The questions this morning are pretty similar; "who won last night?" or "who looked better?" or "who said the best things?". Even though we still have a full month to go until the election, people and pundits alike are trying their hardest to see into the future by analyzing the absolute pants off this first debate. Of course both sides have fair points to make as to who spoke it best, but both the Obama and Romney camps are probably wondering how it is that neither of their candidates were able to seem more presidential than the other on the stage last night.
Instead, it became increasingly apparent that neither man is more "presidential" than the other, just that they are both equally presidential in the most different ways possible. It is because of this phenomenon that neither President Obama nor Governor Romney were able to fully declare victory last night, and will most likely gain little from the next debates by trying to fight over the issues.
This has now become a contest as to what sort of president America wants, not which president America wants. The distinction is best explained like this; both candidates want to get America back to work again, both want to raise exports, both want to keep it safe, and both want to do all of this while managing to make as few people angry at them. The differences in policy aren't even terribly different, all that really changes between the two candidates is the amount of funding each would give to those individual causes which they both share.
So how exactly are voters supposed to decide between two candidates who instead of fighting it out for the same seat should ideally be hammering away at their differences in order to produce an amazing end-product? The answer is to drastically differ in what mentality and what attitude is to be wanted in the White House by voters this November. The debate last night made it clear that the choice is between a professorial, calm-minded, pedantic approach and a fire-and-brimstone, hold no prisoners, aggressive approach. I'll leave you to figure out who is who here.
Is this a bad thing, that an election comes down to a matter of character rather than policy? In my view it doesn't hurt one bit. The answer lies in campaign lies. Politicians are known to make a lot of campaign promises on their way to election day, but in the end almost no-one is able to come back with a fully promised record of legislation/action by the time the term is up. While there are of course some politicians who will absolutely lie to get elected as anyone is ready to lie to move up in life, I am of the suspicion that many promises are made with theoretical judgments of the office rather than hands on experience of what it entails.
That being said, once somebody is in office, it becomes a lot easier to see why some campaign promises which a candidate may very well have believed in whole-heartedly get swiped aside if there is truly no way of making that campaign promise a reality. There may be information new information that the to-be-elected does not have prior to running for a position that could either make the achievement harder than expected or could potentially change the opinion of the elected official once they are in office.
With that in mind, policy can take a backseat to character if we understand that promises made before the election should not be taken as literally as a perfect democracy would have you take them, but rather have them be indicators of the sort of character that a president or any elected official at any level would theoretically have whilst in office.
What does this all mean given last night's debate? It means simply that President Obama will continue to be a sedated yet pensive personality as commander in chief which makes his choice an educated and safe one given the crises that America faces today. On the other hand, Governor Romney is proposing to take a much more high-risk high-stakes approach which, to his credit, could work to turn the economy around faster than you can blink if it doesn't careen it off the edge completely.
The election then has come down to this; everyone wants progress and recovery, yet the real difference lies in how impatient people really are to see it through and how much they are willing to risk in order to have a sense of prosperity and security again. It's as if casting a ballot has become a game of roulette where you can either spread the chips around to try to minimize the loss or put everything on red. Hopefully, this is a game of roulette where the house doesn't always win.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
Instead, it became increasingly apparent that neither man is more "presidential" than the other, just that they are both equally presidential in the most different ways possible. It is because of this phenomenon that neither President Obama nor Governor Romney were able to fully declare victory last night, and will most likely gain little from the next debates by trying to fight over the issues.
This has now become a contest as to what sort of president America wants, not which president America wants. The distinction is best explained like this; both candidates want to get America back to work again, both want to raise exports, both want to keep it safe, and both want to do all of this while managing to make as few people angry at them. The differences in policy aren't even terribly different, all that really changes between the two candidates is the amount of funding each would give to those individual causes which they both share.
So how exactly are voters supposed to decide between two candidates who instead of fighting it out for the same seat should ideally be hammering away at their differences in order to produce an amazing end-product? The answer is to drastically differ in what mentality and what attitude is to be wanted in the White House by voters this November. The debate last night made it clear that the choice is between a professorial, calm-minded, pedantic approach and a fire-and-brimstone, hold no prisoners, aggressive approach. I'll leave you to figure out who is who here.
Is this a bad thing, that an election comes down to a matter of character rather than policy? In my view it doesn't hurt one bit. The answer lies in campaign lies. Politicians are known to make a lot of campaign promises on their way to election day, but in the end almost no-one is able to come back with a fully promised record of legislation/action by the time the term is up. While there are of course some politicians who will absolutely lie to get elected as anyone is ready to lie to move up in life, I am of the suspicion that many promises are made with theoretical judgments of the office rather than hands on experience of what it entails.
That being said, once somebody is in office, it becomes a lot easier to see why some campaign promises which a candidate may very well have believed in whole-heartedly get swiped aside if there is truly no way of making that campaign promise a reality. There may be information new information that the to-be-elected does not have prior to running for a position that could either make the achievement harder than expected or could potentially change the opinion of the elected official once they are in office.
With that in mind, policy can take a backseat to character if we understand that promises made before the election should not be taken as literally as a perfect democracy would have you take them, but rather have them be indicators of the sort of character that a president or any elected official at any level would theoretically have whilst in office.
What does this all mean given last night's debate? It means simply that President Obama will continue to be a sedated yet pensive personality as commander in chief which makes his choice an educated and safe one given the crises that America faces today. On the other hand, Governor Romney is proposing to take a much more high-risk high-stakes approach which, to his credit, could work to turn the economy around faster than you can blink if it doesn't careen it off the edge completely.
The election then has come down to this; everyone wants progress and recovery, yet the real difference lies in how impatient people really are to see it through and how much they are willing to risk in order to have a sense of prosperity and security again. It's as if casting a ballot has become a game of roulette where you can either spread the chips around to try to minimize the loss or put everything on red. Hopefully, this is a game of roulette where the house doesn't always win.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
RSS Feed
Or join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.
No comments:
Post a Comment