Who Will You Vote For?

Today I pondered the relationship between pandering and demagoguery and how they relate to our society at large. It appears all politicians, well, not all, but the vast majority, spew demagoguery. I presume it a sine qua non in order to get elected, but the true preponderance is how do you tell the good leaders from the bad.

It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle you stand, as I have come to realize it doesn’t matter. What I believe to be true applies to all. A good example of this would be Hillary. As soon as she, her advisors, or the polls, brought to light what her constituency clamored for, she responded in kind. If it’s health care reform, she was there. If it’s tax relief for the poor or middle class, give all families a $5000 per child tax credit. How about Mitt Romney’s display in the Michigan primary? In Iowa he promulgated family values and when he moved to Michigan his rhetoric, with much celerity, switched to the revitalization of the extinguished auto industry. That’s what the people of Michigan wanted to hear. It was akin to what the Evangelical Christians wanted to hear in Iowa, rhetoric regarding family values.

If one were paying attention in the Michigan primary they would have noticed John McCain maintained the same ol’ rhetoric; defend the border and war on terror. It didn’t work. It wasn’t what the people of Michigan wanted to hear and Mr. McCain lacked the insight to put forth the appropriate demagoguery for that particular venue. After witnessing Romney’s performance he got the cognition and changed his rhetoric, but it was a day late and a dollar short. Hence, Mitt Romney won the primary in Michigan.

It’s like Al Gore going around espousing “go green” and being one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels. Or Hillary promoting raising taxes on the rich to give to the poor. How about Ron Paul or Huckabee wanting to abolish the IRS. Do you think there aren’t people listening to that rhetoric? The demagoguery doesn’t fall on deaf ears, at least not for some. My point is, all politicians say what a constituency wants to hear. They’re good at it.

The examples could go on infinitely, but thusly, herein lies my point. The actions of the individual candidates, the pandering, is what makes the difference between getting elected and falling by the wayside. It’s what the uneducated and ill-informed bite on.

You also have the issues the political pundits hyperbolize. The war, terrorism, global economics and yes, even the housing debacle have played key rolls in their demagoguery. Let me put this forth. We have been told that it’s inevitable another attack will come and it only takes one time for the enemy to be successful. Then tell me, why hasn’t there been an occurrence in the homeland since 9/11? Yes, it could be our intelligence agencies are superior and our government phenomenal, but do you suppose there could also be a little hyperbole in order to enforce the Bush Administration’s demagoguery? To me, it appears to be politics at it’s finest.

There is also another point of view. Those who are being pandered to, conned, deceived, whatever you want to call it, have no idea it’s happening. Again, the unlettered, the uninformed, the ill-advised, those who can’t formulate an opinion on their own, have to be led by someone. The question is - who? How does one determine which politician is sincere and wants to help and which is delving into true demagoguery and promulgating their own dogma? Which is doing the people’s bidding and which is working within the confines of their own agenda? After all, aren’t public servants suppose to represent the people’s wishes? And doesn’t everyone, politician or not, have their own desires? If so, how do you determine if you are being manipulated or succumbing to their con?

The illiterate, the uneducated, those of 100 IQ or less shouldn’t be allowed to vote. An astounding statement I know, but you have to consider where these people get their concepts and how they formulate their opinions. I know many people, and remember I’m a proletarian myself, that iterate what they hear from the media, talk shows, or politicians. The republicans listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly and the democrats adhere to the blather of Bill Maher, Al Gore, Whoopi Goldberg and yes, even the nut job, Rosie O’Donnell. If what these folks hear aligns with the problems that confront them, or appear to handle the things that make their lives difficult, that is the only sooth they hear. It doesn’t matter the long term effects, the adversity, the immorality or the consequences. All that matters to the individual is how and what affects him or her. If the issue the demagogue is talking about is what the individual wants to hear, then that politician becomes his protagonist. Seldom does one consider the greatest good for the greatest number of those involved.

I say, the Iowa Evangelicals who want superlative values, the Michiganians that desire the resurrection of a dying industry, the ultra-liberal Californians who covet laissez-faire, who in themselves are anarchists that have driven a munificent state government to the brink of bankruptcy, or any other select group or state that advocates their own agenda and encompasses a constituency that petitions the state to live a particular lifestyle, should do so at their own expense. These are issues far beyond the purview of federal government and should be encompassed by the states that espouse such ambitions.

San Francisco is a classic example. The government of that city, and the district alike, embraces and endorses what the constituency of that city desires. As it should. The liberal voters have had their say and have put a person in office that supports gay marriage, anti-military, anti-conservativism and does nothing to promulgate or promote family values. The esoteric dogmas of the constituents in this particular enclave have dictated how life exists in that city. By all means, they should have the right to do so, however, it shouldn’t be the responsibility of the federal government to support or provide for that community. No different than how it should not impart, depict or administrate how that city should evolve as a society. Social and moral issues are not, I repeat, are not the duty of the federal government to enforce.

What I have put forth so far does nothing but present an enigma as to who to vote for. Again, how does one determine who that should be? All I can say is that I vote for the candidate who presents himself, or herself, as the one who is truly concerned with the values and future existence of our culture and society. And how do I do this? No different than any good CEO would do. I base my judgment on statistics, not demagoguery. How does a candidate live his life? Is he moral? Does he show concern for others? Does he take into account what and how his decisions makes on the majority? Is he educated? What are his credentials? All of these things and more are important considerations, but definitely not what comes out of their mouths at election time.

Let me give you a different example. When President Bush first went into Iraq I thought it an unequivocal mistake. But once we were in I could see how devastating it would be to leave. And herein lies what I am referring to. If the vast majority, to my understanding some 70% of the population, wanted out and believed it detrimental to our survival, the President should have come up with a solution to remedy the problem. He should have resolved it in a timely manner. After all, isn’t the President suppose to do the bidding of the majority? That and protecting us are his primary duties. Regardless his rhetoric or what he promulgates, his duty is to protect and conform to America’s wishes. Not to propel his own agenda or embrace and support another country to America’s detriment.

I could go on endlessly with example after example, on both sides of the aisle. Suffice it to say, everyone should vote and support their beliefs, but for the long term survival and concern for mankind one should consider what would be the greatest good for all, the majority of the population. Look deep into the character of the politician, not just the rhetoric and demagoguery you hear. How do you make your choice? What premise do you use? Think long and hard, the term of the Senate and House is upon us.