A plea for rational political discourse
This isn't about who you vote for or an attempt to sway your vote. This is a discussion everyone needs to take part in in American politics, lest it stay broken forever. Because the fact of the matter is, it is broken. It's become a populist popularity contest, at only slightly above the maturity level of high schoolers, except instead of how much Cokes in the Coke machine cost we're dealing with thermonuclear weapons and global economy markets.
It's worthwhile to look at the history of things to see how full of crap our political system is. Back in '92, we had Republicans telling us Clinton was a socialist and a terrible person, and that nothing could be worse for America than 4 years of Clinton, much less 8. Your feelings about ol' Bill aside, 8 years later we were neither much worse nor much better off. In 2000 Democrats told us that Bush was a fascist, a functional mental patient, and a backwards-thinking ass who would drive our country into the ground. 8 years later, though worse off, it's not by much, and most of it wasn't his fault. It's also worth noting that neither Bill or George were as fantastic as the Democrats and Republicans, respectively, made them out to be. The past 8 years were not as good as the Reagan years like we thought, and before that we had no revolution of the human spirit either. Mostly it's been stupid wars and stupid decisions, interspersed with bubble pops in the markets.
So this election we have McCain informing you that Obama is a socialist pinko-commie and Obama selling you on the idea that McCain is a senile, backwards-thinking political tool, and that a Palin White House is a nightmare from which we will not escape. The discourse on the public level, between you and me and Sally and Jim and Frank, has become the same name-calling slugfest that it has been the past 20 years of politics. When are we going to stop falling for it? What is the real problem?
Let's look at the job of Campaigning Politician. Our little homunculus, we'll call him Frankie, is running for the highest office in the country. He will have to participate in hundreds of press visits, and do hours upon hours of campaign research to give him an upper edge, each hour of campaign research paid for by his constituency in donations, or by his own money. This supply is limited, both in terms of dollars, and in hours. Now, assuming he can get away with either strategy, which is easier and costs less: 1. Researching in-depth policies, which may be incredibly complicated and subtle (we're talking about the Executive Branch of the USA for God's sakes), and then explaining all of these things to the public in a way to convince them that these policies will be good for them, or, 2. Convincing the public that the other opponent has done Scandalous Thing A, associated with Terrible Person B, and regardless of what his opponent says, will do Obscene Policy C with their tax money; getting the public riled up with outrage over a few quick sound bites and repeating stupid lie after stupid lie? #2, of course, the one and only answer tell them what they won Jonny!
We are human beings, and regrettably we respond most naturally to our emotions before we respond rationally. This sad fact is even more evident when we're in groups. It's not that we're stupid. We're all capable, responsible people. It's just far easier to be outraged and decry something verbally than to actually sit, research, and then critique a policy. We enjoy mocking Frankie's opponent far more with our friends and family than having difficult, important discussions about Frankie and his opponent's policies. Frankie would be an idiot to waste his time actually explaining what he plans to do with his presidency, especially since Frankie honestly has no scruples (he's a politician) and really just wants to be president, because come on, who doesn't? So Frankie, whoever he is, will encourage you as Jane Public and Joe Six-Pack to talk about the past associations of his opponent, or how old or young he is, or five words out of the millions he's said as a politician, as opposed to rationally sitting down and thinking about policy. It makes Frankie's job easier and cheaper.
But we don't want to make Frankie's job easier. We want to make it harder. We want each candidate to put every ounce of strength into proving who's a better leader, because that's how we elect good leaders in America. Instead, we reward politicians by who lies better, faster, and harder, from Clinton to Bush to congressional elections. We let them get away with lying, when WE, the electorate, should be calling them out, not their opponents. We want to be able to weigh each candidate on the muscle of their policy and their actions, because we can hold them accountable to it over the next four years. Their policy affects us directly, their morals only sometimes. Their past associations even more rarely. The stupid verbal mistakes that anyone makes, most rarely of all. George W. is not stupid because he says 'nucular' and it's retarded to think that, even dumber to talk about it.
