I just don't. I once thought politics was great fun to watch and fun to be involved in, but that was before my advanced age caught up with me and I realized life is too short to stir animosity over political policies that will A.) likely not be enacted as promised, and B.) will not significantly vary from one candidate or party to the other in the long run. Taunting and rivalries are fun in sports because that's an insignificant pass-time, but when it is your country and issues that affect the real lives of ordinary persons, there is no place for that sort of divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Because it's not a game; it's serious work.
That said, I have grown to despise the practice of parties nominating the guy (or gal) they think can beat the other side rather than nominating their best candidate. I lament to this day the fact the Democrats failed to nominate Lieberman the last time. We ought to hope they nominate their best, because if that person gets elected, whether we voted for them or not, we have to live with them for four years or more. And we will have to live with their policies even longer. (And those aren't actually even their policies, but are instead what policies get implemented based on compromise between them and Congress.) And the best candidate is not the person whose ideas are 180 degrees from the incumbent's ideas necessarily. Frankly, I don't care what their ideas are relative to the incumbent. I care about what they are relative to me. And I care about what they are relative to the idea of being a president for everyone and being able to work with a diverse group of representatives in Congress and governors in states.
I don't get a say in who runs for the Green Party or Libertarian Party, and the Republican I like best (McCain) will not need my help in Alabama. So, these things being how I feel, I will vote for Barack Obama next Tuesday. It's not just because I think Hillary Clinton is a living, breathing example of divisive rhetoric and politics as sport (just like George W. Bush is on the other side), but because I think he is simply better. I like his ideas better and I like his way of presenting his ideas better also. I like that he gets criticized for saying Reagan had a good way of communicating and rallying support from diverse groups. That attack is a classic example of what is wrong: You MUST ALWAYS demonize and vilify the other party, no matter what. I like that he calls bullshit on that approach, because if you want to hand out criticism as merited and have your criticism be heard and treated with respect, you must also be willing to hand out praise as merited. You don't have to hate the other side. You DO have to work with them.
Anyway, here is his rebuttal to the State of the Union Address last night. Never embedded a video before, so here is my virgin effort:
That said, I have grown to despise the practice of parties nominating the guy (or gal) they think can beat the other side rather than nominating their best candidate. I lament to this day the fact the Democrats failed to nominate Lieberman the last time. We ought to hope they nominate their best, because if that person gets elected, whether we voted for them or not, we have to live with them for four years or more. And we will have to live with their policies even longer. (And those aren't actually even their policies, but are instead what policies get implemented based on compromise between them and Congress.) And the best candidate is not the person whose ideas are 180 degrees from the incumbent's ideas necessarily. Frankly, I don't care what their ideas are relative to the incumbent. I care about what they are relative to me. And I care about what they are relative to the idea of being a president for everyone and being able to work with a diverse group of representatives in Congress and governors in states.
I don't get a say in who runs for the Green Party or Libertarian Party, and the Republican I like best (McCain) will not need my help in Alabama. So, these things being how I feel, I will vote for Barack Obama next Tuesday. It's not just because I think Hillary Clinton is a living, breathing example of divisive rhetoric and politics as sport (just like George W. Bush is on the other side), but because I think he is simply better. I like his ideas better and I like his way of presenting his ideas better also. I like that he gets criticized for saying Reagan had a good way of communicating and rallying support from diverse groups. That attack is a classic example of what is wrong: You MUST ALWAYS demonize and vilify the other party, no matter what. I like that he calls bullshit on that approach, because if you want to hand out criticism as merited and have your criticism be heard and treated with respect, you must also be willing to hand out praise as merited. You don't have to hate the other side. You DO have to work with them.
Anyway, here is his rebuttal to the State of the Union Address last night. Never embedded a video before, so here is my virgin effort:
No comments:
Post a Comment