2008 Politics

The landscape of American politics began to insert itself into my life in and around the time of the 2004 Presidential campaign that pitted, like a 1940’s boxing match, an evil-doing incumbent and a challenger that seemingly represented all that was good for change in the country we live in. People from all walks of life were opposed to the incumbent, calling him out on his supposed “war-crimes” and “stealing” the election of 2000 through a Supreme Court ruled by his party’s elects and father’s friends. None of this made sense to me as I saw the United States as having justified reason for helping democratize the Middle East, and viewed the people of Florida – or, more justly, the supporters of Al Gore - to stupid to figure out how to punch a hole in a ballot. Their mistake was foolish, and after the recount, I felt that Gore didn’t deserve to win. Or, more appropriately, the Democrats didn’t deserve the nod. Stupidity shouldn’t be given a second chance. After all, without Gore in office, much of the well-needed consciousness of our environmental battle would be silenced. I cannot offer what George W. Bush’s plan would have been if he had been on the opposite end of the verdict.

Politics is a well-mudded hole. Each side has their staunch beliefs, and every decision made by one side affects someone adversely, so there are never any winners, just pointing fingers and blame cast on the public officials by protesters and bloggers and future candidates. Everyone believes someone can do better; The grass is always greener, as they say. We can move forward in this by accepting that one candidate will never speak to the majority. We might as well stop sulking now, or we’ll never be happy.

The problem is the complete and overt absence of plain-speak. One candidate must speak to the audience he or she is intending for which to provide the greatest benefits. No candidate in either party can speak for the majority and that has become a problem in America. We are relying on one party to solve all of our ills when that clearly in an impossible task. One side champions the middle-class, to an extent; the other champions a similar cause with

different results. Which option is better no one really knows.

Right now, we’re on the brink of having a change we haven’t seen since 1952. We are looking to elect someone who isn’t an incumbent or a Vice-President taking the logical step up. One of two senators will lose, and I can imagine the post-election cocktail party in Washington D.C. when one of them returns to their position with their opposition now becoming their boss.

What are we changing? There are many unanswered questions in this election. What’s the definition of change (there are 38 different definitions of the word)? For those who are suffering some mental, psychological, or physical challenge with our current administration, change sounds like a great idea. For those unaffected and content within their station in life, what does change mean? Do they lose it all?

Frankly, I don’t like either candidate (I believe the two best candidates – one from each side – were passed over). Neither one of them speaks for my ideals as an American nor do I think either will have any effect on how I go about my daily life. I pray both of them have the sense to improve our nation in terms of our economy and to keep us safe from the people willing to harm our country. Our foreign policy is headed on an optimistic course after initial steps (or should I say sprints) in the wrong direction, and we should continue to find ways to properly fund education in America. Of course, there are many areas to improve. However, much of the things promised to “change” are inconsequential in my life.

The country is bitterly divided and both sides are questioning the other’s intelligence. There’s no middle ground that unites people into working together. You’re either with us, or against us, seems to be the rallying cry of both sides. Like a 7^th grade popularity contest – or as some call it, a student council election – defamation is the key component to any campaign. Does this person pick their nose? Do they post provocative pictures of themselves on their MySpace page? Do they talk behind their friends’ backs? “Stupid,” “old,” and “inexperienced” seem to be this year’s buzzwords. These accusations – or accusations akin to these - can be seen nightly during the Presidential elections of the first part of the 21^st century in forms of debates and ads that are “approved” by the candidate. It’s all very childish and pedantic.

Our current President has had his missteps, as anyone including the staunchest of supporters can attest, but he’s been held to a remarkably high double-standard. When he misspeaks, he’s a moron; when he’s articulate, it’s his speech writers. When the war was being managed poorly, he’s a war criminal; when the surge proved to be the right move, it was a great decision by General Patreas. These double-standards are not going to be changed when someone new steps into office. If the new president doesn’t quote poetry aloud in speeches, he’ll be averted to the arts; if he attends a baseball game, he’ll be criticized his first pitch wasn’t a strike.

Here’s my point: The moment the new president is elected, the other side will be angry for another four years. It’s a cycle that will never end unless a real change is to happen. It makes me wonder why I even started to care in the first place.