Democrat.
I really think that with the percentage that's guaranteed to vote Democrat and the moderate independents who could easily go Obama's way, especially after they see McCain and Obama go head-to-head in a couple debates, that with a little grassroots/bigtime get-out-the-vote in the black community this could lead to defeated lefties like me actually feeling like my vote matters.
It's no guarantee of course, but I knew I was wasting my time in 2004. This time I don't think I am.
Ha! You failed to eliminate me as a potential presidential candidate because we've never had a beer together. Thanks for your support. I am on the lookout for a new job and I probably would not have sought such great heights without your push.
Post a Comment