The Paradox of Democracy

I'm struggling with post lengths. If this is too long let me know and I'll shorthen them in the future.

As a lover of freedom and America (in that order), a few things concern me about the impending election. We have to remember that voting is not a right, it is a privilege that can be taken away (see: felony offenders in 46 states and the Potomac Drainage Basin), and should be taken seriously. This is not a contest in which the winner gets his or her own recording contract. This time, the winner gets access to that cool red phone we see in the movies.

I love the idea that the more people that vote the better represented we will be. I like the idea. What I don’t like is the outcome. Most people will decide on the candidate they want to back for shallow reasons. He looks the part. She speaks so well. He is such a good family man. Sure, these things are important. But, they are also so easy to fake. Candidates can BS their way through faux interviews with fawning media members and appear any which way.

Obama is taking advantage of this in a huge way. He’s tall and handsome. His story is fantastic and he delivers his message so convincingly. He is getting people to the polls. The sheer number of voters in Iowa was incredibly impressive and he should be commended for inspiring them to participate. My only hope is that people will do a little research before coming to any conclusion about the viability of a candidate.

The problem, as I see it, is that he’s selling us all a bill of goods. The notion of “change” is so alluring to those who have no concept of the politics, policy or procedure in Washington. I’d just like to know what “change” he stands for. He votes with his party 97% of the time (If people really want someone who represents change, they should look at McCain who, along with Feingold, authored a bi-partisan campaign finance reform bill and regularly votes against his party. I’m not telling you to vote for him, I’m just saying that he represents a break with the establishment far more than Obama.). I suppose the “change” could mean change in jobs. He seems to always be looking at the next job. I guess being a Senator is something that can be done remotely. Shoot, I forgot about those pesky votes. I can’t really blame him for this because it is symptomatic of the current election cycle. It starts much too early.

I’m not going to call Obama a fraud because there is really only room for one on that train and it is currently being filled by Mitt Romney (his campaign strategists should be banished to political outposts in South Dakota for the remainder of their careers). What I am going to say is that Obama is running a campaign of sweeping generalizations. War – bad, universal health care – good, aid for middle class – good. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It sure does. However, these are complicated issues that require more than just a rah-rah approach. It will be interesting to see if his strategy works because it would be really easy win elections if you never have to commit to anything or devise a plan to accomplish this nebulous notion of change. His campaign slogan should read “Elect me now and then I’ll come up with a plan later.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for change. I think the idea of change gives people hope. I just think it is incredibly naïve to think that the opposite of Verbal Kint (he’s the man with the plan) will bring it about.