On American Presidential Candidates
Being as how the greater English-speaking part of the internet is still heavily US-influenced, it may not have escaped some of you that there are American elections coming up later this year.
Like many other non-Americans, I have whiled away idle moments of amusement by mapping my own political stances against those of the candidates and general American political spectrum, bickering about which one could take the others in a jello-wrestling match, and boggled at the amount of slash pairings certain demographics have envisioned.
And I'd have to say, regardless of where I fall on the political spectrum, there's one thing that would influence my hypothetical American vote to a surprising degree.
The age of the candidate.
Yes, I know, ageism and all that. Perhaps I should have said "The age-equivalent mental mindset of the candidate." The US President doesn't wield a lot of direct power, but they're in prime position to request, suggest and protest items along their path to becoming law.
And in that position, I want someone young. Idealistic. Compassionate. Their first reaction should not be "How much will it cost?", "Can we cut corners but still get re-elected?", "Will this improve my image?" or "How much will my friends and family personally profit?". It should be "How much will this minimise suffering?", followed by "How much will this improve everyone's lives?"
I want someone who sees American power and policy as tools to be used for the gentler greater good, not a chance to impose the restrictions of personal beliefs, commit mass murder, or act as an open coffer to be plundered. Younger candidates tend to be less corrupt, purely because they've had less time to be exposed to corruption and to learn to dismiss, condone, support and practise it.
Notice how I haven't mentioned any particular candidate name. That's because this goes beyond the one election. I want to see this at every election. If there was a way to implement the views of a college campus with the skill, precision, long-term vision and execution of experienced diplomats and political kingmakers, I'd be all over it.
I sincerely hope that my own views won't skew too much from this as I age, as is the stereotype. I'd like to think that when I'm a cranky, crafty old silver-haired coot, I'll still be of the opinion that national policy directions should be set by college kids, the heavy paperwork and buffering hammered out by thirty- and forty-somethings, the fine detail picked over and locked down by fifty- and sixty-somethings, and holes attempted to be punched in it by those seventy- and eighty-somethings who still give a damn. (And let's face it - if you're ninety or over, you probably have better things to be doing with your time.)
And yes, this does mean that I'm already too old to be trusted with making policy. Which is how it should be - I'm already far too facile at rationalising unpleasantries.
Of course, I'm not American, so my views aren't likely to have much effect at the end of this year. Still, there's always the chance that someone might read this and think it interesting.
Like many other non-Americans, I have whiled away idle moments of amusement by mapping my own political stances against those of the candidates and general American political spectrum, bickering about which one could take the others in a jello-wrestling match, and boggled at the amount of slash pairings certain demographics have envisioned.
And I'd have to say, regardless of where I fall on the political spectrum, there's one thing that would influence my hypothetical American vote to a surprising degree.
The age of the candidate.
Yes, I know, ageism and all that. Perhaps I should have said "The age-equivalent mental mindset of the candidate." The US President doesn't wield a lot of direct power, but they're in prime position to request, suggest and protest items along their path to becoming law.
And in that position, I want someone young. Idealistic. Compassionate. Their first reaction should not be "How much will it cost?", "Can we cut corners but still get re-elected?", "Will this improve my image?" or "How much will my friends and family personally profit?". It should be "How much will this minimise suffering?", followed by "How much will this improve everyone's lives?"
I want someone who sees American power and policy as tools to be used for the gentler greater good, not a chance to impose the restrictions of personal beliefs, commit mass murder, or act as an open coffer to be plundered. Younger candidates tend to be less corrupt, purely because they've had less time to be exposed to corruption and to learn to dismiss, condone, support and practise it.
Notice how I haven't mentioned any particular candidate name. That's because this goes beyond the one election. I want to see this at every election. If there was a way to implement the views of a college campus with the skill, precision, long-term vision and execution of experienced diplomats and political kingmakers, I'd be all over it.
I sincerely hope that my own views won't skew too much from this as I age, as is the stereotype. I'd like to think that when I'm a cranky, crafty old silver-haired coot, I'll still be of the opinion that national policy directions should be set by college kids, the heavy paperwork and buffering hammered out by thirty- and forty-somethings, the fine detail picked over and locked down by fifty- and sixty-somethings, and holes attempted to be punched in it by those seventy- and eighty-somethings who still give a damn. (And let's face it - if you're ninety or over, you probably have better things to be doing with your time.)
And yes, this does mean that I'm already too old to be trusted with making policy. Which is how it should be - I'm already far too facile at rationalising unpleasantries.
Of course, I'm not American, so my views aren't likely to have much effect at the end of this year. Still, there's always the chance that someone might read this and think it interesting.