The thing is, I do listen to the news (NPR usually); I do read the papers. I have forayed into reading some of our candidates' statements, speeches, etc. But, when push comes to shove there are two big problems: every one of them shares some beliefs I hold dear, while simultaneously advocating for things that I am dead set against. So, there is no chance at all for any sort of fervor on my part. Secondly, I simply don't know enough. Despite getting a significant dose of "education" every day via NPR and BBC, I still don't really know - or even have an opinion about how the economy could be "fixed"; I have no idea whether drilling for oil is, overall, a good or bad thing, or whether we should intervene in Syria or not. I tend to think I will love "Obamacare" and rather like the idea of having a "European style" healthcare system! I can't help but think that those people who oppose it must not be laying out a quarter of their take-home pay in medical expenses like we do....but so many people I really like and whose opinions I generally trust are dead set against it...... But mostly.....I really don't have the time to find out all I should find out about it in order to make what I would consider an intelligent vote - and that is considering only this one topic!
So, the other day after Craig jokingly asked me whether if he ended up in the hospital I'd keep him on life support, and I responded, "I'd have Monsignor Murphy decide!" (He's the wisest and holiest person I know.) I found myself thinking......if only I could just vote for a wise and holy person who would vote for me....a delegate...a person who shares my values and beliefs, but a wiser person - who would devote the necessary time to finding out all the details, and then they could vote for the best candidate! Then it occurred to me - is that what the delegates were originally intended to be and do? I don't know. They never mentioned that in Civics class. But it seems like a good idea to me.
On another but related topic - I'm wondering lately if the media doesn't have just altogether too much to do with politics. Seems to me that the various news organizations must be doing a lot more than just reporting the news. For example.... This entertaining, but nutty revolving door of republicans in the "forefront". What is that about? First one, then another, are reported to be the "next big thing"....some of them seem downright absurd (well, seems to me). So, how do these candidates get their popularity? The only way I ever even heard about some of them (and my guess is that the main way other voters hear about them, too) is via the media. So, if we hear on the news that Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain is "taking the lead", becoming popular - whatever - how could this possibly come about if not through people hearing about Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain via the media? Were they household names for everyone but me? I didn't think so.
I heard someone on a radio talk show many years ago advocating that instead of having all this electioneering, each candidate should write up as complete as possible a summary of his/her beliefs and plans, and then we should all read them, debate them, and vote. No ads. No signs. No emotional pleas. None of the nonsense. Sounded good to me; so I was sort-of dismayed to hear him more-or-less laughed at by most of the callers.
But as it is, the whole political scene is for me confusing at best and embarrassing at worst. And that's all I have to say about that!
0 comments:
Post a Comment