Looking at how President Obama's presidency has fared thus far, it is interesting to see how the two main sides look at Obama. Most Democrats and general Obama supporters feel that he is not making enough progress quick enough. The Republicans and other conservatives are looking for anything and everything they can point out as a failure of Obama's administration for their campaigns. What I find intriguing is that people voted for Obama because they wanted "change" and now they aren't seeing the results of that claim. I feel the claim Obama made that he wants to being change to America, end the war in Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan, fix the economy and the healthcare system will make or break his presidency, as do many other people. He has created such a high standard for himself that if he fails to complete all of his goals, it would be a failure. We have not had a president in the position that Obama has found himself in in recent history. Is this because of the situation our country finds itself in at the moment, or is it because of campaigning? If Obama had not campaigned on complete change of what had been going on, but rather smaller aspects of it, would he be seeing the resentment many Americans are feeling towards him and the Democrats? It would be possible, but unfortunately we will never know. The rhetoric used in campaigning is what has affected recent elections, most notably the most recent election. "Change" is the driving force in most of the elections. Usually, incumbents have the upper-hand in reelection campaigns due to the personal branding and the much larger campaign war chest than their opponent. But, this past election, we saw three incumbents who spent a lot more (or had more available to spend) than their opponent either lose, win by a small margin, or have a vote that is still undecided. Looking in New York City, incumbent mayor Mike Bloomberg had spent 10x more than his opponent, Bill Thompson, did. The rhetoric of bringing change to City Hall brought the vote to a 4-5% margin rather than the 10-12% margin that was polled before the election. In the New Jersey governor's race, John Corzine lost to a candidate that was seemingly not much more superior than he was, but because of the "change" Chris Christie wanted to bring to Trenton, Corzine lost the election. In suburban Nassau County, NY, where the election for county executive is still undecided, incumbent Tom Suozzi had been considered a very popular executive, but with Ed Mangano calling for a "tax revolt" and more change to the county, Suozzi was only ahead by 237 votes at the end of election day, with the recount and absentee ballot counting to conclude fairly soon. Is rhetoric, rather than policies and history winning elections for some and losing some for others? If so, then politics will not be fun since people who get tickled by a word will automatically vote for the person who mentioned that word. It would make the general population one big search engine. Type in "change", "lower taxes", and "liberty" and you will start to see votes pile in, but never will the population ask what you mean by change or liberty. They assume it's the change and liberty that they are thinking of an voila! you have a new public official running things.
But, how does this get changed? What must the general population do to change this. Well, there are two main options: 1. Use your cable box and 2. Meet the candidates. Let's start with option one. Your cable box has a variety of news networks for a reason: they all offer different opinions. I can guarantee that if you go to FOX and watch some of their coverage on news events and then go to MSNBC it will be very different. So, my challenge to everyone, if option one is the path you choose to take, is to watch at least an hour of each major network a week. Watch FOX News; MSNBC; CNN; if you get Bloomberg watch that, too; and also watch your local news stations (and all of them, not just WHDH and not just WBZ or WCVB, every single one of them). Local stations also have their biases (seen more in New York City, but it is applicable to nearly every station) so it is important to watch all of your local stations as well. Who knows, you may find you like how another station covers their stories compared to your usual station. Option one is a good option for those who either can't get out or don't want to get out and meet the candidates for office and is an excellent way to connect with the rest of society and create a knowledge base for understanding every angle on an issue.
Option two involves a good bit of mobility. Go and try to meet the candidates that are running for office. Get to know them and ASK THEM QUESTIONS!! There is no better way to get involved with your government than to be involved yourself. Whether they are running for city council or U.S. President, go and meet that person because it will help you determine and reconsider where you stand on major issues. It will also allow you to better understand what John Corzine is trying to insinuate when he has a multitude of photos of a portly Christie in his ads. Entertaining? Yes. Educational? Yes. SO GO ASK!!
Don't get brainwashed by propaganda from candidates for public office and interest groups (*cough*, can't let my buddies slide through a post without a mention) who have THEIR best interests in mind, not YOURS. Don't let a Free State website or TV show or radio show or pamphlet or whatever other form of ambiguous media they try to use give you vague words like "liberty" and "freedom" as acceptable forms of policy establishment. It's very Sarah Palin-esque and we all know what happened to her.
Until next time,
Dennis J. Foley
EiC
0 comments:
Post a Comment