by Ethan Johnson
November 6, 2006
(Updated below)
No, I don't mean a third major political party (US). I'm thinking that US thinking is generally stuck in "binary" mode. You're either for or against [issue]. You either lean far left or far right. You're either religious or an athiest. You're either Christian or anti-Christian. And so on. And yes, it has taken a firm root in not only what passes for political discourse these days, but systemically as well. Thus, the faults of the Republicans can only be corrected at the hands of the Democrats, we're told. In 1994, it was the other way around. Lather, rinse, repeat. Or, as I wrote in a song back in the 1990s:
And the ones who would lead take us 'round in a circle,
and say they've got the country moving.
Then they promise you change,
but the circle remains,
it's only moving in the other direction.
Those words have come back to inform virtually every observation that I have made concerning the run-up to the mid-term election. One side (you pick it) says that if the other wins, [something] will be "destroyed". My email boxes (plural) and my physical mailbox is teeming with breathless warnings to the effect of "kiss [whatever] goodbye if [side] wins." Except [side] does win, has won, and will win again, and [whatever] persists. People still get married. People still have abortions. People still live below the poverty line. People still waste their money.
Another favorite is the impending rumor that [event] has been timed for just after the election. A good example: Donald Rumsfeld is still employed on our dime. But in 2004, rumors piled up that he was as good as gone after the election. To save time and effort, those sure-fire predictions should have been saved in a shoebox and had "2006" etched over the prior year. My expectation is that we're stuck with the vast majority of BushCo until we aren't. Other delayed events are more tangible, such as the trial of Scooter Libby in 2007. They phoned that one in the day he was indicted.
(Update 11/8/2006: Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down in the wake of the mid-term election. A) Good riddance. B) I contend that this announcement would not have been made had the election turned out differently. I'll take it, just the same. It's a start.)
I think the simple fact is, political junkies will always have this stuff to feed off of, and there will still be people in this country who either don't vote at all, or do vote, but come armed with about 3 sentences of information. They don't research the [dog poop] out of the candidates, they don't watch the debates, they don't read the newspaper endorsements, and they don't review their prior track record, regardless of their prior political experience.
Others are either indeed disenfranchised, or they feel that they are, which doesn't provide much in the way of distinction at the voting booth. And there are many ways to spread those feelings: Gerrymandering, voting booth shenanigans, duplicitous campaign activities, and really, not either a) addressing key issues, or b) not following through on heady campaign promises to "fix the mess." If the definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results, why do people get so huffy about people refusing to vote because they don't think voting matters?
I watched a PBS show featuring Kinky Friedman (Independent for TX Governor) the other day, and he had a great line in there: The other candidates have all kinds of answers on a wide range of issues, he said. But none of them have the courage to say three words: "I don't know." "Gotcha" journalism (and politics) is centered around making a candidate look foolish because he or she either had the wrong answer, or worse, no answer at all. Thinking back to my school days, I recall the teachers preferring something, anything as an answer as opposed to the cardinal sin of "I don't know." We expect leaders to know. As an aside, Friedman wore "cowboy" attire during the TV show. The other male candidates wear suits. Why? Because leaders wear suits.
Here is a thought, for all who care to consider it: Perhaps it's time that we collectively admit that not everything cries out for a political solution. Note that the idea of "faith based initiatives" sprung forth from the fact that faith-based charities work in the local communities, regardless. Thus a political aura was cast around these activities, and as might be expected, corruption of the ideal followed. It's not that being a person of faith, or being a volunteer, or being concerned about a raft of issues in one's community is a bad thing. But I ask why these activities require the aura of politics. I contend that it keeps politicians and bureaucrats employed.
So in terms of finding a "third way," my hope is that we individually, then collectively determine what it is that we stand for, and following that, plot a course for what it is that we hope to achieve. If we have principles and a plan, we can't be so easily swayed by the petty bullshit that fills every communication channel at this very moment. A favorite saying is "a person who stands for nothing will fall for anything." The current US political climate is counting on that maxim to hold true.
Finally, it's not just the act of voting that sends a message as to what you stand for and believe in. In every decision you make every day, you make a choice. You decide how much closer we're going to get to energy independence. You decide which companies engage in the best practices. You decide what sorts of behaviors and attitudes that will be viewed as acceptable, and which ones will not. I don't cotton to the claim that one vote is meaningless, or somehow wasted. And I will not be told that any given candidate has no "right" to campaign for public office. If anyone refuses to vote their conscience, or refuses to support the values, ideas, and ideals that they either find lacking or wish to reinforce, that is the real waste. Waiting around for politicians in suits to improve the world, if not our own backyards is another.
Here's to November 8, 2006. <EM>
