The United States of America is known as the land of the free, the land of endless opportunities. At the head of this wonderful nation lies our government, a democratic republic with a charismatic and intelligent individual holding the reigns. This is our president. He is the one who toils for the people and fights to preserve the rights that Americans hold so dear. When I was an uninformed child, I believed that the elections were an efficient and effective way of choosing the right leader to propel our nation into prosperity. However, after closely observing this year's presidential elections, I have come to realize the saddening truth. The method of electing our nation's leader is a giant political mess.
At the center of this politically charged jumble stands the men competing for the most important job in the country. My initial discovery when analyzing the 2012 elections were the actions of the candidates themselves. After listening to countless talk shows and programs on what each candidate planned to do concerning important topics from health care to gun control, I couldn't find myself believing anything both Romney or Obama was saying. In my opinion, the candidates were only attempting to appeal to the variety of ethnic groups and income classes that inhabit this nation. In class, Mr. Williams even said that candidates tend to adopt extremely republican or democratic viewpoints in order to appeal to the extremists and later comfortably shift into viewpoints that appeal to the rest of the voting population. This includes recounting previously stated stances. I believe that it is time to address the elephant in the room (no pun intended). Is it okay to elect a man who will eventually lead our nation whose eyes are focused on the throne and not the future of the country? There is the argument that getting elected is the first priority, and from there the president is able to make changes to the country. However, I don't see how a president is allowed to rise to power by stating plans that he may not even believe in or will not even follow through with. I know that at the end of the day, this meaningless banter works and gets candidates elected, but is this truly the path our nation should be on?
An inconvenient truth lies within the claims that candidates make. In every election, the individual that is running against the former president always makes it a point to blast the efforts and progressions of the president's previous term. Because of the wedge between the ideals of the republicans and democrats, the opposing party always recants the progress of the former Commander in Chief. A four year term is a small blip in the huge scale of history. I believe that no significant changes can be made in the small course of a presidential term. To make things worse, if every new president has an opposing mindset, I do not see a significant course of action to mend our countries problems like the national debt and ridiculous health care costs. This wild ride of contradicting actions welds our nation to the floor, and it's going to take a very expensive power tool to lift our nation back into motion.
I always hoped that the elections and politics were a foolproof way of electing an individual that could harness the powers of presidency and drive our country into the right direction, but I don't think that is the case anymore. Maybe I am just a pessimist and a skeptic who doesn't value the good in the system, but I simply don't see it. There are too many obstructions that prevent an election of my description. The sad thing is, there is absolutely no way that the system will be changed. The only thing I can do is ride out the wave and live with this grand inconvenient truth: Politics is a mess.
Although I agree with you to an extent, there are parts of this idea with which I disagree. My main disagreement stems from the fact that you use the word politics too liberally (pun) and that you are only focusing one example of what is the vast art and science of politics.
ReplyDeletePolitics: The science or art of running governmental affairs. This is the definition of the word politics. When you refer to politics being a mess you mainly talk about the election process, which is a different idea altogether. Speaking in terms of the election process, now that a distinction has been made, it is true that there is a lot of emphasis put on the election itself, more than I would care there to be, but I disagree with the fact that you said that this is the main priority and that what they'll do for the future country comes after this. It may seem this way, but it is only because in order to better the future of our country, they need the elections to attract and sometimes enlighten the voters, who may not know what is the best path for our country is.
Also, your post focuses on the current presidential election in the US, when you are talking about a much larger topic elections and "politics". The examples of why the election process is a mess during this presidential election, are not always present in other elections. I feel that you are generalizing based on this one example (in particular, an example election that focuses primarily on mudslinging rather than policy largely due to a state of political gridlock) and are not taking into account the other politicians who do not rely on petty mudslinging and bs promises that they will never follow through on. Even staying in the realm of US presidential elections, there have been candidates who relied more on their policy than on techniques such as mudslinging. This is also the case, though not always, in positions of office of lesser importance, where the main focus is the policies that will best suit the community.
Although I would agree that certain areas of politics and the election process are a mess, it is not as bad as you make it out to be and there is hope for it improving, as it has been shown in the past to have improved, primarily through bipartisanship.