Oh my, oh my, how I love an election, (I say this as I roll my eyes). The other day my neighbor with patriotic pride told me, after I expressed my belief that anyone running for president has at some point had to make a deal with the devil in order to get where they are, said scoldingly, "I am just so grateful there are men willing to serve our country in the capacity of president." Hah! I wish I felt like she did. But I don't. Not at all. As if these men and woman care about anything but money and power! I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Don't worry, we are still friends, but I certainly won't be talking politics with her anymore.
I am way too cynical. In general I deeply beleive that politicians are a bunch of hypocritical, wheeling, dealing, money grubbing, corrupt, ego-maniacal, jerk-heads. I believe that from the bottom of my heart, with every fiber of my being. Our dear dear dear John Edwards (who, praise be, is done and hopefully we never have to hear from him again) who cares so deeply about the poor people of this country, is as hypocritical as they come. First, when asked what his greatest weakness, replies, "I care too passionately about the plight of the poor." Oh good grief. That man doesn't know the first thing about poverty. He made millions as an ambulance chaser, a noble calling that has driven up the cost of practicing medicine, and has helped make health care completely unaffordable to the poorest folks he cares so very much about. After the unsuccesful White House bid in '04 he settled down to help solve the plague of poverty at the University of North Carolina. While solving the great evil of poverty in Chapel Hill he built himself a 5 million dollar home, got himself $400 hair cuts, and apparently raked in a few more million via Wall Street wheeling and dealing. None of this is illegal, but don't try and sell me the line that you care passionately about the plight of the poor. I'm not that stupid. I know people who care passionately about the poor and they are in the trenches doing something about it and actually making a difference.
And then there is our hero, Hillary. Promising change. Change? We all know Bushie is the monkey boy of the uber-powerful oil industry (for crying out loud his administration cronies have all made billions via oil. Condie even has a tanker named after her, and this topic is such a kettle of fish I can't even go there). So we want change, and she tells us she is different. She owes her allegiance to the same folks as Bush. One of the biggest donors (shhh its a secret) to the Clinton presidential library were Saudis and other oil rich Arabs. Of course don't let that secret out of the bag, right? The Clintons, in Bush fashion, have been completely unforthcoming with handing over and making records available publicly. In fact there are still millions of documents (incriminating I suspect) they have refused to make public. Why? Because they are typical corrupt politicians.
And then there is Mitt. I don't exactly know if he has sold his soul to the devil and made crooked deals in back rooms, but people are hailing him as the next Reagan! Is that a good thing? Under Reagan our country took the plunge, once and for all, into complete materialism, corporate greed, backhanded foreign policy, and complete disregard for the environment. I don't think Reagan style capitalism is something I want much to do with. Maybe Mitt has good principles, but he wants to expand Guantanamo where human beings have no right to trial and are incarcerated indefinitely? Human rights groups have proven that many of the detainees are completely, irrefuteably innocent, and yet, since they have no right to habeus corpus (a god given right in my book) will spend their lives in custody, never getting the chance to prove their innocence. It is sad. Listen to some of their stories and you will be in tears. Come on, Mitt, what would Jesus do? And the environment? He is in denial, like many good righteous republicans. I'm scared for my children about the legacy we are leaving them. No, actually, I am terrified of the environmental legacy we are leaving our children. So no thanks to you, Mitt.
And Huckabee? Evangelical, enough said. By the way, just for the record, I wish we Mormons would stop trying to let the world know we are "Christians". We aren't "Christians" in the sense that the world means it. We don't believe in the Nicene Creed, which is what "Christians" do. The Nicene Creed defines them. Not us. For us the Nicene Creed is bogus. For heaven sake, that is what Joseph Smith figured out in the Sacred Grove. We don't believe in the "Christian" god. We believe that God communes with Men today and always. We are not "Christians". We follow Christ, but we are not "Christians" and believe me there is a difference. Lets just stop trying to joing that club right now. I no more want to be alligned with the "Christian Right" than I do with any other "religious" fundamental groups like the Taliban or the FLDS.
Okay, so that leaves McCain and Obama. Both have millions of dollars donated to them. Therefore they are monkey boys of someone. And I don't know enough about either to say much more.
But I will tell you this. I am cynical. I think this country is corrupt and I don't think there are many good folks left in politics. Sorry if this offends anyone, but I had to rant.
I wish I could just not vote, but my conscience won't let me off the hook. Too many suffragettes fought way too hard to give me the right to vote, and so I have to excercise my right, even if it is just in honor of their hard fought battle. Maybe I will write in Susan B. Anthony. She might be dead, but she may be better than what we have to pick from.
14 comments:
Gee Anna, you don't sound cynical at all. You might not get too many responses to this, so I'll jump in.
First of all, amen! to the Mormons aren't Christians (as the term is used in current discourse) comment! Why do we back away so quickly from everything that makes us so unique? We are different, and Joseph had no problems with that.
Second, life in Chapel Hill is hell. If you ain't never been to the ghetto, then you can't talk about the ghetto. OK, it's really upper, upper middle class paradise full of flowers, trees and a gorgeous college campus. Edwards did, though, learn something about poverty in his youth, and his work here at Carolina has been specifically about alleviating poverty.
