The Politics of Divisiveness

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of the politics of divisiveness. I remember seven years ago... how then-candidate Bush claimed to be a uniter, not a divider. Fast-forward to today and I honestly couldn't picture a more divisive political landscape. No matter how good the idea, if one party floated it, the other party hates it. And no matter how bad, the party that brought forth the idea blindly supports it as "the only way" to fix whatever the problem may be. Both parties are guilty of this. In my (cynical) view, the parties are exclusively concerned about maintaining solidarity in the ranks and perpetuating their own power, rather than caring for our future. I'm sick of it, and the American public is sick of it. I'd love to see things change, but I understand why they don't.

For as long as I can remember, voters have held a "throw the bums out" mentality, but it only applies to the other politicians. The voters in one state want all of the politicians out on the street, except for their own. Either they believe that their own representative isn't part of the mess, or they appreciate that their guy brings home the pork. Regardless of what they believe, each area tends to vote for their own incumbent, which perpetuates the cycle across the board. Even I am guilty of this hypocracy to some extent.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing any time soon. In fact, I see it getting worse. It's still a little early to know who the finalists will be in our upcoming presidential election, but the field is full of finger-pointers. The Democratic candidates blame the Republicans for all of our current woes, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of being unpatriotic for not blindly supporting the status quo. Folks, I hate to tell you this, but we're all sick of your bickering and you've all got plenty of blame that you can personally accept. I, for one, would admire you a lot more if you'd admit your mistakes, offer a viable alternative that shows a willingness to compromise, and move on.

There is one aspect about the upcoming election that excites me... the diversity of candidates. This time, we've got a black man, a woman, and a Mormon... all considered serious contenders for the Presidency. In the end, I suspect we'll end up with another mainstream white man in the Oval Office, but the mere fact that we're considering such a wide range of candidates gives me hope that our society is willing to look past our own stereotypes to find the best person for the job.

As we consider our options for the next president, I'd like to voice a couple of personal observations...

First and foremost, we are looking for someone to fill a job. We are not marrying them, and we are not asking them to be our friend. We are employing them. We do not have to like them, and we do not have to trust them (in the personal sense of the word). We merely need to believe that the candidate we choose is the best person for the job of being president. I'll use Bill Clinton as an example. As a man, I think he is a reprehensible human being. He was dubbed "Slick Willie" for a reason. I would not trust him, and I would never leave him alone with my wife. But as a President, I think the guy did a tremendous job. If he could run again, I'd probably vote for him. As a society, we tend to vote for the person we trust with our gut. And in politics, it's been proven time and time again that you can't trust anyone.

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. I will agree that if elected President, Hillary could tap into some of Bill's expertise. But if you think that electing Hillary will effectively re-elect Bill, you're mistaken. Hillary has proven herself too strong-willed for this to be a believable hypothesis. In other words, whether you vote for or against Hillary, do it because of her history... not because of his.

Barak Obama is a candidate who happens to be black. Not a black man who happens to be running for office. It's realistic to realize that he's black as you consider him as a candidate, but it's unreasonable to automatically rule him out (or in) based on this one single factor. Whether it's race relations, Iraq, or abortion, it's short-sighted to vote for or against a candidate based on a single issue. Part of the reason we're in our current mess is because we continually vote for our politicians based on one or two core issues and tune out the overall message.

Politicians are supposed to represent us. This means that elected officials should change their minds periodically, because the American public changes its mind. The Iraq war is a prime example. You may remember four years ago... the American people overwhelmingly supported sending our boys overseas, and the politicians reflected our desire. Now, the public has changed its mind. It's reasonable -- and should be expected -- that our elected officials would change their minds as well. In fact, I'm more wary of a politician who never changes his mind, because this indicates a person who is there for his own agenda, rather than remembering mine.

Look, we're in a world of hurt now. I don't claim to have all of the answers, and anyone who thinks they do is either full of shit or a megalomaniac. But one thing's for sure. You need to be paying attention.