Editorial: Both presidential nominees are not running yet

For a minute, let's take a much-needed intermission from the specificity of the daily political grind and just zoom out a little.  Think about the era we now live in.  American Idol, Survivor, Dancing with the Stars -- all of those television shows are popular because average Joe's like ourselves get to choose the outcome of something big.   More than ever, we are a society obsessed with personalizing everything that is relevant in our lives.  We like choice.  Just the thought of inevitability bores us.

If this societal trend continues down its present course, then the desire to personalize our world will definitely play a role in shaping the 2008 presidential race.  In other words, why just 'vote' for your favorite candidate when you can 'create' your favorite candidate? 

It is quite possible that all of the candidates currently running have already lost.  None of them -- with the exception of maybe Barack Obama -- was drafted to run.  These egotistical presidential hopefuls anointed themselves.  Not only that, but in deciding to run, they pretty much concluded that they were more qualified than 300,000,000 other Americans to hold the highest office.  Doesn't that come across as condescending?  It would not be surprising if the eventual Republican and Democratic nominees were individuals that, as of this date, have yet to announce their intentions to run.

A few years back, many people despised politicians because of their connections to wealth. Today, we despise politicians because so many of them lack both humility and authenticity.  By lacking authenticity, it looks as if they have something to hide.  Voters would probably respect someone for having reservationsabout running.  Translation: if you think that you are the best, you probably are not.

Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson are still mulling over the possibility of running, but have expressed some doubt.  If by September the voting blocks in either party are bored with the candidates that already anointed themselves months earlier, then these candidates could be drafted into the race.  In the general election, if it was Al Gore vs Fred Thompson or Al Gore vs Newt Gingrich, 2008 would be the most pro-populist presidential contest in history.  It would also be yet another reminder of the time we now live in.

Comments

[Tony]

"A few years back, many people despised politicians because of their connections to wealth. Today, we despise politicians because so many of them lack both humility and authenticity."

Not too long ago I spoke of something similar to this statement to a friend. When politicians are campaigning, then run around shaking hands, kissing babies, kissing ass and whatever else they can kiss to help them get elected. Once elected it seems as if they (most anyway) forget the "campaign trail" in a New York second. They often become pompous (not to mention corrupt)  with a newly found Kingdom to reign over . It also seems that the few good ones don't get the attention they deserve...perhaps this is because they are working on issues for the people that voted them in, rather than grandstanding for some self promoting, personal gain  "campaign". I think we should start calling them on the carpet and holding them responsible.

[granny]

I love this editorial because I think it’s headed in the right direction, but I think there is a lot more going on with people than these characterizations imply ~
For me anyway, it oversimplifies the place we find ourselves.

“More than ever, we are a society obsessed with personalizing everything that is relevant in our lives. We like choice. Just the thought of inevitability bores us”

I think we are a society, that has been so homogenized, and has slipped so deeply into an entirely predictable routine of “life as an American”, that we have lost the both concept and the know-how to do things differently. And, I don’t believe that is solely an accident of fate, or a simple result of people being too indifferent and self absorbed.

We are surrounded by “choices”, but they are all the same. The restaurants have new and different marquees, but the food is all the same. The grocery stores, the auto sales lots, the clothing stores: all the same. The pseudo “villages” where we shop, the houses constructed for us: identical; the lots, the rooms inside, the facades…entirely without difference. We are "told" we have choices, but in reality, we have none.

Schooling: the same. You cannot have an innovative curriculum in your classroom, by local or national government edict. You can’t teach classics, because there are “prescribed books” to be used. You can’t teach history, because history contains unpleasant truths. You can’t hold back students, who need continued help at a certain grade level, because that would be “singling them out”, and you would be sued for discrimination. You cannot, in fact, “discriminate” (defined as: to use good judgment) in your choices between qualified applicants for a teaching job, and those unqualified, because you might be “discriminating” (which, in spite of its historical and valid use in the English language has been turned into an abusive, disparaging word).

I wonder, if you were to ask, how many people would say unequivocally, that to discriminate is against the law? A “yes” answer will be because an enormous percentage of our youngsters are systematically and specifically NOT TAUGHT how to use and or understand our own language. Madison Avenue teaches language now-a-days: the homogenized, pablum, of language, that will keep everyone “on the right track” … That is the right track to be a malleable and un-troublesome society. By and large it has worked.

But I believe, that inherently, we “know” and have a deep and galling sense, that we have been turned to sheep; and,within the framework, try to find ways to exercise independence. But the framework is the problem. Because “outside the box” is where “FEAR” lurks. We are very carefully told “not to go there”.

“A few years back, many people despised politicians because of their connections to wealth. Today, we despise politicians because so many of them lack both humility and authenticity.”

These two concepts, by and large, go hand in hand, in my opinion: to be rich, and lack humility and authenticity. (and, of course I am NOT saying all rich people are without humility and authenticity, just as I am not saying that all people without humility and authenticity are rich – that is precisely the misguided thought process that our “pundits” and shouting heads are trying to get us to believe.)

In more recent times, however, we’ve been persuaded - by Madison Ave. and politicians, and failure of our education system, and our own conditioning, to receive “truth” and “information” through media and advertising - that to run for the office of the President of the United States you HAVE to be a rich person. Having accepted that, we’ve turned our focus to humility and lack of authenticity. What has happened is, that Madison Ave, and the spin-meisters, have not really been able to manufacture an appearance of authenticity and humility that will stick in the public mind. Their candidate is elected, and then, over time, however slowly, we see the real thing…

Too slowly? Time will tell.

“By lacking authenticity, it looks as if they have something to hide.”

And, in fact, that is largely the truth. What they have to hide is that they are not what they appear.

So, I believe what we have here is people who would like to be authentic themselves, in their lives, and in their choices; would like to nominate their own candidates, and elect their own leaders. But out of any number of misguided steps along the way, are caught in a web, of their own doing, as well as that of others, yet still, sense it is condescending, discrediting, and not in their best interests.

In our present culture the desire for genuine choices is being held hostage by the "teachings" of fear.

I think among the biggest hurdles we have to leap, as a country, are the education of our population, the way we conduct the election of our President, and Congressional representatives, and the way in which we allow / support the conduct of our airways (TV) by private interests.

And a thought about Tony’s comment:
How do we hold them accountable?

How are we to imagine insisting on accountability for our leaders when we see, under the clear and brilliant light of present circumstances, that we cannot even get our “representatives” to put a stop to a burgeoning dictatorship – much less vote the honest and direct will of the people versus personal interest.

Just as the road to fascism is long and carefully done, so will our recovery have to be. Boston College professor, Alan Wolf, reminds us:

“…large majorities behind any new laws, … means a willingness to compromise and a commitment to moving step-by-step.”

And, … “Ultimately, it all comes down to the American people. If they do not value democracy, they will lose it.”

We cannot be afraid of hardship. That will come, either way. If we do the work preserving our freedom, then we are working for ourselves, and a free world.