I am profoundly disappointed.
In 1980, an incumbent president was running for re-election during similar circumstances. High unemployment. High gas prices. An obviously flawed foreign policy with the Mid-East in turmoil and a dead American ambassador. American voters summarily dismissed the incumbent in 1980.....but not tonight. Tonight, they voted him back into office.
So what on God's green earth changed?
I see multiple possibilities.
- Voters are under-informed. Perhaps Americans are not aware of the President's policies either because they don't want to be, don't know where to get the information, or are too distracted with life's other issues.
- The media has changed. Perhaps the death of an American ambassador would have called for more than 3 weeks coverage in 1980, especially if it was made clear the White House was playing a game of cat and mouse with the details. If it were clear in 1980 that the White House lied about the circumstances surrounding the ambassador's death, and even denied military assistance to said ambassador, perhaps the media would have chased that story down. Maybe the media is so in love with the President these days they are biased in the information they present to voters.
- The cult of 'celebrity' has finally conquered America. President Obama is suave, cool, and hip. Perhaps his massive following can be attributed to people's desire to vote for the suave, cool and hip candidate. Maybe his celebrity covers his ineffective foreign and domestic policies.
- The American voter has different priorities now. Have voter's hearts changed so drastically in the past 32 years that they vote for entirely different things? This is possible, and if in fact true, is probably the one that concerns me most.
We can deal with people who are under-informed. We can fight media bias. We can combat celebrity status, and make sure presidential elections are not based upon popularity. But if the issue resides in the heart of the voter.............
Consider a few things with me:
This President will have added more debt than all the Presidents before him. Think about that for a moment. The US got through September 11th, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WWII, the Great Depression, WWI, the Civil War and the War of 1812 without incurring as much debt as this one man. So do people not understand the ramifications of this fact, are they not aware of this fact, or do they not care?
This President will be the first to have presided over a Congress which never passed a budget during his term. Do we no longer recognize the failure of leadership, do voters not know this reality, or do we no longer value leadership?
This President promised to halve the debt, but instead he doubled it. He promised to close Guantanamo, end the Iraq and Afghan Wars, pass immigration reform, get unemployment to 5%, heal the world and stop the rise of the oceans. He did none of these things. Do we no longer recognize when we are lied to, are we unaware of broken promises, or do we not care when we are lied to?
Tonight I see people post on Facebook about how glad they are that the President won, and I can't help but think of drunk Trojans dancing around the pretty horse the Greeks delivered. And I wonder, were the Trojans ignorant of the danger because they let their guard down, because no one warned them of the danger, or because they no longer knew how to spot danger? The United States has more debt per citizen than Greece or Spain, both of which are going through massive spending cuts and solvency issues, and have unemployment rates higher than 25%. Do the people celebrating tonight have any concept that the US will be there in the near future, are they un-educated about how finances work, or do they not care?
Or maybe people think the President shares their concerns, but for the life of him he just can't fix it because of President Bush. In that case, they're probably unaware of the speed at which the Reagan recovery took hold after the Carter admin. Or perhaps they are aware of those facts, but just don't care. But that's a post for another day....
There are steps we can take to remedy the slow dissemination of information; we can help people process the information they receive; but if voters no longer care about issues like these, if they're too worried about whether their paycheck is going to be cut or their benefits curtailed, the future of the United States contains no hope, regardless of what our politicians try to sell us.
I started by saying I don't know what to say, and then rambled on far too long. For that I apologize. I suppose what I am really struggling with is conveying my disappointment. My faith in Christ remains my solid foundation, and I'm eternally thankful that He has provided for me a citizenship outside of this world. But He has also placed in me a passion for these things. And it's that part of me I don't know what to do with.
I do not posses the power to change men's hearts. If voters don't believe the things above are of importance, I fear I cannot convince them otherwise, which makes me further disappointed. But God has inflamed this passion in my heart for a reason, and I will continue to spur people on to greater understanding of the deeper impact of issues. But I'll also be honest: there is a part of me that wants to drink wine all day and pretend I live in a world where this stuff already matters.
I love you, honey. I love your writing. I love your intelligence. I love your knowledge and passion for politics. Thank you for being a man who loves God first.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are listing a lot of the reasons that the election went the way it did because there is likely not one specific reason, it is a combination of them. Many voters get informed from Comedy Central or David Letterman or Fox News or the 6 billion in campaign advertising or from others who get their info via only one of these outlets. Many people do not do their due diligence when casting their vote. The media has changed because the main stream media is enamored with this character. (You should blog on the role of media as the people's fourth arm of the government checks and balances system and how they have abandoned the common person.) It is a travesty that he was allowed early in his first term to say that Fox News was not a legitimate news source, it is not his place to say one way or the other. Main stream media outlets oppose the Republican agenda and so the opposite is to be for the Democratic agenda. Media is no longer neutral, "news" programs are opinion programs, all of them have a dog in the race. A prime example of giving this president passes on issues and events is Camp Bastion, where there was an attack three days after Lybia that was the worst day in USMC aviation since the Tet Offensive in 1968 when a Harrier Squadron Commander was killed. Have you heard about it? Most likely not. The president has not uttered the names of Lt. Col. Raible or Sgt. Atwell in public or mentioned the 7% of the total Harrier jet fleet that was destroyed. And, last, the voter has different priorities now. This could be somewhat due to retoric that is used during these campaigns has made those that do not take it as facts to turn away in disgust and tune out. There are few instances when a candidate is called out when they act childish, instead the media waits for a fleeting moment to point out when they acted "Presidental".
ReplyDeleteAnyway, now I have rambled on, too. Keep up the good blogging, I enjoy your point of view!
I have always wanted to take my wife on a European trip but haven't because we can't afford it, but now, I am just going to wait a few years for Europe to come to us!
Hi Anonymous - I too have been disappointed at the paltry coverage on the attack at Camp Bastion. (It sounds like you've been reading Michelle Malkin: http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/26/what-about-the-camp-bastion-attack/).
ReplyDeleteIf you were to give me $10,000 and an assignment to cover a story of my choice, I'd have a list of things I'd like to investigate. So would you. And our lists would probably differ. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact it's a good thing. The media functions in the same manner, but the problem with the main media outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc) is they're all alike: They're liberal. So they all end up covering the same things and ignoring the same things. As a result, you've got to get your news from Michelle Malkin, or some other off-the-main news source.
It would be interesting to do more investigation into how the media affects people's decision-making. Perhaps in the future. Thanks for the idea, and the kind words about my blog. I appreciate you taking the time to read it.
Let's see how the media covers the next few months of material that includes the Philly voter fraud in 59 precints, some of which were involved in the Election Day removal of Republican poll inspectors, the Benghazi-Petraeus-Allen-Kelley-Broadwell ties and what testimony will be suppressed about the terroist attack due to the sex scandal cards being played in Washington, and the fiscal cliff-debt-spending-party lines blame game. The soft touch approach by main stream media may turn these key issues into couch material for "The View" watchers and would play into this administrations hands of just slowly pulling the wool a little farther up our faces closer to complete ignorance of important issues blindness.
Delete