political overload

I made it a goal to follow politics more closely in this election year. I don't think a majority of voters base their votes on any kind of knowledge and I may have been guilty of that in the last election. So I decided that if I were to vote again I would make sure that I had a good understanding of the candidates before making my decision. Recently I have found myself in an odd place when it comes to my thoughts on current politics.

I am completely burned out.

Some of it has to do with the media stories that have gotten attention (or haven't) and the fact that every recent story seems to make me disgusted that I even follow any of this crap. Some examples:

Hilary Rosen, a democratic political adviser, made a comment that Mitt Romney should not base political decisions on advice from his wife Ann because she "had not worked a day in her life".

The backlash revolved around the fact that Ann chose to be a stay at home mom while raising her 5 children and that being a mother is the hardest job in the world. Understandable.....but a lot of mothers (and fathers), many being single parents, are faced with these same burdens in addition to working part or full time jobs. Instead of focusing the attention on the point Rosen was trying to make, the Democratic Party instantly disowned her and the Republicans immediately tried to paint Rosen as queen of all democratic decision making. This atricle compares the Rosen "gaffe" to comments made by Rush Limbaugh weeks ago. The way attention is intentially diverted is comical, yet sad at the same time. How many times can hey look, something shiny! continue to work?

I think the media has the biggest influence on public opinion. This is evident by the way the Republican candidates leading the race switched on an almost weekly basis for a few months before Mitt Romney finally grabbed hold of the lead. Since that time nearly every story has focused on Romney or Rick Santorum.

Well that makes sense since they were the frontrunners right?

Wrong.

As much as I disagree with Newt Gingrich and as much as I think I like Ron Paul, I think it is a shame the lack of media attention they have gotten. I'm not sure if it is because they are less interesting or people feel they know them already because they have been around longer, but nonetheless it is a shame. The media has the control of making people popular or not, just by having their name out there. Just look at the Kardashians.

I think a lot of things can be summed up by a quote from the movie The Adjustment Bureau.

".....But here's the problem, this isn't even my tie. This tie was selected for me by a group of specialists, in Tenafly New Jersey, who chose it over fifty six other ties we tested. In fact, our data su...suggests that I have to stick to either a tie that is red or a tie that is blue. A yellow tie made it look as if I was taking my situation lightly and I may in fact pull my pants down at any moment. A silver tie meant that I'd forgotten my roots. My shoes, you know shiny shoes we associate with a high priced lawyers and bankers. If you want to get a working mans vote you need to scuff up your shoes a little bit, but you can't scuff 'em so much that you alienate the lawyers and the bankers, cause you need them to pay for the specialist back in Tenafly."

Yeah it's just a movie, but although exaggerated (I hope), the point is probably valid.

The way that every sentence spoken, every tie worn, every speech, every thought, belief, opinion, friend, or adviser seeme to be chosen specifically to earn more votes than the other person is crazy. I don't know if others feel the same way, but the more I feel like my vote is being bought or manipulated the more it makes me not want to vote. They say poor voter turnout is a bad thing, but I think an embarrassingly low voter turnout could be good. It would cause politicians to rethink the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaigning and media persuasion, and actually take a look at why people don't vote as much anymore.

Maybe we just get burned out.

three rules for u.s. presidents

I like reading articles by LZ Granderson. I don't always agree with his viewpoints, and I think he is too extreme at times, but every one of his articles makes me stop and think. This article is just the latest example and I think it's interesting enough that I will dedicate this post to it.

If you didn't read that article here are the 3 presidential changes proposed to help fix our government.

1. Eliminate second terms for presidents and change term limit to 6 years.
2. Make prior military experience a requirement for presidents.
3. Raise the minimum age for presidents from 35 to 45 and cap it at 70.
Here are my thoughts on each.

Eliminating second terms and change term limit to 6 years

I think there is good and bad to this suggestion. It seems like it is nearly impossible for a president to fully implement his plans for our country in 4 years. Obama is at the end of his term and his health care plans are not in place yet, and might never be. A president is elected (hopefully) based on his blueprint for improving our country. If a president is elected and not able to implement his/her plan, then why are they elected in the first place. A 6 year term would help a lot with this. I am torn on the idea of eliminating a second term. You don't have to look far to see that our country is having a hard time finding legitimate candidates. The candidates of the past few elections have been mostly a joke and electing the president of the united states has become more of a reality tv show than an important political decision.

Making prior military experience a requirement for presidents.