While we're at it, we're also encouraging mediocrity in our politicians. Concerning the whole 'elitist' and 'out-of-touch' arguments going around on either side of the fence, let's be honest: If you are a politician, you no longer know what it's like to be a normal American. I don't care what you claim, you have to be rich to run for office, and you have to be a dirty scumbag to stay in that office. Your concerns are wildly different than the concerns that face everyday Americans. And further, now that we've seen that they're all going to be out of touch, why suddenly is going to an Ivy League school and being a successful and rich businessperson a liability for the presidency? I, for one, do not want someone like me. I drink crappy beer, made B averages in college, and work a mediocre job that just gets me by. My contributions to society are average. I want someone better than that. I don't want someone who worries about the same things I do; I don't worry about important things (except for politics on occasion). So stop it. Do not encourage Joe Six-Packs into office, because Joe Six-Pack is mediocre. Do not drive someone like George W. out of office just because, and for no other reason than, he graduated from an ivy-league school and is the son of a former president and really hasn't had to worry about money his entire life. Stop encouraging mediocrity in our leaders.
Finally, a couple non-partisan policies that just make sense, that we all need to be fighting for: A continuous curve for taxes; no more tax brackets. An increase in salary should necessitate only a corresponding increase in taxes, not a huge, flat jump. Term limits for senators and congressmen and women. Why let old, bad ideas stay in office? Force the next generation to compete on a level playing field of ideas. Markets require competition, and incumbency eliminates it. Force our Representatives to fight harder and stronger to be deciders and lawmakers. Getting rid of administrators in school. The only people qualified to know how to teach are teachers. Why do we have a superintendant, a principal, an assistant principal, who all make more money than any of the teachers, telling the teachers how to teach? If we value teachers in our school we need to show them that by paying them more and firing the people who interfere with their job.
And the hard sell: Separation of church and state. What we forget is that this is to protect the church as much as it protects the state. When we think of Islam now, we have images of Jihad and holy war against America come to mind. 50 years ago this wasn't an issue. But then, a radical group of fundamentalists got control of the government and made political moves into moral law. The same thing happened during the Crusades. The government, by the conservatives' own admission, screws up everything they try to do. So why would anyone want them representing your religion? It's yours. It's personal. Don't let the government take it and ruin it for you.
It's worthwhile to look at the history of things to see how full of crap our political system is. Back in '92, we had Republicans telling us Clinton was a socialist and a terrible person, and that nothing could be worse for America than 4 years of Clinton, much less 8. Your feelings about ol' Bill aside, 8 years later we were neither much worse nor much better off. In 2000 Democrats told us that Bush was a fascist, a functional mental patient, and a backwards-thinking ass who would drive our country into the ground. 8 years later, though worse off, it's not by much, and most of it wasn't his fault. It's also worth noting that neither Bill or George were as fantastic as the Democrats and Republicans, respectively, made them out to be. The past 8 years were not as good as the Reagan years like we thought, and before that we had no revolution of the human spirit either. Mostly it's been stupid wars and stupid decisions, interspersed with bubble pops in the markets.
So this election we have McCain informing you that Obama is a socialist pinko-commie and Obama selling you on the idea that McCain is a senile, backwards-thinking political tool, and that a Palin White House is a nightmare from which we will not escape. The discourse on the public level, between you and me and Sally and Jim and Frank, has become the same name-calling slugfest that it has been the past 20 years of politics. When are we going to stop falling for it? What is the real problem?
Let's look at the job of Campaigning Politician. Our little homunculus, we'll call him Frankie, is running for the highest office in the country. He will have to participate in hundreds of press visits, and do hours upon hours of campaign research to give him an upper edge, each hour of campaign research paid for by his constituency in donations, or by his own money. This supply is limited, both in terms of dollars, and in hours. Now, assuming he can get away with either strategy, which is easier and costs less: 1. Researching in-depth policies, which may be incredibly complicated and subtle (we're talking about the Executive Branch of the USA for God's sakes), and then explaining all of these things to the public in a way to convince them that these policies will be good for them, or, 2. Convincing the public that the other opponent has done Scandalous Thing A, associated with Terrible Person B, and regardless of what his opponent says, will do Obscene Policy C with their tax money; getting the public riled up with outrage over a few quick sound bites and repeating stupid lie after stupid lie? #2, of course, the one and only answer tell them what they won Jonny!
