What this is About
There is a lot to comment on regarding what has happened just in the past week of the Presidential Rat Race. Most of which revolves around how we are slapped in the face again regarding the fact that everyone is giving into their emotions with their decisions.
And the whole experience argument borders on irrelevant. No matter what side of it you are on. It's a futile question to even bring up. Putting importance on experience means one of two things. First, we can test it through an examination of sorts. If you say we can't test such a thing as experience, then that most likely means you're providing a value on the ability for a leader to make decisions from “his gut.”
Nevertheless, why are we having these conversations? Our congress can pass anything it wants into law. Given a certain number of votes, a presidential veto also would prove to be irrelevant..
Overwhelmingly, I wonder if there is a yearning for an authoritarian father figure, and if we manifest that desire in our own politics. Each day, we can witness people who want a leader to tell them what to do, or they want to tell other people what to do. Fewer people seem to be holding only themselves accountable. Rather, either they blame their problems on someone else, or they need to tell others what their problems are.
I agree with IOZ that our problems revolve around our enmeshment within an economic and political system, which claim to be transparent, but are hardly even visible to the average citizen. However, Andrew Sullivan has also made claim to something that I think even IOZ might agree with (although I would not be surprised if he still disagreed).
Suppose for a moment that IOZ is right, and that there is no real difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. As well, there is no difference between Democrat or Republican. If - for whatever reason you have made up in your mind - you still find it necessary to vote only for a mainstream candidate, would not temperament make the difference in who you voted for? Would that not mean Barack Obama is the man to vote for, as Sullivan suggests?
Here's the rub though, what you want the president to have in terms of temperament is still entirely a judgmental choice on your part. There are people out there who actually want an old father figure, who has an ability for daring stunts of drama in the White House. You might argue that McCain is more hawkish than Obama, but that is also a futile argument considering that Obama displays just as much vehement support for our allies (e.g. Israel) as McCain.
In the end, I've found the more important questions revolve around how we got here. Where, at some point, did politics become less academic, and more advertising and marketing? It is at that point where you realize that your ability to make a difference relies on how much money you make, and how good you are at crafting a message. Substance, at this point, is irrelevant.
And the whole experience argument borders on irrelevant. No matter what side of it you are on. It's a futile question to even bring up. Putting importance on experience means one of two things. First, we can test it through an examination of sorts. If you say we can't test such a thing as experience, then that most likely means you're providing a value on the ability for a leader to make decisions from “his gut.”
Nevertheless, why are we having these conversations? Our congress can pass anything it wants into law. Given a certain number of votes, a presidential veto also would prove to be irrelevant..
Overwhelmingly, I wonder if there is a yearning for an authoritarian father figure, and if we manifest that desire in our own politics. Each day, we can witness people who want a leader to tell them what to do, or they want to tell other people what to do. Fewer people seem to be holding only themselves accountable. Rather, either they blame their problems on someone else, or they need to tell others what their problems are.
I agree with IOZ that our problems revolve around our enmeshment within an economic and political system, which claim to be transparent, but are hardly even visible to the average citizen. However, Andrew Sullivan has also made claim to something that I think even IOZ might agree with (although I would not be surprised if he still disagreed).
Suppose for a moment that IOZ is right, and that there is no real difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. As well, there is no difference between Democrat or Republican. If - for whatever reason you have made up in your mind - you still find it necessary to vote only for a mainstream candidate, would not temperament make the difference in who you voted for? Would that not mean Barack Obama is the man to vote for, as Sullivan suggests?
Here's the rub though, what you want the president to have in terms of temperament is still entirely a judgmental choice on your part. There are people out there who actually want an old father figure, who has an ability for daring stunts of drama in the White House. You might argue that McCain is more hawkish than Obama, but that is also a futile argument considering that Obama displays just as much vehement support for our allies (e.g. Israel) as McCain.
In the end, I've found the more important questions revolve around how we got here. Where, at some point, did politics become less academic, and more advertising and marketing? It is at that point where you realize that your ability to make a difference relies on how much money you make, and how good you are at crafting a message. Substance, at this point, is irrelevant.
Comments