But he does live it up quite well these days.
Clinton is totally part of the machine and no more trustworthy than Bush. Huckabee has some good positions, but the "I don't believe in science" thing worries me A LOT. Romney is a great instantiation of the capitalist dream, but I worry about his morals too (specifically his commitment or lack thereof to human rights and liberties).
Obama has really only offended me with his childish shots at Clinton. He acts very much like a typical politician. I've liked McCain for a long time, and still do in many ways. He may be the most real person in the bunch (sad statement).
As for all politicians selling their souls, I'd agree that most do. But I do know people involved in politics who are idealist and do honestly intend to do good. Unfortunately, to be successful they HAVE to pander, oversimplify and act like a used car salesperson. They have no choice, the people won't respond to anything else.
So I'd say they are all fake and dishonest to some degree. But I must argue that there are men and women in politics genuinely committed to change, however willing they have to be to pose and simplify in order to get anywhere on the issues that matter to them.
Sheesh Anna, leave it to you to get me to defend politicians!
Will, I would agree with you about there being some idealistic decent folks in politics, especially on the local and state level, and maybe once in a blue moon on the national level. But once you get to the presidential race, "foget about it." (Except I think Ron Paul is a total and complete exception, he has integrity and doesn't seem to be owned by anyone).
I am in much the same quandary you are, just slightly less cynical at this point.
McCain lost me back when he capitulated on torture. Prior to that I liked him.
I believe Romney has not yet sold his soul, but is acting very political in order to court segments of the Republican Party. I think he is bright, a good problem solver, and moral. With that said, however, his stands on the current president, the war, and the environment (more of the same) are possible deal breakers for me. Plus I don't think "the powers that be" will even let him have the nomination.
Hillary is SOOOOOOO much more of the same old thing in a package that I find abrasive.
I really don't know Obama.
With that said, I do think the Democrats offer us a much better shot on environmental issues and the war.
We will have to stay tuned to see what we actually have to choose from.
D.
Oh, I didn't know McCain capitulated on torture. His anti-torture stance was one of the things I liked.
Big bummer.
I am also very cynical. I am hoping that whoever gets the nomination is someone I would want to vote for if it is Hillary and McCain or Hillary and Romney I may write in Mickey Mouse. I feel the most comfortable with Obama. I have looked at his website and think that a lot of his campaign support($) is from a grassroots style movement and people accroos the USA donating to him. I am just ready for a huge change in Washington. The past 7 years have been the worst and can't wait for a change. Here's to hoping that there is one.
He capitulated as a Senator back when they tried to pass the resolution to end the Bush reign of terra...his torture policy. He backed down. I don't know about his current platform though.
I think so many problems these days come down to plain and simple honesty (or lack thereof).
President Hinckley said, "Without honesty, our lives disintegrate into ugliness, chaos, and a lack of any kind of security and confidence. Imagine a society in which it would be unwise or unsafe to trust anyone-from elected officials...to insurance adjusters...."
As far as I am concerned that is the world we live in because people disregaurd honesty as an important virtue.
I agree with you that anyone who would want to put themselves into the position of president is just crazy. I have struggled with who to vote for. I didn't want to vote for Mitt just because he is Mormon...but truth be told I will vote for him because I see him to be the least "crazy". I can't NOT vote, because it is my civic duty I believe.
If I didn't vote, it is like voting for Hilary or Obama and I could not live with myself if one of them were elected and I didn't vote.
I have given up on the "political game" because it is counter productive. We can't rely on the government to try and make us happy. I am trying to focus on what is important to me and my family and "the big picture".
Sarah, I agree. I have decided that, 1. I have to vote because it is a gift that I can't disregard, or as you put it a civic duty.
2. The government isn't going to solve any of the issues that matter to me. They won't fix education so I will make sure my kids get the education I think they deserve. They won't fix the environment, so I will try and live in a way I feel good about regarding the environment. I will live according to the dictates of my conscience. It's liberating to live that way.
.
I agree 150%. I feel like I am adding way more to society than lame dis-honest politicians! Keep it up!
I had the song from Mary Poppins playing in my head the whole time as I read your post: We're clearly soldiers in petticoats... dauntless crusaders for women's votes... though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they're rather stupid... LOL.
May I recommend Chapter Nine of Pres. Hinckley's, "Standing for Something," from which I quote:
"A sustained diet of a negative point of view has serious repercussions. The negative becomes the stuff of headlines and long broadsides that in many cases are caricatures of the facts. This spirit of negativism grows and begins to hang as a cloud over the land, providing a misleading portrait of the facts and, in the process, reaching down to the individual man and woman and influencing attitudes, outlook, and even values. ...
Read the letters to the editor in almost any daily newspaper. ... To hear tell, nowhere is there a person of integrity holding public office. Businesspeople are all crooks, the utilities are out to rob the public. ...
It will do us no good to be naive about the challenges we face in this country. We do have problems, ... There are issues that demand our earnest, inspired attention. But there is too much fruitless carping and criticism of America. ...