We are human beings, and regrettably we respond most naturally to our emotions before we respond rationally. This sad fact is even more evident when we're in groups. It's not that we're stupid. We're all capable, responsible people. It's just far easier to be outraged and decry something verbally than to actually sit, research, and then critique a policy. We enjoy mocking Frankie's opponent far more with our friends and family than having difficult, important discussions about Frankie and his opponent's policies. Frankie would be an idiot to waste his time actually explaining what he plans to do with his presidency, especially since Frankie honestly has no scruples (he's a politician) and really just wants to be president, because come on, who doesn't? So Frankie, whoever he is, will encourage you as Jane Public and Joe Six-Pack to talk about the past associations of his opponent, or how old or young he is, or five words out of the millions he's said as a politician, as opposed to rationally sitting down and thinking about policy. It makes Frankie's job easier and cheaper.
But we don't want to make Frankie's job easier. We want to make it harder. We want each candidate to put every ounce of strength into proving who's a better leader, because that's how we elect good leaders in America. Instead, we reward politicians by who lies better, faster, and harder, from Clinton to Bush to congressional elections. We let them get away with lying, when WE, the electorate, should be calling them out, not their opponents. We want to be able to weigh each candidate on the muscle of their policy and their actions, because we can hold them accountable to it over the next four years. Their policy affects us directly, their morals only sometimes. Their past associations even more rarely. The stupid verbal mistakes that anyone makes, most rarely of all. George W. is not stupid because he says 'nucular' and it's retarded to think that, even dumber to talk about it.
While we're at it, we're also encouraging mediocrity in our politicians. Concerning the whole 'elitist' and 'out-of-touch' arguments going around on either side of the fence, let's be honest: If you are a politician, you no longer know what it's like to be a normal American. I don't care what you claim, you have to be rich to run for office, and you have to be a dirty scumbag to stay in that office. Your concerns are wildly different than the concerns that face everyday Americans. And further, now that we've seen that they're all going to be out of touch, why suddenly is going to an Ivy League school and being a successful and rich businessperson a liability for the presidency? I, for one, do not want someone like me. I drink crappy beer, made B averages in college, and work a mediocre job that just gets me by. My contributions to society are average. I want someone better than that. I don't want someone who worries about the same things I do; I don't worry about important things (except for politics on occasion). So stop it. Do not encourage Joe Six-Packs into office, because Joe Six-Pack is mediocre. Do not drive someone like George W. out of office just because, and for no other reason than, he graduated from an ivy-league school and is the son of a former president and really hasn't had to worry about money his entire life. Stop encouraging mediocrity in our leaders.
Finally, a couple non-partisan policies that just make sense, that we all need to be fighting for: A continuous curve for taxes; no more tax brackets. An increase in salary should necessitate only a corresponding increase in taxes, not a huge, flat jump. Term limits for senators and congressmen and women. Why let old, bad ideas stay in office? Force the next generation to compete on a level playing field of ideas. Markets require competition, and incumbency eliminates it. Force our Representatives to fight harder and stronger to be deciders and lawmakers. Getting rid of administrators in school. The only people qualified to know how to teach are teachers. Why do we have a superintendant, a principal, an assistant principal, who all make more money than any of the teachers, telling the teachers how to teach? If we value teachers in our school we need to show them that by paying them more and firing the people who interfere with their job.
And the hard sell: Separation of church and state. What we forget is that this is to protect the church as much as it protects the state. When we think of Islam now, we have images of Jihad and holy war against America come to mind. 50 years ago this wasn't an issue. But then, a radical group of fundamentalists got control of the government and made political moves into moral law. The same thing happened during the Crusades. The government, by the conservatives' own admission, screws up everything they try to do. So why would anyone want them representing your religion? It's yours. It's personal. Don't let the government take it and ruin it for you.