I could care less whom you vote for in this upcoming election; your political leanings have no impact on me or my opinion of you.
The aforementioned disclaimer is important because I am venturing into an area that has intrigued me for years, yet one in which I realize I am merely an observer with probably not enough intelligence to actively debate. Having said that, I am taking a stab at offering political observations based on views from a common man, views that have been formulated by my lifetime reading, viewing, and listening to others' points and opinions. Here's hoping the perspective from my seat may prove somewhat interesting to my readers!
*The rampant hate and distrust currently prevailing in our country will--in the long run--be the best solution to our nation's insecurity; let's face it, we're horribly close to fragmenting in all directions. We all fully recognize that the American people are fed up--fed up with what, though, could probably not be agreed upon, but the bottom line is so many are beyond peeved. Our only direction now is to go up; our elected representatives must know that business as usual is not going to fly. We are demanding cooperation and compromise--digging in and sabotaging simply have led to our problems. I am quite confident that positive change will ultimately prevail, although I realize I may be a bit of a minority at this time. As the saying goes, "Sometimes we have to bottom out before change occurs"--if we have not bottomed out in our political confidence right now, we are dangerously close to doing so.
*As I rack my brain to remember where I first read this next point so many years ago, I recognize that the logic behind it makes such perfect sense today: Make all political terms six years in duration with no re-electing involved. From the moment a candidate for any office is elected, the process of holding that seat seemingly becomes the number one objective, as opposed to truly being the people's voice. The two and four-year terms currently existing at various levels oftentimes lead to wayward behavior, apparently catering to various groups with the express purpose of being re-elected. Eliminating that possibility seems perfectly logical to me. An elected representative gets six years; beginning that term, the individual knows he/she has six years to do what was promised . . . if it cannot be done in that time, let another interested individual try.
*We often equate our deteriorating political structure with failed people--I tend to disagree with that, for the most part. Our world has changed to a picture none of us could have ever envisioned. Essentially, a world war has broken out, but the enemies have no clearly defined borders--they are in all corners of the world, it appears, and to fight this war with the same devices and strategies we have used in the past does not make logical sense. In Vietnam, we were exposed to fighting enemies who basically looked the same as the friendlies; today, that has escalated even further. We don't know who the "bad" guys really are, and to say that we will "bomb the ____ out of 'em" sounds fine, but the realistic solution is not so cut and dry. To fight today's wars and eradicate the world's dangers requires a sophistication that baffles many who simply want to "take 'em out." If only it were that easy, the enemies would be gone by now.
*The real travesty in our country today is not the presidential candidates we have representing us. No, the real obscenity is the vast millions that is being spent to elect a president and various representatives. We have a difficult time raising funding to fight poverty, drugs, and violence, but we have absolutely no problem raising money to elect a candidate. Common sense tells me that is an absolutely ridiculous predicament . . . the money is out there, so availability is not the issue. What matters is that infamous struggle for power . . . seems sad, doesn't it?
*I remain convinced that the emergence of the Tea Party from several years ago--while it has basically led to an obviously chaotic Republican Party--is merely a precursor to an emerging and possibly effective third party. As with any change, the timing is of utmost importance. Right now, the timing is ripe--if it's going to happen, it will be within the next few years. People are that disgusted with where we are today.
*I am still trying to make sense of a few conflicting thoughts; our religious teachings promote open arms to all and devotion to helping those less fortunate than we, specifically the poor and downtrodden. However, when that belief is mentioned in political circles, we oftentimes become extremely defensive, citing that the rich should not be singled out for their success. Translated, why should the rich be forced to share their wealth? As is obvious throughout America, numbers of people attending church are nosediving for a variety of reasons. Is it possible that because the churchgoing numbers are lagging that the effect is our sincerity and willingness to help others are taking hits? On that topic, I am unsure of what conclusion to draw . . . maybe it is mere coincidence, but somewhere in there I sense a connection.
*We are so quick to attack public figures today, none more so than whoever is the sitting president. If we take a quick recall, America has been so fed up with any president as evidenced by our vicious attacks on the two President Bushes and now President Obama. Truthfully, I don't know if any of those presidents have deserved the massive and personal attacks they have endured; sitting here today, I cannot determine if our current president has been effective or ineffective. As with any presidency or leadership position, history will dictate that. Twenty years from now, we may intelligently say that President Obama was ineffective . . . or maybe not. Safe to say, though, that the president most respected in our lifetime has been John Kennedy. Why, however, might be because he was assassinated, which led to such overwhelming support for his legacy . . . he went out as a hero. Seldom does a living president receive the same accord.
*The current presidential race presents such a dilemma. Safe to say, many will be holding their noses as they vote. Both are flawed candidates who have underscored any legacies they might have with perceived scandals, both are offensive in their own ways, and both are polarizing. We have been pigeonholed into believing we have two real choices, but I am not buying that: along with the outlying candidates, we do have the option of writing in nominees. No, those write ins will have no chance of winning, but--at the least--we can vote our conscience.
*When I critique Donald Trump, I see a rich man's Pete Rose. Both are flawed, both have oversized egos, both seek major forgiveness for past transgressions, both have devoted followers who forgive each as being "merely human"; likewise, both are polarizing with an abundant number of people who despise them and will never overlook their pasts, both have a fervent passion to achieve something that probably will never happen (Pete's getting into the Hall of Fame and Mr. Trump's quest for the presidency), and both feel they are picked upon by the establishment. Sadly, I assume both will be sad characters as they continue aging . . . except Mr. Trump will have more money.
*My final observation is quite simple, yet so many continue to not get it: The media will always win simply because they have the last word. The deterioration of so many aspiring political candidates hinges on being perceived by the public as non-credible, non-trustworthy, and non-promising. Today's difference is that the media will not hide from the truth. President Kennedy's sexual forays were well hidden during his living years as were so many transgressions by so many other politicians and celebrities (think Mickey Mantle, for example)--couldn't happen today. Having so many media sources (not even talking about Wikileaks and so many other social sites) allows practically all rumors and stories to be considered factual. As stated, I read constantly; what I know has been primarily shaped by what I have read, positively or negatively. In short, I do not know if what I have read is truly factual and on point. I know what the media wants me to see and understand--how else can we evaluate when columnists write conflicting viewpoints about the same issues/events/occurrences? I am shaped by what I read, but non-readers are basically shaped by the flavor of the month--whatever they hear, they have a tendency to latch onto, whether it is rational or not. That is the world we live in today . . . who do we believe?
A long entry today, my friends, one I hope you have at least partially appreciated. As I stated with my first entry a few years ago, I am jumping into the fire to express myself . . . it doesn't matter if agreement exists. What matters is that we use our brains and think about what is happening around us!
Previous blog entries may be found at michaelagunther.blogspot.com, or I may be contacted at mag.gunther@gmail.com
