Hey gang. Trian Koutoufaris here with another guest blog.
Well, I finally saw Farenheit 9/11 on Showtime a few nights ago. I really liked the movie. I didn't agree with all of the "big one's" points, but enjoyed the film just the same. The movie made one thing clear to me. The two-party system needs to come to an end.
Take a trip with me back in time. 2005... 2004... 2003... oops... back up... 2004. The Presidental election. The debates. Oh, the debates. Has there ever been more of a reason NOT to send your kids to a school like Princeton or Harvard? None of the presidental/vice-presidental candidates knew how to answer a question, much less debate. Here's an excerpt from one of the presidental debates:
Question: "Senator Kerry, what is your stance on partial birth abortion?"
Kerry: "Well, that's an easy question. blah blah blah ...million dollar baby is a great movie....blah blah...blah..and to answer your question, Yes, I respect women very much!"
Question: "President Bush, what will you do about pay increases for our men and women serving our country overseas?"
Bush: "Well..uhh...heh....oh!..my opponent wants cut wages AND TAKE AWAY MEDICINE FROM SENIORS!"
If this wasn't bad enough, the vice-presidental debate was much, much worse. I forget who Kerry's running mate was and don't really feel like looking it up. So for our purposes, we'll call him Peter Pickle. Yeah, Peter Pickle is cool....
Peter Pickle: "..and that's why I think you are wrong."
Chenney: "well, you were only at 12 out of 36 meetings on that bill"
Peter Pickle: "well, you were.. "
Chenney: "and if you were at those meeting you would know that I'm a huge supporter of.."
Peter Pickle: "I was at those meetings."
Chenney: "no you weren't"
Peter Pickle: "yes, i was"
Chenney: "nuh-uh"
Peter Pickle: "uh-huh"
Chenney: "nuh-uh"
Peter Pickle: "Shut up! you're daughter's a lesbian"
Chenney: "..."
Peter Pickle: "yeah, i thought so!"
Now, I'll admit. The preceding was a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. Sad, I know. If this is the best our country has to offer then what can we do? Fret not, for I have a solution (well, two):
First, vote third party. That's right. Instead of voting for the one person you hate the least, try and find someone you like. There are hundreds of candidates out there that don't make the ballets, but they just may be the type of person you would support in a heartbeat. Hell, there's even a candidate for the communist party, if you are so inclined. Now, there are those who would call this "wasting your vote". But what is the true "vote wasting"? Choosing someone less popular who represents the ideals you believe in, or choosing someone popular who will do whatever the party tells him (or her) to do. You must choose wisely.
Second, reality television. Imagine if you will on NBC, "America's Next Presidential Candidate hosted by Geena Davis". 10 contestants are given tests and trials to overcome, over the course of the season. And the winner? A presidential contender backed by a network. Now, I'll admit, someone backed by a television network may not be better than someone backed by the big parties, but it sure would give 'em a good scare and it would give us damn good television.
This train of thought is a work in progress, so I'm taking suggestions. How can we get a great American in the President's seat? A man who isn't a puppet to his party! Your country needs you!
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
THE PARTY TO END ALL PARTIES
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Actually, Kerry answered that question and was mocked for his "flip-flopping": He is against partial birth abortion but will not ban it unless there is an exception for the life of the mother. He said that pretty clearly.
Also, Senator John Edwards was Kerry's running mate.
I agree that the primaries do not always yield the perfect canidates. However, I disagree with the idea that you should refuse to vote for someone unless they agree with EVERY policy position you have. We'd have elections with multiple candidates in an attempt to represent everyone, and the one that won might have 20% of the vote. Is that a better solution? I'm not sure it is.
Lots of Democrats and Republicans believe in the same things...its why they all congregate in groups. That doesn't make them a slave to the party, just someone who has things in common with other Democrats or Republicans.
So:
Yes, if a third party encapsulates everything you believe in, of course you should vote for them. However, if a major party canidate agrees with 80% of what you believe in, you should vote for him (or her!)
If a person listens to the debates, reads the candidates profiles available online, and reads a parties platform, they know where a person stands. They may make things dry or uninteresting, but the answers are out there. So, in the words of Jed Bartlet, are we failing them or are they failing us? Its a little of both.
No, you shouldn't wait for the perfect candidate to appear before you vote, because like women say about men, "They don't exist". Still, most people settle with one of the two candidates that are pushed in front of them, and that is a shame. Of course, I'm speaking as a complete hypocrate as I do the same thing (I don't plan to in the future).
People are jaded. They take corruption and selfishness in a politician for granted. "That's just how it is". And that idea may be a huge error on the people's part. If that's the case, there may never be a politician, no matter how good, who can live up to being the "savior of politics". I recall when Star Wars Episode I came out and many of the movie sites tore the film down. George Lucas replied that nothing could have lived up to the hype. Maybe nothing can live up to what people think a politician should be. But we can do better....
Granted, Bush is an idiot and a poor President. But surely they all haven't been that way. I agree that nothing can live up to what people expect: in this day and age, the media will find out anything about your past, and any mistake you've made lowers your standing in the eyes of the public. I think the solution lies in the primary process. We need to nominate people who are good men.
Come to think of it, wasn't Kerry a good man? He volunteered for a war most politicians wanted no part of. He was "swiftboated" by liars; once you take their lies out of the equation, he's a decorated war hero. He returned home and followed his conscience by protesting a war he had come to disagree with. He testified before Congress about what he felt was the truth about the war. Those all seem like good qualities to me. I'm not certain, but I don't think there were any accusations of ethical violations in his past. What was it that made him a poor nominee? Perhaps, as you say, the fact that people are jaded, and simply think the worst of people who enter politics.
Another problem is that the Democrat/Republican Organizations have amassed so much histoy and baggage as bitter rivals, that working together just doesnt seem possible between the parties. In every debate you at some point hear about a Democrat Senate constantly overturning a Republican President's agenda and vice versa. Maybe getting a new candidate from a new party, might lessen the problems that arise from Republican/Democrat prejudices.
Kerry is a "business as usual" politician, just like anyone else that has run in recent elections, saying what you'd expect them say, Watching words and basing descisions on polls and too many advisors. Yeah, I'm a bit jaded.
Best line from the last presidential debate:
"Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country. "
Post a Comment