All entries |
Filter by category: |  RSS Feed |
Because It Bears Repeating ....
August 21st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Originally posted in April of 2011, this article bears repeating for obvious reasons.
The lesser of two evils. That’s truly how most of us tend to vote in the presidential election. We hear it every time the massive campaigns roll around — from the primaries, the debates and everything that goes with it, to the final tally on election night when the two parties “face off with the penultimate showdown at the voting booth” sort of thing.
The lesser of two evils.
(For my execution, I would choose the weakest of the two axe men, with the hope that he would only chop my head halfway off.)
That’s really how the presidential elections have been for me, at least. I became eligible to vote in 1978 — my first “voter participation” came in the 1980 presidential race. I was stunned that my choices were an incumbent peanut farmer from Georgia and a washed up B-movie actor who had somehow bumbled his way into being Governor of California.
I was faced with my first lesser of two evils.
(I would rather have two flat tires on the passenger side of the car than the drivers side.)
Coincidentally, it was during this initial voting experience that I learned a lot of people cast votes for Mickey Mouse and other various cartoon characters. Not only did I find the information to be psychologically and politically interesting, I found it to be very foreboding.
Still, all of my participation in presidential elections more or less followed this sort of thinking. Here are the contenders I’ve been able to vote for in my eight presidential elections, with the winners listed first.
1980 Ronald Reagan (R) vs. Jimmy Carter (D)
1984 Ronald Reagan (R) vs. Walter Mondale (D)
1988 George H. W. Bush (R) vs. Michael Dukakis (D)
1992 Bill Clinton (D) vs. George H. W. Bush (R)
1996 Bill Clinton (D) vs. Bob Dole (R)
2000 George W. Bush (R) vs. Al Gore (D)
2004 George W. Bush (R) vs. John Kerry (D)
2008 Barack Obama (D) vs. John McCain (R)
Democrats versus Republicans, every time. Even when people like Ross Perot, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Pat Paulson ran for office, they weren’t really considered a viable threat in their respective races. Voting for these candidates has amounted to nothing more than a “wasted vote”, to all visible logic.
These “underdogs” from the offshoot parties merely served to detract a few voters from the two primary parties. Need proof? Does anyone really remember John G. Schmitz from the American Party? (Hint: He ran in 1972 and received one less electoral vote than the Libertarian candidate, John Hospers — Hospers, incidentally, took 1 electoral vote.)
But anyway, for the past 160-plus years, it’s been Democrats versus Republicans in the majority of presidential elections.
Prior to 1828, the Democrats and Republicans were one party. They were called the Democratic Republicans. Long story short, the party split in the early 1820’s and we’ve been stuck with their bickering and finger-pointing ever since.
It’s been a slippery, accusatory political landscape — a very repetitive 160-plus years.
I doubt that the “best man for the job” has ever been elected to office in my lifetime. Actually, I will take that one step further and say I doubt that the best man for the job has ever been nominated for the “race to the White House” in my lifetime. In fact, there’s another popular saying:
“Anyone who is qualified for the office of president doesn’t want the job.”
I’m not sure who originally said that, but I have heard so many political pundits and comedians paraphrase that saying many times during any given election year. It’s just a common joke. Just like the lesser of two evils.
(I prefer to robbed by a short man than a tall man.)
Speaking of sayings, I believe it might have been Franklin Pierce Adams who said, “Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.”
In light of recent events, I posted a question on Facebook — a very simple question: Would you vote for Donald Trump? And while an overwhelming majority among 25 very random people voiced a resounding “no”, there were several who were undecided or ambiguous in their answers. They wouldn’t commit to an answer at “this stage of the game”.
But what interested me the most were the two people who said the would, indeed, vote for Donald. Because both of them said they would vote for Trump under one condition: If he were the only other candidate running against the incumbent, President Obama. They were voting against one candidate more than for the other. To them, it amounts to ...
... The lesser of two evils.
(I would rather be dissolved in 105 gallons of acid than flash-frozen in 106 cubic feet of liquid nitrogen.)
It was after tallying this impromptu poll, that I really began to review my previous “possibilities” for the office of president — some of the final choices I’ve been offered for presidential bidding in the past three decades. And in every case, it would seem, that the winners only made things worse. Don’t believe me? Consider these basic facts:
Ronald Regan — raised taxes, sent the economy spiraling into a tailspin, involved in multiple military actions around the globe, (one of these actions resulted in the bombing of Libya — sound familiar?), and had a blast with the Iran-Contra affair. Not to mention tripling the national deficit.
George H. W. Bush — raised taxes (no new taxes?), took us to war in Iraq, admitted lying in the Iran— Contra affair, spearheaded the NAFTA negotiations that let millions jobs go to Mexico — and doubled the deficit..
Bill Clinton — raised taxes, involved in multiple military actions around the globe, and while he was the only president to leave office with a surplus in the budget in the past 50 years, he still managed to double the deficit.
George W. Bush — raised taxes, took us into two wars, doubled the deficit twice over, among dozens of other dunder-headed adventures in decision-making.
Barack Obama — raised taxes, sent the economy spiraling into a tailspin, involved in multiple military actions around the globe, (remember Libya?), and has made economic proposals that will result in tripling the national deficit.
This list only covers the past three decades. I’m sure we can find similar examples in the policies of every president who has served in my lifetime, and all throughout a large portion of our history.
What confounds me even more, are the contradictions we hear in various opinions of presidents, past and present.
The administration of President Obama is so similar to that of Ronald Regan in economic policies, it befuddles the mind to think that the same people who despise the prior will sanctify the latter. The same sexual indiscretions attributed to Bill Clinton are readily forgiven of John F. Kennedy. The obvious vilification of Richard M. Nixon is somewhat confusing when compared to the praise of George W. Bush. In short, the same mistakes that have been made by one are easily forgotten and forgiven of another.
It is, without a doubt, the greater of two evils being played out before our very eyes.
(Can I get a burger from McDonalds instead of a burger from Burger King?)
But my point is, by proxy of being forced into making a decision — to choose between a mere two potential candidates for the office of president, we are being forced into the real debacle — the lesser of two evils.
(I’d rather drown in the Atlantic Ocean than Lake Superior.)
And before anyone starts chiming in with any sort of “Tea Party” bullshit — they are still “more of the same”. More politicians. They only serve to create a new paradigm — the lesser of three evils. And the Tea Party is most certainly not the lesser of three evils.
(I always get my gasoline from Mobil or Shell, but not British Petroleum.)
Not that I would ever consider the Tea Party a lesser evil, but rather a greater evil than the other two parties combined. After all, anyone who would claim Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as a spokesperson is just plain wrong — something equal to the “Silly Party” in England. They make an annoying buzz on a landscape that is already awash with the din of idiocy. That’s just my opinion.
Still, America is the country of the fabled promise that anyone can grow up to be president. And I think that has been well-proven in my lifetime. Peanut farmers — B-movie actors — CIA directors — sons of bootleggers — majors and generals — even politicians galore have all held the office of President of the United States.
But again, in my lifetime, it seems as though I’ve always longed for different candidate. Another choice. Someone else. Someone better.
In every election I have found myself having to choose between two guys (and on rare occasions, women) whom I personally feel are ill-equipped for the task. Some more than others. Overall, they seem unqualified and unfit, in one way or another, for the job of President of the United States. They lack a characteristic or trait that I cannot quantify. In my mind, they’re all missing something — a certain je ne sais quoi.
And ultimately, I find myself longing for someone like my Grandfather as a candidate. Or perhaps my 3rd grade teacher — maybe Marshall Matt Dillon? Thomas Jefferson would be nice. Perhaps another FDR? A Lincoln or a Washington.
Sometimes when I see the list of people who have served this country’s highest office, I wonder why we can’t get someone like Mike Brady or Ward Cleaver to serve? I mean, of all the iconic figures and we wound up with the guy who co-starred with a chimp named Bonzo. And we slather his memory with heaping mounds of adoration, as if he were a great, iconic leader.
And the simple fact was, he wasn’t.
Well, much like time travel, that’s all in the past. We can only look to the future from this point on — what the future holds for the political structure of the United States. The machinations and underpinnings that we are forced to endure. Is there an answer to the conundrum — a solution to the problem of the lesser of two evils?
(I would rather fall off a 100 foot cliff than a 10th floor balcony.)
Is there a way to have a truly democratic election? Is there a way for us all to find the best person for the job?
Of course there is. The first, and most obvious thing to do, would be the elimination of the Electoral College. It serves no purpose whatsoever in a democracy that is meant to be “by the people and for the people”. There is no need for such a body in this day and age.
And second, it’s time to revamp the voting system. I have no sure-fire solution to the problems that plague the present-day election process, but it would seem that voting in libraries, church basements and school auditoriums is a bit outdated. In this age of advanced technology, I would think that smart phones and computers could be utilized for this task.
Perhaps a system wherein everyone could truly write in the name of the man or woman who, in their opinion would best be suited for the office of President of the United States of America. And perhaps the only requirements to vote should be that you be an American Citizen, hold a valid Social Security Number, and have access to a computer or smart phone. You simply go to a website named something like “www.vote.com” and type in the name of your preferred candidate. After the votes are counted and such, the results will be announced via the usual media outlets.
Something like that?
It sounds better than what we have right now, that’s for sure. After all, they say that less than 50% of us are registered to vote, and only a portion of those actually bother to go out and vote. And besides, it works for American Idol and all those talent based shows.
In fact, it is said that more people voted for the latest winner on American Idol than in the most recent presidential election. Why? Because it’s so easy to do. And, perhaps, the contenders seem to be more ... qualified for the job they’re competing for. As much as I’m not a true fan of American Idol, one would have to be foolish not to admire their entire voting system, as well as the qualifications of the contenders.
And that is the problem with the Presidential Elections. They need to take a tip from American Idol and bring the voting process into the 21st century. And they need to give us viable, realistic candidates to choose from. Someone who is worthy of our trust. Not a politician.
(I would rather vote for “Candidate #1” not because I think he’s qualified — I simply don’t like “Candidate #’s 2,3,4, etc.”.)
I will say it again, because it bears repeating:
Is this the best America has to offer? Give us some viable candidates in 2012.
Posted in: Uncategorized |
0 comments