This isn't a post about food, though what is contained within could be considered food for thought.
There are realistically three approaches to voting that citizens employ when going to the ballot box:
1.) Vote the party line
2.) Vote for the best candidate
3.) Vote for the candidate most like them
These approaches are, of course, broad generalizations, but let's just be honest - American voters, taken as a whole, aren't sophisticated, smart, or offered enough options to make nuanced choices. Our two-party system, designed to provide voters with two clear and concise paths forward (or backward, as it were), limits the ability of voters to nominate and elect candidates who are truly able to govern in their own best interests.
The irony of this two-party system is that voters have said time and again that they are "tired of politics as usual," but have repeatedly voted in ways that suggest otherwise. We are often caught in the morass of saying we want options when it comes to candidates, but when those candidates step too far outside of the mainstream we pillory them.
The reality of the situation in American politics is much simpler than we pretend it to be: we don't have a choice.
We don't have a good choice of candidates because the "base" wants a certain kind of candidate; we don't have a good choice of candidates because money is the way you play the game; we don't have a good choice of candidates because Americans are stupid and fly like moths to the brightest political flame until they catch fire and drop.
Those entrenched in our two-party system consistently put forth the "best candidate" because that's the way the game is played; any suggestion that we need to move to a multi-party system of government is met with arguments that this would only further encumber our political process, leading to total inaction in Washington.
I'm not sure what game they're watching, but I can't imagine it being much worse than it's been for the past two years.
Americans are stupid, and the proof of this lies in the fact that politicians know they can get away with just about anything, so long as they properly frame an issue.
Framing Theory aside, Americans are provided with these options because they are the easiest to explain. We want things homogenized, with clearly defined lines, and we want candidates who fall neatly into categories with which we can easily identify. It is not often, however, that we are ever happy when we get what we say we want. Nothing is ever that simple, and admitting this is hard for Americans to do.
The "Republican Base" wants a candidate who is both a fiscal and social conservative, strong on "the issues," strong on defense, pro-Israel, isolationist, and a strong supporter of traditional Christian values.
The "Democratic Base" wants a candidate who is both a fiscal and social progressive, strong on "the issues," strong on social welfare, pro-Israel, willing to right the world's wrongs, and a strong supporter of freedom and justice for all.
We all want things we can't have in one neat package. We will never get candidates like these, because if we had candidates like these descriptions, they would be crazy.
And if I'm entirely honest, I have played this game, myself. I want someone who agrees with me on all the issues - I want a pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, defense-cutting, pro-universal healthcare candidate. I will never get one.
I will never be able to find a candidate who will actively support every cause I support, because it is not realistically possible. The sooner other voters come to this conclusion during the vetting process, the better. Only then are we able to vote for the candidate that best represents the majority of our beliefs.
And even then, we get into problems, because not everyone will be happy with the candidate we get.
Perhaps the biggest issue that voters regardless of their nation face is that people tend to vote for those with whom they most closely identify. Once people find a candidate who shows promise for fighting for their priorities as citizens, they tend to vote for that person regardless of his or her positions on other issues.
Take, for example, the LGBT community that overwhelming votes for Democratic candidates because we believe we have made the most advancements in terms of civil rights under Democratic representation. I have personally taken part in this approach, though generally the GOP candidates in areas where I have voted have actually stated their opposition to my civil rights advances.
But, is this the best path forward for everyone? If everyone is a single-issue voter, will that really serve us best in the long run, or will we continue to witness the decline of our nation's primacy in the global community?
I have many friends who are members of the LGBT community and who vote Republican, and do so because of economic reasons; I, of course, disagree with the Republican platform and theories of economics, steadfastly believing that the proof of the pudding has been in the eating - that we are currently reaping the rewards of Republican economic stewardship, and frankly, they're not that fuckin' great.
But, I understand their positions, however much I may disagree with them. Truth be told, were I to find a Republican candidate who was strong on civil rights (not only LGBT rights), realistic about defense spending, and dedicated to repealing GOP-authored legislation that literally encroaches upon our freedoms and liberties (private or public), I would gladly vote for him.
And then, we're met with the reality that we much each vote in our own best interests, which means that we wind up with fewer choices, and those choices are rarely good ones. Without a multi-party electoral system to support candidates with a variety of views, we are increasingly likely to get highly partisan politicians and candidates for office who won't serves our nation's best interests.
This is the cruel joke of the American political system - we cannot offer a real choice, because we refuse to accept multiple solutions. We are stupid, as a nation, and prefer our answers to be in black & white; either/or. Shades of grey are never acceptable to Americans, and for this reason we will never be a truly progressive nation, despite overwhelming evidence that younger voters are increasingly uninspired by our current system of politics and feel we need to change our system.
Until then, we will continue to jam our heads up our own asses, insisting upon our self-ascribed American Exceptionalism, and complain about how divided we have become.
No comments:
Post a Comment