*****
15 August, 2012This piece was originally written shortly after the 2008 election and, at that time, was titled "My *kingdom* for a political candidate with integrity!" Since United States politicians are in perpetual campaign mode, I have updated and modified it enough to make it timely. I hope registered voters will exercise the hard-won right to vote.
***
I suppose that rhetoric comparable to the following will find its way to newspapers and magazines from now at least until Inauguration Day, and very possibly until the 2012 election. It will be variously disguised as political commentary, guest columns and letters to the editor. I may as well have my say.
When someone asked how to spell "Barak," not being "up on Middle Eastern names"- I said, "the Hebrew spelling is B-A-R-A-K and the Anglicized version includes a 'c'." I declined to further elucidate that the name means "lightning" or that the Barak of biblical mention was a soldier during the reign of Deborah. No use wasting my breath.
When this person further opined they didn't know what the country had come to when people thought that a man named "Barack Hussein Obama" was the best man to lead America, I asked myself, "Does this person believe what they profess?" For months I had heard many of my Christian friends proclaim, "No matter who wins the election, God is in control!" Several of the people who stated that so firmly were avowed supporters of the Republican Party's candidate for the Office of the Presidency, John McCain. Furthermore, I believe they fully expected Sen. McCain to emerge victorious, because on more than one occasion I heard the sentiment "Even if Barack Obama wins" prefacing the "God is in control" statement.
So, since an overwhelming majority of those who went to the polls chose to put forth the Democratic Party's candidate as President-elect, was the declamation "God is in control" a profession of faith or merely a sound bite?
When this person further opined they didn't know what the country had come to when people thought that a man named "Barack Hussein Obama" was the best man to lead America, I asked myself, "Does this person believe what they profess?" For months I had heard many of my Christian friends proclaim, "No matter who wins the election, God is in control!" Several of the people who stated that so firmly were avowed supporters of the Republican Party's candidate for the Office of the Presidency, John McCain. Furthermore, I believe they fully expected Sen. McCain to emerge victorious, because on more than one occasion I heard the sentiment "Even if Barack Obama wins" prefacing the "God is in control" statement.
So, since an overwhelming majority of those who went to the polls chose to put forth the Democratic Party's candidate as President-elect, was the declamation "God is in control" a profession of faith or merely a sound bite?
The calendar which sat on my desk at work had a quasi-philosophical statement at the top of each month's page. I hadn't noticed November's until the morning of the fifth when I read: "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." That is exactly what the American people did in the 2008 election - invented the future.
I hope and pray that we are prepared to handle our invention and only time will tell what this decision bodes for the nation.
I hope and pray that we are prepared to handle our invention and only time will tell what this decision bodes for the nation.
But, just as a person rarely succeeds or fails all alone, neither does one person run the entire country unaided or unadvised. Our system of checks and balances curtails the limits of one person's power. And so it should be.
Undoubtedly, the winds of political change are blowing with a minimum of gale-force velocity - but it takes a good stiff breeze when one is trying to winnow out the chaff. I proposed, more-or-less flippantly, that perhaps it was time to consider a triumvirate. We could take the [2008] Libertarian Barr, the Democrat Obama and the Republican Palin and name the trifold entity "BOP."
It seems to me that as the size and demographics of this country have grown, shifted and evolved, it may be time to seriously contemplate moving the nation's capitol. After all, Washington, D.C. is as far removed from most people's reality as Washington State. (Probably more so.)
It is an undoubtedly radical proposition, but what if the country were divided into rough quarters? The Northwest would comprise Alaska south to Oregon, then jog over to Colorado and Utah, (can't have California in the Northwest Territory), going as far east as the Dakotas and encompassing Wyoming, Iowa and the expansive plains of the Wheat Belt.
Hawaii, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas would constitute the Southwest. From Minnesota south to Kansas, then eastward to the Atlantic seaboard and inclusive of the New England states would be Northeast, leaving the Gulf Coast states and Missouri, Georgia and the Carolinas to be the Southeast. [This is a think-piece, not a geography test; I know I did not name each state individually, but I'm sure most of you get the drift.]
Each section of the country could elect a governor, which would in effect add four more people to the chain of command and hopefully put the president in closer touch with more of the people. The nation's capitol might be headquartered in Kansas which is pretty much the midpoint of the contiguous forty-eight. Compromise is all about middle ground and shades of gray.
It is an undoubtedly radical proposition, but what if the country were divided into rough quarters? The Northwest would comprise Alaska south to Oregon, then jog over to Colorado and Utah, (can't have California in the Northwest Territory), going as far east as the Dakotas and encompassing Wyoming, Iowa and the expansive plains of the Wheat Belt.
