One Day We’ll Laugh About All This
By Natalie Martin
this is what it comes down to, I suppose. After eight years of leadership (although that term decidedly assumed a loose definition sometime around 2004), the election polls are close enough to suggest not too many people learned their lessons throughout George W. Bush’s administration. If the presidential and vice-presidential debates prove anything, it’s that we so severely have devolved into a marketing-campaign atmosphere that treats truths and inconveniences when they threaten the appeal of our preferred candidates. It’s almost funny.
I should begin this as would any philosopher poised to argue a point. First, unless you’re incredibly rich—or a masochist—you probably agree with nearly 70 percent of Americans who believe Bush Jr. is among the worst presidents this country ever had. The policies he endorsed and opposed during his reign indicate his motives for running for the Oval Office and a lack of empathy for the people he was supposed to represent. And with an anorexic economy, buoyed by an unpopular and costly war and hungry for an empowered workforce, staining our reputation as a world leader with a formidable but sensible military, Bush’s legacy forever stained not just itself, but the country’s history, its citizens, and even the Republican Party.
However, the rub is that at least 40 percent of the U. S. population isn’t paying attention. Despite Democratic Sen. Barack Obama’s increasing lead over Republican Sen. John McCain, a significant number of voters continue to wear political “blinders” because they’ve hardened their positions; and to confront them with the undesirable qualities of their presidential choice is tantamount to telling hard core Christians that the Bible isn’t the word of God, but just a bunch of “really cool stories.” They’ll self-indoctrinate even more. While on its face, that type of faith isn’t a bad thing, unlike a religion, which involves a personal and spiritual relationship,intentionally keeping oneself politically under-informed jeopardizes not just one person, but an entire country when a vote is on the line. Granted, as of this writing, more people plan to send Obama to clean up Bush’s mess rather than have McCain take a gander at it; but supporters of both candidates must not deprive themselves of every aspect of Obama’s and McCain’s platforms. Each of these men has, at one time or another, been a proponent of something unpalatable to his base; and being an informed voter means having to stomach the not-so-pleasant policies your candidate promotes.
Obama by no means comes close to the Texan atrocity who oversaw the mismanaged responses to September 11, Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stock-market failure in the fall of 2008; nevertheless, he’s no progressive superman. In fact, while many right-wing critics lambaste the Illinois senator for what they call “extremely liberal” views, Obama is much more a pragmatist (and occasional political opportunist) than even his left-of-left supporters acknowledge. For middle-of-the-road voters, this should offer reassurance that the United States under his leadership won’t become some post-1960s, radical, tree-hugging utopia; for right-right-of-center voters, this should make them take another look at Obama’s candidacy. But for all the influence of mainstream media and “playing of the refs” this election year has witnessed, any blasé voter likely would enter the booth with the notion that Obama is the second coming of Gandhi (or Karl Marx incarnate). The senator continuously has stated his personal, non-liberal positions on abortion, gay marriage, business (to a degree), and warfare. And for those of his supporters who recognize and tolerate these views, well, kudos to you for knowing that fundamental principle: “You can’t please all the people all the time.”
On the contrary, however, McCain placed himself in an interesting and possibly beneficial quandary: He’s changed platforms so much during this campaign that he can’t really be pegged for any solid stance,it may be deliberate or just lucky. During the 2000 presidential election, McCain actually was the person I thought should lead. Back then, he really was a maverick within his party, and it was refreshing to see a Republican who still believed in traditionally Republican values of “bootstraps,” limited government, limited spending, and an aversion to nation-building. However, the John McCain of 2000 has gone the way of the dodo and has been replaced with what appears to be someone so set on earning a title that he’s forgone the very principles that made him one of the more suitable politicians. Let’s face it, they all suck,yes, even Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but to a lesser degree. He’s embraced the Bush administration’s tax policy; he’s championed a war that has caused possibly irreparable devastation to our military and our economy; and he’s dedicated himself to a campaign rife with lies and misrepresentations of his opponent. He’s even turned his back on legislation he himself has sponsored to boost his appeal among other Republicans, and yet ardent supporters of McCain somehow dismiss these things as not quite that important. And, you know, it’s kind of funny.
Maybe what we need is to start from rock bottom. Not just an “out with the old” endeavor, but cleansing the House and the Senate and restocking it with a group of people who haven’t been stained by ambition and streamlined their positions when they pose a risk to being elected. Perhaps this would be the best way to ensure we’re not deluding ourselves as voters. Perhaps this would prove that we’re willing to eat the worm. Perhaps we’d actually acquire politicians who give a damn because they know what it’s like to suffer under a malleable administration with ulterior motives. Perhaps, after it’s all said and done, we can sit back and smile for a job well done.