So long as we have more politicians than statesmen, we shall have problems. But if we will turn our time and talents away from vituperative criticism, away from constantly looking for evil, and will emphasize instead the greater good, America will contiue to go forward with the blessing of the Almighty ...
I am not recommending that all criticism be silent. ... What I am suggesting is that we have had missing from our society a buoyant spirit of optimism. What I am asking is that we turn from the negativism that so permeates our culture and look for the remarkable good in the land and times in which we live; ... that optimism replace pessimism. ...
When I was a young man and was prone to speak critically, my wise father would say: 'Cynics do not contribute, skeptics do not create, doubters do not achieve.' ...
We must not be trapped by the sophistry of the world, which for the most part is negative and which seldom, if ever, bears good fruit. ...
Criticism and pessimism destroy families, undermine institutions of all kinds, defeat nearly everyone, and spread a shroud of gloom over entire nations. We must resist partaking of the spirit of our times. We need rather to look for the good all about us. ... Above and beyond the negative, the critical, and cynical, and the doubtful, we can and must learn to look to the positive and the affirmative."
Okay, so where do you draw the line between naivete and optimism. I think there is a fine line. I have felt extremely pessimistic about government for a few years. In response to that I have tried to become informed on the issues that matter the most to me. What I have found is that I don't believe the government will do the right thing. The beauracracy is too big, the desire for re-election and strong financial backing are just too distracting. But I have found there are gobs of people carrying on. There are organizations teaching people how to "go green". There are human rights groups fighting to assure that the plight of the "victimized" are heard. There are people building homes for the homeless....without the government. I have found it very empowering to just get busy doing what I think is best. I've done the best I can to do what I think is good for the environment. I've given up faith that my kids can get a good education from the average neighborhood school and have worked hard to get my kids into a school that will provided my kids with the education I think they need. I think I am pessimistic when it comes to government, but I feel very optimistic in the ability of people doing the right thing and eventually bringing change regardless of how the government acts. So is that pessimism or optimism? There are a lot of people out there doing the right things. There are even some government officials trying to do the right thing. I have been much more impressed with Huntsman than I ever could have dreamed of. But even more impressive are the Muhammad Yunnus', the mom who organized a "stop the idling" campaign, the doctors in Salt Lake who banned together to inform people about the dangers of air Salt Lake's air quality and how we can get to work fixing the problem. I place my faith in the peoples ability to do the right things and not the governments. I feel fairly optimistic!
No argument there. Much disappointment (& cynicism) follows from the efforts of those who have sought to expand the role of government -- especially at the federal level -- to address all of our needs. (Why was it the Fed's sole responsibility to clean up New Orleans after Katrina? Mississippi did pretty well without much federal support.) Honolulu's mayor Mufi Hannamann -- LDS -- when he was running for Congress several years ago, campaigned on the theme that he could bring more pork back to Hawaii than the other guys. (He did lose in the primary, but because he wasn't as well known as his opponents.) With most of the 535 folks in Congress trying to do the same thing, it's no wonder the huge deficits. Nevertheless, there are folks who believe that the role of government shouldn't be forever expanding; that governmental functions should be performed at the lowest level possible; that we have the right to the fruits of our own efforts and that taxes should be limited; and that private action (as you've cited above) is generally better at addressing problems than government action. (That's why I like the Nature Conservancy. Rather than seeking to have the government prevent land development through restrictions on the landowners, they buy selected lands in order to protect them.)
The bureaucracy is too big; too many folks do start running for the next election the day after winning the last one; too many in government refuse to think long-term as there's no immediate payoff. But I believe that most in government believe in what they are doing most of the time. Often I believe they are wrong, but when they are right, I support them. And I try to support candidates that best share my vision of limited government, who are more likely to be effective leaders in areas where government has an important role, and who have an understanding of basic economics. I like optimists -- hence, would prefer a Romney or Guiliani to a McCain, an Obama to a Clinton. I am an optimist -- but tempered with, I hope, a healthy dose of realism (and skepticism for those whose ideas don't fit my intuitive world view). Our next president won't make as much difference as his supporters hope or his opponents fear. But he (or she) will make a difference, and I'm happy to try to influence in some small way the selection.
Come come Anna, Moroni didn't mind when others started calling them Christians, in fact he was proud, he said:Alma 46
13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his abreastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the btitle of liberty) and he cbowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of dChristians remain to possess the land—
14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.
15 And those who did belong to the church were afaithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ btook upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or cChristians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.
16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the afreedom of the land might be favored.
17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was asouth of the land bDesolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the cnorth and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of dliberty.
18 And he said: Surely God shall not asuffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own btransgressions.
so why is the country in the shape that it is , it is because of us.
Remeber the Zoramites, they thought they were so righteous, but it made Alma sick in the stomach, he never's seem such wickedness..."We thank thee that we are not like the others... We thank thee for being thy blessed people(paraphrased)"
And how do we know who's righteous or wicked ? We we are repenting we are counted among the righteous no matter how long we've been righteous, if we are not repenting , we are wicked because Alma also reports:
3 Ne. 11: 32
32 And this is my adoctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the cHoly Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
That's what we must all do if we want the country to be blessed.
I hope this did not make you more cynical!
Post a Comment