My first thoughts on this were completely against it. I understand Granderson's idea behind it (preventing warmongers from spouting off unrealistic suggestions when they have no clue what they are talking about) but I don't think simply having military experience accomplishes that. A career in the military would probably ensure a fundamental understanding of how the military works, but I think that is an unrealistic expectation, and would further impact the shrinking pool of legitimate presidential hopefuls. Then again, that might be a good thing. I think it is basically up to the voters to ensure that the person they are voting for has a good understanding of foreign affairs and military operations whether it is through military experience, other political experiences, family members knowledgeable in those areas, or other means. This knowledge has been lacking in many recent presidential hopefuls minus McCain and Paul, and needs to be emphasized more in my opinion.

Raise the minimum age for presidents from 35 to 45 and cap it at 70.

I disagree with this one because most all presidential hopefuls are 45 or older anyways. I do agree with capping it at 70, but only because the thought of having some of our recent vp's or potential vp's (biden, cheney, edwards, palin, gore) become president due to the president dying while in office scares the hell out of me. I also think that thought probably cost McCain some votes a few years ago. Raising the minimum age to 45 is an attempt to solve the problem of lack of experience. Once again I think it is really up to the voters to take into consideration the experience of the candidate they are voting for. Realistically Obama should not have beaten out Clinton for the democratic nomination purely based on experience. Charisma is great but it does not trump knowledge, experience, and the ability to make the right decisions without relying on others.

If I could change 3 things here is what they would be.

1. Change term limits to 6 years.
Unless Congress is getting an Extreme Makeover, I think this is the easiest way to allow the president, who was elected for their ideas, to actually implement their ideas. Congress can argue and draw things out easily for 3 or 4 years, but I don't think they could do it for 5 or 6.

2. Put a cap on the total amount of money a political party can spend on elections, including PAC money.
Everyone says money buys elections. I don't think that is necessarily true but I think it is a requirement to be competetive, just ask Ron Paul. It is estimated that Obama spent nearly 750 million on his 2008 campaign. That amount of money is ridiculous, but was probably necessary. Most European countries speak in the tens of millions when talking about campaign money, not hundreds of millions and I think it will just get worse this next election.

3. Make a balanced budget a requirement.
Other than war there is no good reason not to have a balanced budget. Wars are expensive but I would rather see taxes increase in times of war instead of printing more money and sending it off to China or whatever it is they do. Wars do not seem to have the impact that they did in the past and unless directly involved it is easy to forget they are going on. Every American should be affected in times of war, not just the people fighting and their relatives. I think sharing the burden of war with all people through taxes or other means would help emphasize that war really is a big deal and maybe would cause the government to think a little more before invading other countries in the name of democracy.

does my vote count?

2008 was the first presidential election that I voted. The reason I chose to vote was mainly because I assumed that voting is what everyone aged 18 and older is supposed to do. A lot of people have told me that if you do not vote, then you cannot complain about the results of an election. So after watching one or two of the debates and listening to a few speeches, I registered to vote and selected Barack Obama on my ballot. I, like many others at the time, was excited about the various changes that were sure to take place following the election. An end to the war in Iraq, a reformed health care system, and a much needed focus on middle class America were things I was really looking forward to seeing. If Obama could walk as good as he could talk, I figured things would turn around quickly for our country. So why haven’t they? A lot of blame is always pointed toward the president, but I think it has just as much to do with everyone else working in D.C. People vote for a president (hopefully) based on that candidate’s ability to offer changes that you feel are important. So why then is it so difficult to get any of these changes in place. The problems in the Middle East, the inability to come to agree on anything, a 15 trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow….what kind of government is built to allow these things to happen? My confidence in our government’s ability to accomplish much of anything is all but gone. For that reason, I do not think I will be voting in the next election.

I didn’t vote in Bush’s re-election year, but the little I remember about it was something like “Yeah, he’s not the best president….but he’s better than anything the Democrats have to offer”. I feel in a lot of ways that this election is turning out the same way. I have paid pretty close attention to the Republican Party’s up-and-down joke of a selection process. First it was Romney, then Perry, then Cain, Then Gingrich….now Romney again. Instead of hearing why I should vote for someone, I have listened to months of why I shouldn’t vote for someone. It is almost as if the candidate who can raise the most money, and be the make the others look the worst will win regardless of any of their view points. Surely there are more than a few worthy candidates out of the 300+ million people that live here. But instead we get to continue to choose which guy sucks less. Choosing a president has become a lot like choosing which color to paint a car that doesn’t run. Unless the car gets fixed, I don’t think I should waste my time deciding between blue and red.