Hawaii, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas would constitute the Southwest. From Minnesota south to Kansas, then eastward to the Atlantic seaboard and inclusive of the New England states would be Northeast, leaving the Gulf Coast states and Missouri, Georgia and the Carolinas to be the Southeast. [This is a think-piece, not a geography test; I know I did not name each state individually, but I'm sure most of you get the drift.]
Each section of the country could elect a governor, which would in effect add four more people to the chain of command and hopefully put the president in closer touch with more of the people. The nation's capitol might be headquartered in Kansas which is pretty much the midpoint of the contiguous forty-eight. Compromise is all about middle ground and shades of gray.
With regard to the election, it is way past time for the media to expand its coverage of all the candidates. The Libertarian Party has emerged as, if not "a force to be reckoned with," at least as an entity worthy of our consideration.
Considering how important the position of President is, there should be more of a choice. In reality there is more of a choice, but that is not well publicized. Robert L. Barr Jr., the 2008 Libertarian candidate appeared on many ballots. There was also a line for write-ins, but I would surmise that many Americans were not even aware of their existence, much less their names. The rest of the world at large, is more aware of the candidates and consequences than many U.S.citizens.
For the record, the other announced candidates for the Office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 election were Cynthia Ann McKinney, Charles O. Baldwin and Ralph Nader. At least a lot folks have heard of Ralph.
There is also a joke concerning why there are 50 contestants for Miss America and only two for President. [The punch line has something to do with the swimsuit contest.] As has been noted, there are more than two candidates for President. Maybe we should look into having a First Runner-up? Another option might be to not link the vice presidential candidate to the top dog. Perhaps they should appear on separate lines of the ballot? Mix-and-match might make things interesting.
I cannot understand those people who do not vote. How dare they toss aside such a hard-won privilege? Yes, it is in many ways unthinkable to ponder the sacrifices and atrocities endured to procure the right to vote. However, if we don't think about it from time to time, we are apt to forget, leaving ourselves in danger of losing this freedom.
Considering how important the position of President is, there should be more of a choice. In reality there is more of a choice, but that is not well publicized. Robert L. Barr Jr., the 2008 Libertarian candidate appeared on many ballots. There was also a line for write-ins, but I would surmise that many Americans were not even aware of their existence, much less their names. The rest of the world at large, is more aware of the candidates and consequences than many U.S.citizens.
For the record, the other announced candidates for the Office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 election were Cynthia Ann McKinney, Charles O. Baldwin and Ralph Nader. At least a lot folks have heard of Ralph.
There is also a joke concerning why there are 50 contestants for Miss America and only two for President. [The punch line has something to do with the swimsuit contest.] As has been noted, there are more than two candidates for President. Maybe we should look into having a First Runner-up? Another option might be to not link the vice presidential candidate to the top dog. Perhaps they should appear on separate lines of the ballot? Mix-and-match might make things interesting.
I cannot understand those people who do not vote. How dare they toss aside such a hard-won privilege? Yes, it is in many ways unthinkable to ponder the sacrifices and atrocities endured to procure the right to vote. However, if we don't think about it from time to time, we are apt to forget, leaving ourselves in danger of losing this freedom.
The text messages and jokes which abound may help to allay the fears, disappointments and resentments of those who send and tell them. One I heard was, "If the Founding Fathers had known it would come to this, they'd have picked their own cotton."
Maybe they would have. Would have done them good. Or, at the very least, they should have paid a living wage. People are not property.
Perhaps their short-term intent was to keep women, persons of color and those they deemed of inferior social status out of the world of politics and decision making. It seems there are those who still want to keep [some of] the rest of us "enslaved" and "in our place."
I choose to believe and fervently hope the long-range vision included what I heard as a child, "Any kid born in America can grow up to be the President."
Perhaps their short-term intent was to keep women, persons of color and those they deemed of inferior social status out of the world of politics and decision making. It seems there are those who still want to keep [some of] the rest of us "enslaved" and "in our place."
I choose to believe and fervently hope the long-range vision included what I heard as a child, "Any kid born in America can grow up to be the President."
Therefore, even if you are disappointed with the 2008 outcome, if you took the time to cast your ballot, be proud. If you are among those who decided it wasn't worth your time or effort, you should be ashamed. Please encourage all eligible persons to register to vote in upcoming elections. Apathy is the death of democracy.
As the United States approaches another election day, it is imperative its citizens do not give way to apathy.
As the United States approaches another election day, it is imperative its citizens do not give way to apathy.
When Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of stew he at least had a full belly. If you have the opportunity to vote and do not, you are selling out. And what have you got to show for the price you pay?
Joann, this is just excellent! Thank you
ReplyDelete