Wednesday, April 27, 2016

More Politics and Stuff

SOMETIMES 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.   
          It was "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.

POLITICS 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.

POLITICS/HISTORY. 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 is hope.

TRUMP 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... 
          Meantime, what 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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment