Thinking about today's politics I can't honestly say there's one candidate (at least that I'm aware) that fits my ideals. And yes, I am a man of ideals--not in perfection, but in excellence.
Of those running, I mostly support Obama. Not because his name is fun to say, but because he's the only one actively speaking (I say speaking because it comes before doing, which is to be seen) for bipartisanship and united governance. Clinton is running on a name and appeals only to Democrats that have awaited tensely and greedily for a comeback election when the big D's will run the White House again. Foolishness. And Edwards seems to be fighting a personal battle of ambition. He's not alone in that camp, but it's a battle he's lost once before.
But in Obama...there is some worth. He's the Lincoln figure, uniting a divided house. Even his black-white heritage resembles his stance. Crossing bridges, mending barriers.... The real-life metaphor is too hard for me to resist.
On the Republican side there's no doubt that Romney is the most intelligent. But he lacks the heart and charisma to attract the unintelligent masses. Let's face it, most people vote likability over policy--a sad revelation. Giuliani is Mr. Shady. McCain is a delusional war vet. And Huckabee is a goober. Now, I'll take this minute to express my disappointment at the Christian conservatives who made a name for this former pastor and pop-politician. You really want Huckabee at the helm? Christian conservatives (I write in general terms) are the same people that W. Bush piggybacked to run our country for 8 years. This is a group that supplants good judgment with supposed inspiration. It's the blind leading the blind to choose the blind. The result will be a candidate deaf to the cries of the people.
What would my ideal be? I'm a democratic libertarian. It's not a party that's formally recognized (mostly because it exists in my head), but I believe in the same doctrines of government established by our Founders. I believe in a government that despises the entanglements of war except in cases of self-defense. I believe in a government that is only a guiding hand in the economy, not a manipulator, but one that keeps big business in check. I believe in a government that upholds the basic rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe in a government that allows people personal accountability. I don't personally believe in gay marriage or abortion but I also don't think the government should ban these practices. I don't believe in censorship, prayer in schools, and other forms of government regulation. I say let people live their lives to the extent that it does not infringe on my basic rights. I am a true believer in education. Money that has been spent on frivolous wars and regulations should be spent on our schools. Perhaps then we might raise a generation of inventors and entrepreneurs instead of rebels. Of course, I believe in fewer taxes. With less regulatory bodies and less wars to finance, the government could run on minimal monetary input. On the other hand (and this is where my stance differs from traditional libertarianism), I'm still an environmentalist. I see the destruction of the earth as an infringement of my right to happiness. Since our schools, and by association, our government has failed in the past to properly educate people about the deteriorating condition of our earth, the government is now on damage control. The key here, folks, is to catch this stuff in the beginning. That's what education is for. We teach the kids instead of medicating the problem later on. Smaller classrooms (I'm talking handfuls of kids instead of 20 or 30), more teachers, better teachers, better facilities, more options for learning (not just reading and math, but a range of technical skills, philosophy, ethics, world cultures, etc.). No amount of government will save this nation from debauchery, dishonesty, and degradation. Only the gospel can assuage the ills of our country. We teach and we preach, but we do not regulate. Speak loudly and carry no stick. Shout into every ear, but beyond that, let live.
My platform is tolerance and personal accountability. My motto: educate don't legislate. Who's with me?
2 comments:
well, i think oprah's going to vote for obama, so i guess as an educated voter, that's all i need to know right?
agreed, romney is by far the most qualified republican up there.
and agreed, education solves and prevents problems. though, i think that government should work like the church - a hand in your life to enhance it, but not rule it. but i have to say i deem government necessary.
Here is the bottom line for me. There are a few key things that I care about immensley 1) Life (even that of unborn babies) and 2) Freedom (to make money, keep my money, and do with my money as I please). I trust that Mitt will protect the things I care about most. (and every member of the church should care about at least the first thing on my list) I agree that Mitt might not be the Barney of this years election, lovable huggable and supported by Oprah, but he is the smartest and most trustworthy. I dont agree with his stance on the war or on immigration, but you cant win them all and those two problems have no solution anyway. Atleast I know that Mitt has morals and isnt going to make a fool of himself. Obama is definitely the best pick on the other side, But all the bridge building unity talk is a bit of a projection and a stretch. You said that his multracial background is a symbol of unity, well it could also be a symbol of muddy water. I like Obama sometimes but he makes me nervous. He needs to be tried an tested a little more to see what leaks out before we hand him him control.
Someone made this comment to me the other day and it made a lot of sense and made me laugh. They said that when it comes to elections the democrats always run there A teams (sad as that is) and the republicans always run there B teams. (because there A teams are actually doing things in the world, like running fortune 500 companies) This is the first time in a long time that the Republicans have run an A teamer and what happens, they blast him cause he's too rich or cause he is mormon. If Mitt doesnt appeal to the poor masses and Huckabee does, maybe that should tell you something about whether the poor masses should have a say at all.
Post a Comment