Electing Naughty People in 2008
By Andy Alt / Political Dimensions
Aug 27, 2008 – We know Senator McCain lies, Senator Obama lies, and Senator Clinton lies. In 2008, McCain or Obama will be elected President. Roughly 60% – 75% of Americans will vote — roughly 200 million people will elect a naughty person to lead the United States. Being naughty and lying is something we discourage our kids (nephews and nieces in my case) from doing. Electing naughty people is something the American people accept; we feel there are no options. While democracy is better than the alternative (or becoming a colony ruled again by the British Empire), it makes me feel sad that we aren’t offered a better selection, or that third-party candidates are denied their right as an American citizen to fairly compete, and have virtually insurmountable obstacles thrown up in front of them. I’m not severely depressed or suicidal, but sad, and sometimes angry when I’m denied the opportunity to vote for who I think would be most capable, or that because of the obstacles, that person won’t even be running and I don’t even know his or her name.
It’s politics. That it’s just politics is little consolation. It’s also representative government. It’s literally a matter between life or death. It’s about freedom, and the ability to make informed choices to ensure a healthy democratic nation, under God (who also doesn’t care much for lying, but politicians seem to find it convenient to frequently invoke His name), with liberty, and justice for all.
We scream that we want politicians to be held accountable if they violate ethics or break the law. If we elect candidates knowing they are naughty, are we holding them accountable, or do we only expect impeachment hearings or Senate and House subcommittees to hold elected officials accountable?
“That it’s just politics is little consolation. It’s also representative government.”
You see that’s the problem as I see it (well, one of them anyway…).
So many voters assume that democracy makes politicians accountable, in that they have to do what their constituents want them to do, but in actual fact they are only representatives.
Once in power, they can do what they damn well like and say they have chosen to do this, as they feel it *represents* what the people want.
Personally, I have felt disenfranchised for as long as I have been old enough to vote, because no political party represents my political views, leave alone would actually carry them out.
This is an example of my poor writing style (I’m working on it!). I meant that although it’s politics, what’s behind it a government working for the people so it shouldn’t be turned negative with attacks, lies, etc.
One school of thought that says attacks, negativity, and the stress of a campaign is a good test for candidates. Ah… I didn’t phrase that well, but maybe someone else can elaborate. It’s not my job to do research anyway. This site is only a hobby…only a hobby…only a hobby…
That’s true to a point. (At this point in my reply I’m not going to make any assumptions about how much you know about American politics.) People are free to write their reps (US senators and representatives, US senators and representatives, governors, members of city government, county officials, etc.)or call or email. Some representatives (I’m using rep in it’s true definition here, we don’t usually refer to senators as representatives) are better about taking into account the current concerns of his or her constituency. We can only hope that fear of losing his or her job isn’t the only motivating factor when a rep goes to work and decides how to represent us or how to vote on a bill. My state rep, for instance, David Bly, has a survey on his site which can be downloaded, filled out, and mailed back to his office. Also in his letters to editor published in the local paper, he encourages to people to contact him with their concerns or comments. How much influence the input has depends on the politician of course, and that’s why I said your statement was true to a certain degree.
“How much influence the input has depends on the politician of course, and that’s why I said your statement was true to a certain degree.”
Agreed :)
I just think that too few people realise that this is really how ‘representation’ works. They assume that ‘their representative’ will now work completely for what they want, regardless of other political, economic and social considerations which always seem to get in the way of the stated objects of most political campaigns….
I don’t know anyone who trusts politicians to do what he or she wants. :)
I know what you mean though. :)
I think it’s more of a matter of people not believing their correspondence would get read, or that it would be taken into account. Also I think some people may feel intimidated by writing their representative.
There are many reasons, I’ll stop speculating and won’t list them all. :)