It's been said this will be a historic election, one way or another. Perhaps we will have a Jewish socialist in the oval office, or a bombastic billionaire. We also have a fundamentalist and a pragmatic in the front-running (Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, respectively). The fundamentalist may just be a bad idea, and the pragmatic happens to be female, which is also historic. However, I believe we must take a history lesson and realize that we should not vote for someone because they are a minority. Many voted for Barrack Obama simply because he was black. That was historic, surely, but was it the right decision?
And now, as Missouri Primaries come up, and then the main election later in November, we have a very large decision to make, and it's a very important one. If you are considering not voting, please reconsider. Your vote actually does matter. For more details on that front, go to the first citation, which has various graphs detailing voter turnout. 1 For the most part, it reveals that old white people are most likely to vote. Young people are inherently less likely to vote, and also more likely to be at ideological odds with their older counterparts. This discrepancy helps explain why a socialist is even in the front running at all.
But this election is a very confusing matter. I have very specific political priorities and I've distilled them over a period of years. This probably means I am not likely to be satisfied by any candidate except myself, but I am still concerned by which candidate will actually serve America the best. Here are my thoughts and research on the four current front runners:
Bernie Sanders: An admitted democratic socialist. Normally, you would expect to find this person simmering in an ideological pot in Europe. Instead, he is alive and well (albeit old) in America. He wants to attack the rich and powerful, tax them, and hold them responsible for destroying the economy. These are fine goals, but to actually accomplish them? Further, he has several "golden unicorns" in the forest; that is, he wants free healthcare, education, and new infrastructure. These are incredibly expensive goals and would not necessarily boost our economy. One observes that in order to redistribute money, one must have it first in abundance, and judging by the current state of our economy, this may not work very well.
I am biased towards environmentalism, and while Bernie would work on these issues, he may vandalize the American economy in the process. I believe we can have both.
Donald Trump: Before we move on any further, here's a list of all Trump's insults:
The 196 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted On Twitter: A Complete List
If this doesn't cause you concern, I do not know what will. He has repeatedly gone after women, elderly, disabled, Mexicans, Muslims, and many others, to the extent that the only group not ostracized is white male religious fanatics. Regardless, many are still following him, and Trump's followers are actually very similar to Sander's followers in that both groups are angry. They are simply placing their anger in different areas. Sander's followers are angry, white, young liberals, and half have college degrees. Trump's followers are angry, white, conservative, and only about 10% have college degrees.
Ted Cruz: As a progressive, and a moderate one at that, I feel obligated to flee from Cruz regardless of his stances. He claims to want to bring down the DC structure, possibly into something small enough he can throw down the bathtub drain, but for the most part he has served the same machine that he espouses to attack. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck implied God killed the late Justice Scalia so Cruz could be President. 2 Also, Ted Cruz "Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems." 3 Overall, I simply do not believe Cruz would actually make America a better place.
Hillary Clinton: During the debates I've gained some respect for her calm, in-control mannerism, but she uses many "politician" answers and is quite obviously a career politician. A quick look at her campaign contributions from 1999 onward reveals that she has received large amounts of money from banks and investment firms, which she claims she would take on. However, her environmental policy, while not particularly comprehensive, would be much better than anyone from the Republican arena, where every candidate is either associated with Fox News and/or wants to destroy the environment.
In summary, we are in trouble. We have an entire class of Americans who, angry at the system, are going for either Trump or Sanders, both of whom would rock the boat; Ted Cruz, essentially a non-entity; and Clinton, who may or may not actually make anything better in America. But here's my opinion: Sanders is authentic. He has good ideas, and wants to actually make a difference, but I find his vehemence against entrepreneurship and the Constitution worrisome. Trump wants to make America Great Again, but it might involve WWIII. Clinton, as best I can tell, would make a more well-rounded presidential nominee. However, she is the bought-and-paid-for option.
Again, I believe we are in trouble with any of these options. The Republican and Democratic party have systematically destroyed the economy and turned a blind eye to environmental destruction, while companies have polluted the environment, raked in massive amounts of money, and crippled the middle class.
After a certain period, large companies function exactly like large government; that is, they take from the country and do not give back.
1. http://mic.com/articles/125344/if-anyone-ever-tells-you-your-vote-doesn-t-matter-show-them-this#.j9H1gKyRW
2. http://fox8.com/2016/02/18/glenn-beck-god-took-scalia-to-give-america-ted-cruz-as-president/
3. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm#Environment
No comments:
Post a Comment