Editor's note: Hi everyone. This is something I've been working on off and on for weeks. Since being back at my old job is as time consuming as ever, I thought I'd just put this up to have something new published.
When politicians speak, who are they talking to? Are they talking to other politicians of their own party? Are they talking to the voting members of their party? Could they be talking to undecided voters? Perhaps, but what's their true motive? Are they talking to those who've funded their campaigns, which is most likely?
Even when someone says all the right things to us true independents or swing voters, can we trust their motives? Are they just using buzz words like reform simply because they know that's what we want to hear? Even if they propose or vote for things we want, such as reform, can we trust that it's not based on political expediency, thus political survival?
How do we tell the difference? I propose one way to tell the difference is for the American voting public to stop having such a short memory. When politicians tell you they stand for something, we need to remember what they stood for, when and why. We need to be willing to research voting records and quotes in newspapers when those issues arise again. We need to ignore what members of their party tell us is that person's motivation, their position. We need to base our opinion of their motives and their positions on their actions and nothing else.
We most certainly need to drop our mental magnets that make us blindly nod our heads in agreement because the person making the statement or opinion is a member of the party we're aligned with. If that politician says something, evaluate it case by case. If you agree with that person 90% of the time, that's fine if you call them on the other 10% and if there's a true basis for agreeing with them the other 90.
I feel being an independent, which helps me keep my mind open to all views, has served me well in ensuring I have a basis for supporting a particular politician; and I've voted for nearly as many Republicans as Democrats and a fair number of indies through the years. I was raised that way and come from the only state, Maine, that has elected two independent governors through the years.
I would really appreciate the thoughts of others on both sides and the middle on this one, or I'll be forced to write a blog I've been thinking about doing related to why people rarely comment on blogs.
If you're interested in a life and work update, please check out All Things Zebster. I appreciate your support.
politicians independents voters Democrats Republicans reform politics
4 comments:
I've thought about that myself. Here in California, I have an incumbent governor who is backtracking from his original comments on the Minutemen and Proposition 187. Did he have a change of heart? Or is this a ploy to lure the Latino vote? I'm not sure and I need to investigate this further.
Here in North Dakota, there isn't any major independents. It's either REPUBLICANS or Democrats. The Governor was caught trying to influence the State Board of Higher Education, but no one is asking the tough questions of him. Oh well, it's politics as usual here.
It is discouraging when the very politicians who were asleep at the switch on any issue over the years suddenly start histrionic fingerpointing at others to blame for the crisis du jour. But the power of incumbency is such that the opposing party rarely puts up a credible candidate, and the thought of an independent making headway is usually even less likely.
Great comments, guys. I think we're all on the same page and I'm hopeful many, many more will join us this fall and make some changes happen.
Post a Comment