In recent political conversations that I've had with friends and members of my family, I've tried to bring up the notion of a "fringe" candidate (Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) having a chance to win the next Presidential election, and the uniform response is "There's no chance." They're all enamored with the "front runners" (it's funny, because the difference between "fringe" and "front runner" really has nothing to do with views, leadership or credibility and everything to do with "electability" and mass media support, yet I digress), people like Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and all the other candidates who will keep us on the same basic course we've been on for the last 40+ years.
It's odd though. These same friends and family, along with countless other people around the country, express their hearty discontent with how the government is run, yet they will not open their eyes and see the fact that what is needed is a change in the core of our government's operations and values, not just another meaningless change in the figurehead leading the party of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, do you really think just getting a Democrat elected is going to change anything? Statements by Obama and Clinton, as well as every other Democratic "front runner" say otherwise. Yes, yes, they all say they're against the war in Iraq, but none of them will commit to an immediate pull-out (the old "Well, since we're already there..." justification) or condemn possible military action against Iran. On the Republican side, do you really think a guy like Giuliani or the laughable Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will do anything to restore the prestige of America or the GOP? If you do, you're lying to yourself or you're uninformed.
Just look at our recent past and ask yourself if you would like it to continue in this manner. Before Bush, who is the worst President in the history of America, we had Clinton. Republicans hated Clinton and Democrats loved him, but outside of presiding over a relatively docile and inordinately prosperous 8 years, he didn't do much, and he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary. Before Clinton we had Bush the 1st, who Democrats hated and many Republicans also hated, and who in a somewhat surreal action considering what happened with his son, lied us in to a war with Iraq while also lying about many, many other subjects and actions. Before that we had Reagan, who is somehow held up as the most recent beacon of Republican success (though the Democrats hated him), when in fact he did nothing to advance us as a society besides wasting billions of dollars and trying empire-style nation building in Central/South American and the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was before Reagan, and while he did OK (though most Republicans hated him), he happened to preside over the Energy Crisis, and frankly I'm more impressed with what he's done since he left office than with anything he did while holding the position. Before that we had Gerald Ford (nobody really liked him that much), who was the first person never actually elected to either office to hold both the office of Vice President and President. He took over the VP spot after Spiro Agnew resigned in shame in 1973, then moved up to President when Nixon resigned in shame in 1974. He then pardoned Nixon, one of the biggest bastards in American political history, and after that basically did nothing for the rest of his presidency. Obviously before that was the aforementioned Nixon, (Democrats hated him but many Republicans loved him, at least at first) who has the distinguished honor of being the only President (so far) to resign from office under a cloud of corruption and shame. Nixon took over for Lyndon Johnson, a "Democrat" who was one of the most hawkish men ever to claim that title, whose most prominent political action was to lie us in to escalating the Vietnam war.
And that brings us to John F. Kennedy, the last president who ever really seemed to be leading America in the right direction, but I'll digress for a moment to address the last paragraph. Did you see how we came full circle (even though it was a DAMNED small circle), from a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Vietnam to a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Iraq (aka Vietnam II)? 40 years and 8 Presidents ago, we sat on the cusp of monumental political and social change, but after JFK's assassination, we have slogged along with a laundry list of Presidents who, though they spew varied rhetoric and claim to be from different parties, have not done much to diverge us off the downward spiral we've been on, economically and socially, since the early 60's.
Do you see a pattern here? Neither side EVER likes the other side's candidate, and once whoever it is wins the election, they NEVER really follow their "campaign promises," and we've slowly seen our economy and American dollar falter and waste away, while our social policies and programs have made only marginal (if any) progress considering how long it's been. Is this the legacy handed down to us by our Founding Fathers and their greatest achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America? Did they envision a fiercely divided and partisan nation in which there was plutocratic rule and stagnant societal advancement? If you take a look at that document, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
My question to the general public is the one that appears as the title to this post. Everyone on both sides of the table always bitches about how the President (whatever party he represents) doesn't get it done for the nation and doesn't follow up on his campaign promises, yet they are never willing to consider a "fringe" candidate who has always stuck to his guns on the issues, and who has been right about so many of them, such as Paul, Kucinich or even Mike Gravel. So, my question again, is why not bring in someone who doesn't just parrot on about the general issues of the day, always telling people what they want to hear but never actually doing anything about it; someone who can actually back up what they say with a consistent voting record and a consistent record of actually being RIGHT on the issues? I know change is scary, but consider that question, and if you have time, take a look at what Kucinich and Paul have to say on many of these issues:
Paul at the 1st GOP Presidential Debate
Paul at the most recent GOP Presidential Debate:
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
(Look how Hilary just stares daggers at him):
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate on 8/7/07:
These guys know what they are talking about, they've been talking about it for a LONG time, and they don't stray from their ideas and convictions. Though they clash on some issues, they both have the right idea about what is right for America overall. PAY ATTENTION. The next 8 years will be paramount in American history, and we as a people need to make the right decision as to who will lead us. Ignore what the mass media spoon feeds to you and look at what the individual candidates have to say, how they say it, and why they say it. Please?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment