Among all the constant tinnutus that marks election year, there is no greater, or more constant, noise than that of political candidates making speeches, holding debates, and always–rule number one–telling the voters exactly what they want to hear: “I will create jobs; I will keep this country safe; I will turn the economy around.” They all say it; we’ve all heard it before. And it’s pure crappola.
Unless these candiates are running for Benign Despot, rather than President, they cannot follow through on any of their claims. There’s a document called The United States Constitution that puts a damper on all that. Checks and balances–there’s the rub. The President cannot act unilaterally; Congress must approve his (or her) proposals. And since Congress lately probably couldn’t agree on which kind of danish to have in the morning, good luck with that. So, dear voters, if you’re planning to vote for the candidate of your choice based on all the claims and promises made during the campaign, keep this minor limitation in mind.
While on that subject, shouldn’t the parties’ candidates represent the best each party has to offer? Does it seem what we’ve got is the best they have to offer? I don’t think so. Instead, we always get several supposedly intelligent adults who should be discussing the issues and making their best cases, yet they spend all their time, energy, and funding slinging mud at each other. Then, when one is chosen, all is forgiven, and the formerly muddied opponents support that winner, and one is even likely to be asked to run for Vice President by someone who, not too long before, was calling him an incompetent nitwit. Shouldn’t the President of the United States be dignified, honorable, and above reproach? Wouldn’t a campaign that reflects those qualities be refreshing?
My theory on elections is that, ultimately, people don’t vote for the candidate they like the most; they vote for the one they dislike the least. Considering all that comes before, what else could they do?