By Edwin Cooney
It has become traditional when facing a complex choice to look for “the root of the matter.” Next November 8th, “the root of the matter” will be your vote and mine.
As we individually prepare ourselves to cast a presidential vote this fall, I think it’s essential that we master the most difficult human skill. Specifically, I mean the capacity to separate or, if you will, discern small but significant factors when choosing candidates for public office — especially for the office of President of the United States. In order to do that, it is vital to separate what we suspect to be true versus what we know to be true whether about social or political circumstances (the cause and effect as well as the application of public policies) or assessing the abilities of political candidates to successfully perform the duties of the office to which they may be elected.
At the core of everyone’s vote is one’s individual set of values and beliefs. As I see it, what affects too many votes is our limited knowledge of the choices available to our elected officials once they are in office and our general preconceived comfort zones when it comes to those options. Too often, we are too comfortable with what we personally believe to look beyond our prejudices. Even worse, we actively form opinions that support our general suspicions. Then we justify our opinions because they are convenient to us. In other words, we function within our comfort zones preferring the convenience of opinion to the challenge of exploration and thought.
Over the next two and a half months, Americans will be deciding our national fate. Each voter will make a value judgment based on our present and will prescribe a direction for our future. Some may even decide not to vote. Their decisions will depend (on the surface at least) on what they believe about a number of issues. These issues include whether participation in a global economy will provide prosperity or whether our economic future can best be served by largely ignoring the world and re-establishing a powerful domestic industrial economy; how we are affected by our current immigration policy; whether global warming is real or merely a governmental and liberal scientific establishment hoax; whether NATO and the United Nations are now obsolete and therefore useless; whether government is a useful instrument or at the heart of all our problems; and, finally, which is more significant: that Hillary Clinton is a “lying crook” or that Donald Trump is increasingly demonstrating insufficient knowledge about vital national issues along with a tendency to make egotistical-based decisions. Frankly, the above five issues are far more important than the personal fate of either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.
An ongoing concern of mine is the quadrennial existence on the presidential ballot of third and fourth party presidential candidates. Of course, it would go against everything we believe in were we to make them illegal. That would be outrageous, of course, but I can think of only once when a third party affected an election outcome and that occurred in 2000. However, I consider Jill Stein’s and Gary Johnson’s appearance on November’s ballot to be more of a distraction than a constructive factor in the coming election. Of course, I’m more receptive to the Johnson candidacy than I am to the Stein candidacy. After all, Governor Johnson is more likely to take more votes from Mr. Trump than Dr. Stein may take from Mrs. Clinton. Still, the reality is that neither Governor Johnson nor Dr. Stein is going to be elected president. However, even if either were elected, he or she would be seriously handicapped when it comes to forming an administration. Nor is it likely that their agendas would command significant backing in a congress made up of the two traditional parties. Neither has much support in the political or in the vitally important academic or socio/industrial communities. Sure, Republicans might join a Johnson administration and Democrats are more likely to join a Stein administration, but it’s important to keep in mind that the two major parties have broader sources of prepared national leaders than any third party. Until a third party demonstrates that it can elect a president, its existence is purely negative. Third parties are often vital in parliamentary systems of government. Under our federalist system, they are pretty useless insofar as this observer is concerned.
Whether or not we choose to believe it, the person who becomes president is a reflection of who we are. Even if you decide not to vote, you have voted with your indifference. After all, indifference can be very powerful. Perhaps someone’s indifference has affected some aspect of your own personal life.
I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton this November because I particularly like her. I’m voting for her because I believe we need a progressive Supreme Court, a tolerant immigration policy, a proactive response to climate change, a flexible and practical foreign trade and diplomatic policy, and, finally, a government which is supportive rather than suspicious of you and me.
Insofar as I am aware, Dr. Stein and Governor Johnson can’t offer the above agenda because they can’t be elected. Mr. Trump won’t respond to the above prescriptions because, after all, he’s Donald Trump! There are a lot of voters who insist that third and fourth party candidacies are harmless and that they are healthy for the American body politic. I’d like to believe that, too, but then I remember those 95,000 Florida votes for Ralph Nader. Next, I think of who might not be on the Supreme Court had Al Gore been president. Then, I remember weapons of mass destruction. Next, I think of the climate change policies that might have been implemented. And then I think, I think…never mind!
“Go, Hillary!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment