Election season is here again, and it's revving into high gear as expected. With a little more than 30 days away from the general election, many of us have already decided who will get our vote for president, as well as having decided on candidates for a number of down ballot raises. What has become quite predictable though about American politics, especially presidential politics, is what can best be described as 'Hyper-active Branding' by the opposing parties in an effort to nudge the electorate in the direction of their candidate.
The creation of slick marketing in the form of T.V. and print adds, and a number of public 'stump' appearances are synchronized like a finely tuned machine, with aggressive fund raising as the linchpin that dictates the level of success for the campaigns. The barrage of solicitations in the form of emails, phone calls, text messages, and physical mail that follow can be mind boggling. The customary 12 to 14 month head start on campaigning is sort of like the ceremonious tapping of the gloves just before two heavyweight fighters get ready to do battle in the ring; except in this case the gloves seem to come off completely, and it can sometimes be described as a bare-knuckled 'knock down drag out' when the dust settles.
Ordinarily, each candidate would have had sufficient opportunity to introduce their agendas with specific policy initiatives they feel are best suited for the country, but preceded, usually, by thoughtful discourse and healthy civil debate over policy differences. As registered voters we should demand no less from our candidates, regardless of party. What has typically been described as 'mud-slinging' toward the opposition historically could be treated simply as a minor indiscretion about an opponent's character, or not so subtle differences in policy; certainly nothing that would rise to the level of being criminal in nature or a habitual character flaw that keeps re-emerging, placing that candidate in such a negative light that it won't pass the 'smell test'.
Disclosure With A Twist
Most reasonable persons can probably say with some degree of certainty, that for this particular season we've been given a different animal to grapple with. The unfortunate thing is that this climate of hostility we're experiencing has been fomenting since the 45th president became his party's nominee in 2016. Mind you, this is not an affirmation of 'sainthood' on policies by 'the left'. There are several policies supported by 'the left' that I don't necessarily agree with but that being said, what's really unfortunate and downright dangerous is what has become the acceptance of the 'dumbing down' of standards thought to be germane to the administration of the country's affairs. It is, and always has been, understood that prospective candidates who choose to boast about their intent to openly violate the tenants of the constitution for whom they must swear an oath to uphold need not apply.
Now that we're almost a quarter of the way though the 21st century, new rules seem to have flooded the landscape. The individual integrity by many politicians, particularly on 'the right', has morphed into a monolithic sludge of misinformation and deceit that forsakes the oath they swore to uphold in favor of loyalty to a self-proclaimed autocrat. The powers-that-be seemed to have all but eliminated the requirement that someone with aspirations to become the leader of the free world needs to at least spend time educating themselves about the responsibility of the executive branch as well as a more nuanced understanding of the relationship with the other two branches; which includes everything that might call for actually crafting legislation that serves the economy, foreign policy, defense, criminal justice, immigration, and a host of other; as opposed to just having 'an idea' about a plan. At least the framework of a strategy to address an issue is also something we've come to expect of a candidate.
Instead we have a case of 'Deja vu' when describing the former president's conduct even when he occupied the white house for four years. Spending countless hours on Twitter, to lambaste who he perceives as mortal enemies during the wee hours of the morning simply because those persons may not share his point of view, does nothing to distinguish him as leader of the free world. The most troubling aspect of what has transpired since the former president first floated the idea of a presidential run in 2011, is how his transgressions seemed to have been waived off as 'privileged indiscretion'; not only by die-hard supporters, but a chorus of legislative hawks on 'the right' whose real loyalty is doubtful at best.
Instead, he has re-emerged as the candidate for the 'political right' but whose own allegiance to the party is anything but rock-solid. His vitriol about the 'deep state' of 'the left', an attempted coup in January of 2021, and still to this day maintains the election in 2020 was stolen, has all but tripled-down with baseless attacks. If he has succeeded at anything, it would be the 'art of misdirection', and the way his supporters, as well as those still on the fence have been contaminated with the onslaught of 'alternative truth' as opposed to verified facts, and 'false equivalency' (aka SPIN), concerning issues whose outcomes would otherwise reflect a reasonable outlook and thoughtful behavior by most of us.
Political Junk-Food Junkies Beware
Trying to determine the cause of some people's total disregard, and in some cases disdain, for solid moral and ethical standards is troubling given the amount of evidence that disproves positions held by conspiracy theorists and the like.
The maligning of someone's character or an idea , in their view, is often upheld as legitimate when just the opposite about that person or idea is proven through full disclosure. It becomes clear then that it only stokes the fears of those who would prefer to believe a lie because it is consistent with their belief that 'those other people' (whoever fits that narrative) are the real existential threat to democracy, and the suppressing of those people's freedoms translates into the assurance of their own.
For those who may be stuck in the muck with conspiracy theorists, I can only say that they should strongly consider 'altering their diet' to eliminate the political junk-food they've been fed so far. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and whatever gets dismissed as legitimate non-partisan attempts to try and address the country's ills, or worse, the active pursuit of an aggressive stance to halt real progress designed to benefit the entire country, may unwittingly create economic and relational hardships for themselves in the process. In the book of Proverbs (King James Bible) King Solomon says, he that justifies actions of the unjust as well as he that condemns the poor are both abominations in God's eyes...
There are several 'teachable revelations' imbedded in the race to the white house that voters should pay close attention to; undecided voters in particular:
(1) The Tape Don't Lie -- If there is video and audio evidence of a candidate who has aspirations to become president associating with persons of questionable character, or who may be predisposed to engage in criminal behavior that spans decades, and he doesn't see or seem to care how his conduct might be viewed by the public, any other candidate would have proven to be, and even declared by 'the right' to be unfit to serve as president of the United States because of that behavior alone.
(2) Loose Lips Sinks Ships -- If a candidate continuously lies about an opponent's public service record, and elevates himself as the most credible source for which solutions should be sought above legitimate trusted authorities on matters of national security, public health & safety, and is someone who offers only unproven conjecture as an alternative should be classified as delusional. Any other candidate
would have proven to be, and even declared by 'the right' to be unfit to serve as president of the United States because of that behavior alone.
(3) Sowing Seeds of Discontent -- If a candidate can never rise to the level of actually stating his intentions to bring the country together under one banner with respect for all American citizens, but instead whose entire platform is based on the politics of fear rather than faith, is not fit to hold office.
A candidate who mocks religion and whose mantra requires the implementation of his version of ethnic cleansing to solve the country's ills, while at the same time courting the support of the 'religious right' with shallow and meaningless overtures that only speak to his contempt for any form of spirituality, is not fit to hold office.
A candidate who seems pre-occupied with 'saber rattling' around the idea of another civil war in these United States, who incited an attempted coup in January of 2021 in an effort to keep the congress from carrying out its constitutional duty by certifying the results of the 2020 election, is not fit to hold office.
It was an act of defiance where congressional members' lives were literally threatened by armed insurrectionists while the sitting president watched from the comfort of the oval office. Even 'the right' would have vehemently declared them acts of treason committed by any other incumbent president, and would have demanded a tribunal punctuating his lack of fitness to serve as president; but even more egregious would be his apparent dedication to serving his own best interest above that of the country.
(4) The Ultimate 'Hat Trick'
A candidate who takes every opportunity to align himself with authoritarian leaders who are known to be sworn enemies of the west and the NATO Alliance, and someone who does not mince words when describing his admiration for such leaders, and how he romanticizes about seizing the opportunity to have such power and control for himself, essentially would have painted himself as an 'enemy of the state'.
What's even more damning, is how he mocks the rule-of-law with claims of having done nothing wrong, after a jury of his peers in just one case among several, found him guilty of 34 felony counts. Any other candidate would have proven to be, and even declared by 'the right' to be unfit to serve as president of the United States because of those revelations alone.
A candidate who coddles the wealthy, but also insults Gold-Star Families, members of the military, and government employees with incendiary language, and in the same breath says we will never have to vote again if he is elected; as if the disappearance of the privilege of voting, which many of us fought a long and arduous fight to secure, is something to look forward to. Not only does it insult our intelligence, but it magnifies even more the extent of his detachment from what is considered almost sacred about being an American.
King Solomon also said in the book of Proverbs that, whoever oppresses the poor to increase his riches, as well as he that gives back to the rich shall someday be in want themselves...
What is probably most pathetic about the damage to this person's character is, when he chooses to insult his opponent's appearance or intelligence, whether they're on the right or the left, he uses inflammatory language that actually describes who he is in substance, not the opposition. He also has become so brazen as to issue veiled threats against others in government, which becomes a dog-whistle for extremists on 'the right' to move into action. So, to his loyalists as well as those on the fence, consider King Solomon's words when you evaluate your own personal situation. The sum of all of this political theater that should be rejected out of hand indicates that the real power brokers, whom the former president seems to function on behalf of, may be incognito to the majority of the American people but they intend to remain quite active in their efforts to retain power through the exploitation of any American citizen who have shown themselves to be useful to that end; even his most loyal supporters are not exempt.
Since most of us fall somewhere in between (rich & poor), it would be more meaningful for attitudes to shift, leading to the crafting of policies that don't create an unfair burden for persons in the socio-economic group that can least afford it. In reality, it sometimes translates into whether one family will have food to eat for the week, over another who may simply have a little less in discretionary income for the extravagant vacation they've planned.
As a person of faith, I know that many of you feel the former president is a viable alternative for the direction you feel the country might be headed in. The truth is, he can only speak in generalities about what he'll do, and how 'everybody knows' what he's saying is true without giving any specifics about how he intends to achieve certain things, or who can actually vouch for him in defense of the 'everybody knows it' claim he's made many times. We should all be clear headed enough during the lead-up to the election, that we don't have the luxury of just fantasizing about what once was, and how much we'd like things to be that way again. We should embrace the fact that we've grown ideologically as a nation beyond being pigeon-holed because of our ethnicity, or whatever else distinguishes our differences (save a handful of detractors). What each of us needs to consider is what our personal reality reflects, and vote what our conscious and sensibilities guides us to do.
If the most extremist among us are suddenly granted power, and the dystopian society they envision lies at the horizon, the most 'Trumpian' among them must still be prepared to confront that new power structure with the all important question, 'Now What?'
So, if this experiment called Democracy is going to have a fighting chance at survival, we need to fully embrace what is supposed to distinguish it as such. That is, government of the people, by the people, for the people; which also means all the people. When you really think about it, the differences among us is what really makes us great. PEACE.
Comments