Over the past few months I've heard people say which presidential candidate they are going to vote for and why. Some reasons are unique, but I hear a lot of people basing their decision on how each candidate will affect them personally.
For example: one person said they would vote for McCain because Obama would hurt their business. Another person said they would vote for Obama because Obama would provide better health care benefits and this person had a disease that may/will require a lot of medical attention over the next 4 years.
There are two reasons why I think this kind of narrow-focused decision making has flaws:
Firstly, when has a candidate every tried doing everything he/she said they would during a campaign? Secondly, even if they want to do something, there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent every idea a candidate has from coming to fruition. That being said, I realize you have to base your decision on something... and perhaps it is at least a good starting point. But I digress...
The real question that those explanations brought up for me is, is it better to choose a candidate that best fits your individual needs or best fits the needs of the country?
If I choose a candidate that helps me and my relatively small group of people, is that selfish and a good use of democratic process? What about everyone else?
If I get what I want, but the rest of the country goes to shit because I don't care about anything but me, am I really going to be that well off?
Forgive me, but it goes back to systems thinking. Many people are egocentric and more or less think about how the candidates will affect them (and maybe their families and close friends) directly. Most people also are looking at the static picture instead of the long term ramifications of decisions.
But like a budget, if one thing goes up, something else must go down. If a candidate put all of the budget into health care, what would happen to education? If education lacks, are the doctors caring for us going to be as good? If they gave a tax break to businesses, who will be taxed? The employees, who will then need a higher salary to provide for their families. So which is worse for the business owner, being taxes or paying higher wages? What's the difference?
Another example is the upper class getting a tax break. They probably think its great because its so much more money they can keep. But if they get a tax break, then its very likely that the lower classes won't. That won't cause - but it could play a part - in poverty and increased crime. Who knows, maybe someone in that lower class will rob the upper class citizen who got a tax break and thought life was grand.
So, I think you get my point. Choosing a candidate over an issue or two doesn't really make a lot of sense. It seems like both candidates are aiming for similar things, but just going about it differently anyway. We're all going to get screwed the same amount by each candidate, one way or another.
I prefer to choose a candidate on who things in this order:
1) Putting time and effort into the foundation of the country. Band-aid programs really chap my ass. Treating the symptom doesn't solve the problem or change the process. Pulling troops out of Iraq makes a lot of sense for today (because you get troops out, save lives today anyway, and stop spending money initially) but what will happen after that? There's no guarantee that spending will be over at that time. (I don't mean to pick on Obama, its just a real life example.) Tax breaks sound great, but at what expense? Are we jeopardizing schools, healthcare, crime, etc? Putting more cops on the streets may reduce crime in a certain area, but only until the criminals move to a different area. I want to see a candidate put time, money, and effort into families, parenting, education, etc. Relationships and Intellect will make this company strong. With good interpersonal relationships and intelligence, success and financial prosper are sure to follow. Sure, that will take time and the results may not show up until after that president is done, but it will make American stronger longer.
2) A proven track record. I can't predict the future, but noticing a pattern from the actual past can at least be something to go by. Lofty goals are great, but does the candidate have a proven record of doing what they say and being successful?
Obviously, this is just one man's opinions. I am always very open to other ways of seeing things. Please tell me how you decide or what you think is best for America.
2 comments:
I'm voting for a canidate that chooses to protect the lives of all citizens, especially those who can't speak for themselves. Unborn babies, those with disabilities, and the elderly.
This might be "one issue" but I believe it is more important than any issue. So important that it's in our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It may seem foolish to some to base a vote (and party affiliation) on just one thing, I do not. The right to life is an issue that encompasses all people and all things.
Ours is a country founded on principles and convictions. The loosening of morality in this country is appalling. That as a society we are more focused on saving the earth and seals and frogs than we are PEOPLE.
As a mother I know what it's like to have life inside of me, and that anyone can tell me it's only life because I choose it to be is just ridiculous. In fact, many people today argue that if we knew as much about DNA then as we do now, Roe V Wade may have had much different results.
So, dear author, while I agree with you that we must vote for the good of our fellow citizens, I would like to implore you to recognize that one issue may be all it takes to do that.
Nicely put janeabelle! I have to agree. Without life, all other issues would be inconsequential.
Post a Comment