Prose and poetry of my rollercoaster rides and bittersweet valentines. Plus--blogs, blues and bliss.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
More Politics and Stuff
I think are we asking too much from our (prospective) leaders? We
criticize them so badly when not all of what they promised during
campaign aren't met. What about 6 out of ten, or 7 out of ten?
Leaders can work things out better or realistically that way, I
reckon. When dad or mom says, “I will buy you a new Buick, that
doesn't necessarily mean you get the Buick tomorrow—and it's all
paid up,” right? There is an exchange here as well. What about us,
the people? Do we deliver what we should while our elected leaders
find ways to deliver 100 percent of what we asked for? You see, we
humans have also up the hedonism/consumerist scale a bit.
"better" when America rose from the Great Depression or
Dust Bowl. People were fine with just enough stuff to live on and
then go from there. That was the time when America slowly loomed as a
world power. But then these days, it's tough. People aren't earning
enough to pay bills yet we got lots of incendiary bills to pay which
were never present before. Whoever wins the presidency, I hope
he/she'd be able to work things out with corporate gods and foreign
policy for the betterment of American lives. It doesn't have to be
polar extremes where people choose between left and right. When we
buy milk and potatoes or pay health insurance, it doesn't say
partyline politics. It's all about the people. But as a people, we
should also do our share of building a better community and a
country. It's not all about a President.
and SOCIETY. If we view societal/governmental issues with futility
than hope then we are all fucked. What is the point of elections if
we anticipate that these supposed leaders are going to abuse their
powers anyway? We are just wasting time, effort and money. So what is
the alternative? Maybe do a Fidel Castro/Muammar Qadaffi remedy? Cuba
and Libya have better delivery of basic services but we (in a
socalled democratic/free world) will always have something dark to
say about those. Maybe let's just hope for the better and elect a
president and other legislators that we think ar "less evil"?
Well, I'd like to exude optimism amidst the apparent disillusionment.
The world overcame the Great Depression (1929 to 1932). Back home in
the Philippines, we did improve a lot after two decades of the Marcos
regime. The only "solution" to our collective frustration
is a full-blown bloody revolution. But do we want that? What we must
do and convince voters about, especially those who are not reached by
social media (and other media) is to vote smartly. Let us educate and
advocate with hope of good change than annihilate and propagate based
on doom. It's just that these days, there are more
personality-obliterations than actual discussion of political
platforms, hence the negative is accentuated more than projection of
what these aspiring leaders could do to better our lives. Meantime,
being positive works—and it also makes us less angry and grumpy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt is a sort of model for governance coming from
the rubble. His New Deal worked but we are talking about more than a
decade of leadership (1933-1945), that ended at the tailend of the
Pacific War. It was a different era amidst differing socioeconomic
and political variables. China was deep sleeping that time... Coming
from the economic downturn of the 2000s, plus the fact that Americans
are also divided by political correctness, food behavior, gender
politics and environmental hug-trees brevity, then there's the
resurgence of new immigrant population with different cultural
truths--we need a leader who could somehow keep America tight despite
this disconnect and diversity. Just a good and effective president.
FDR was able to do that via New Deal. Or who was the president who
enjoined confederates and union soldiers and African Americans and
Irish immigrants and Chinese and Mormons to work on railroads (1863
and 1869)? Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson? Tactical alliance. Of
course, there will always be fights in diversity but once this
divergence of thoughts and beliefs work for a common good, then there
TALK and POLITICS. Why does The Donald entices a huge throng of
believers? If we take time to figure things out objectively apart
from sweepingly namecalling Trump supporters as racist morons, we
probably would calm down a bit—and then devise strategies how to
counter such an onslaught of prospective voters as election nears.
That is, if you are a Democrat or just an anti-Trump person. Among
other things beyond his foul-mouth that feeds fire out of the
sleeping dragon's mouth, Trump isn't just fighting the Democrats—he
is also busy fighting the GOP organization's elite. The Republican
rank and file is cheering him on but the Tea Party is worried.
Indeed, the GOP lost its voters to Donald Trump. An understatement.
The D becomes the champion of the victimized underdog. People
gravitate to demagogues of that sort. A voice...
should worry the Democrats? One Trump could beat a Democrat nominee,
why? The schism between Bernie and Hillary is wide, it's divided.
Only when their followers shake hands and consolidate vote could they
have a chance to beat Trump. But if the "losing" (Dem)
aspirant's people decide to not vote, then—doom is upcoming. More
so, anti-Trumps must dig in and study why he gets these people and
then restrategize how to draw them to the other side--than continue
magnifying Trump's "evil" and downgrading his followers.
Anti-Trumps should know how to defeat the guy. A dragon can't be
defeated by concentrating on the fire that spews out of his mouth.
Find out where the fire is emanating from and then work on it.