Pages

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Political Game Playing

I grow weary and fearful of the political games, more so because supposed adults continue to play.  For instance:

The “blame” game:  if I can show that this “bad” event is somehow your fault then that should exalt me.  Not true, of course.  International events are so complex and include so many random variables that blaming someone for a North Korea bomb test is the same as blaming someone for the weather.  Surely adults see through such things, and yet, candidates continue to play.

The “I’m more Christian than you” game:  If I can convince Christians I am one of them with the same faith and the same belief system then surely I will get their support.  Not true, of course.  At least not true for thinking Christians.  Jesus had something to say about the following:  It is very poor form to stand on the street corner and in front of multiple reporters publicly display one’s faith.  It is very poor form to claim a life devoted to Christ and enter the realm of politics opposing basic New Testament commandments.  It is very poor form to question an other's faith.  And it is very poor form to emulate southern evangelical hucksters who have grown rich by using their so-called faith to get their way in terms of material things.  I suspect that should Christ return during this election cycle He would grab His whip and chase all these “money changers” off the ballot.  It is so superficial, and yet some candidates continue to play.

The “I am a leader and you are not” game:  This is a variation of the blame game and is played by a candidate looking at all the actions of a given player then declaring those actions to be failures regardless of the real outcomes.  If I can convince enough people that the “other guy” was a failure, or that his or her policies and programs are failures, then surely I must be seen as a real leader for my ability to criticize the other guy and find flaws in his or her performance.  Even if it takes 62 votes to finally pass a bill declaring a program a failure rather than the facts.  There is no way to know what the “I am a leader” might have done in similar circumstances and what the outcomes would have been.  Finding flaws in human beings is a stupid game as anyone can play and everyone can lose.  And yet, candidates continue to play.

The “I have a plan but you cannot see it” game.  All the above games are truly insulting to the American voter.  Each game assumes we are so stupid as to be sucked into the game, and sadly, there are people who do get sucked in.  This game is the worst, however.  It allows me the ability to do nothing but play the other games while avoiding a clear statement of intentions and programs should I get elected.  If a candidate does not have proposals to make the nation better, why run unless it is for self-aggrandizement?  And if that is the case, do we want such a person as President?  I think not.  I am not stupid.  You are not stupid.  If you want to get elected and want to avoid playing games you must show us your cards.

You must show us your cards in fiscal policy, foreign policy, human rights policies here and abroad.  You must tell us what matters more to you, corporations or individuals.  You must take a stand on American’s international role.  Are we the cops of the world or are we the bystanders?  What shall we do if a nation self-determines its government and we do not like that government?  You must take a stand on climate and announce what you would like to see done to improve it, if anything.  You must take a stand on women’s reproductive rights.  Do they have any or should it be left in the knowing hands of middle aged white males?  You must take a stand on immigration and offer proposed policies.  You must take a stand on corporations sending jobs overseas and bank deposits oversees to avoid US taxes all while spending tons of money to influence elections here.  You must take a stand on firearms.  Shall we impose limits or shall we allow anyone and everyone to own a weapon?  You must take a stand on health care.  Shall we offer a government supported and required program for those who cannot get insurance any other way, shall we impose the previous strategy of survival of the fittest, or shall we mandate a single-payer program as those nations with the highest standard of living have?  You must take a stand on education.  Is public education simply an opportunity for private sector folks to make money via charter schools and testing, rich folks to save money via vouchers, or an essential ingredient for the future of our democracy?  Etc.

I do not like the broadcast candidate debates as it appears to me such events only encourages game playing.  I would love to simply see a list of proposals and policy stands on a variety of issues from each candidate, both parties.


That, of course, would be rational and promote adult decision-making between now and November of this year.  If the candidate who wins the Presidency has done so via game playing we will have no clue what lies ahead for the USA.  I can think of few things more frightful than that.

1 comment: