So the Super Tuesday is nearing where all the wanna be Republican presidents can gain a majority of delegates for their presidential campaign (wikipedia tells me it is 410 this year). Soon it will be known who will challenge Barack Obama in the next US elections.
Although, I am European and it doesn't affect me in any way, whatsoever, I see this presidential campaign with mixed feelings. The coverage on the news pages, I frequent, were fairly in depth (check out spiegel.de and bbc.co.uk), so I have a pretty good overview over the main events and blunders..., I think.
Although, in my humble opinion, there is no politician who isn't a backstabbing, double-crossing, untrustworthy sack of crap, it has to be said, that already the elections for the Republican Candidate take the mickey. What does it take to become the "candidate" (Note: not the president) for the presidential elections? It isn't anymore about finding the best candidate in the US. In their overzealous, righteous bullshittery, the media and the people who organise the campaigns have created a system, in which the guy who can conceal and lie about his flaws and misconduct best, while shitting and pissing on the other candidates, wins.
I have to reiterate here, that I am actually very much against the American political landscape (especially the one that affects me, a foreigner). I find the fact, that they take finger-prints at airports and treating travellers like criminals is degrading foreigners' dignity and I wanna see what US businessmen would do, if they are treated the same way on arrival to Europe. The outcry and the call for human rights and equal treatment would be ridiculous.
However, in this case, I think the pressure build up and the constant scrutiny of US media is just not right. I always assumed the best candidate for the job is also the most competent. How does one define competence in this case? Is it managerial skills? Knowledge of politics around the globe? Diplomatic ability? Once you are elected, all these skills are indispensible.
To me, however, it seems to be something entirely different once it comes to the road to the presidency. It is about being a role-model to everyone. Now, this sentence may sound very idealistic. "You have to be a role-model." In fact, I think, the one thing a leader of a nation does not have to be, is an effing role-model. Politics is a dirty business and you need to be able to take a sucker punch or two and dish one out when the occasion calls for it, while at the same time, if it suits you, you have to be best friends with the person who just almost sucker punched you into retirement. Opportunistic is an adjective that I would need to give a good president (or any successful politician), ruthless, greedy and a very mild onset of megalomania are some others. Usually, these are negative aspects, but in this case, I think they are essential in order to hold your own (and in a sense your country's own) when in negotations in order to get as much profit out of it as possible.
Unfortunately, to the general public, this is unfathomable and unspeakable. The result is a hypocrite. A man who condemns all the things that he does himself just to become president. The offshoot are media who become overly personal and highlight a candidate's private life more so than his competencies. How else is it possible that they open a debate with questions about the candidate Newt Gingrich's private life? Yes, what he has supposedly done to his ex-wife is despiccable, but it has nothing to do with his political competencies. If he is a backstabbing son-of-a-bitch, all the better. He does the dirty work shoveling shit, while he preserves the glorious and pure and clean Christian lives of the standard, middle-class US citizen who in turn is then disgusted if bad details about someone's life comes to the surface (while in many cases they are just as bad, only on a smaller scale). So in this case, I like his answer to the question.
While we're at it. Let's go look at some of the other candidates. Let's look at Mitt Romney. Yes, the country is in recession and poverty is high, but is it false to admit that you are a millionaire? Is it false to say that your wife drives a couple of cadillacs? It isn't the best way to rub it in, when a large chunk of your potential voters does not have the ability to even look at a bunch of cadillacs. But again, it is perceived that it is bad to be rich and that you ahve to apologise for it. A rich guy tends to be a successful guy. A maker, as they say. Success comes in various shapes, but it generally is not a bad thing. Maybe, he is good at creating successful companies, ergo places to work and a boost to the economy and thus bringing the country out of recession. I wouldn't condemn him for admitting to having a lot of money or for having a bunch of cars at home. The media witch hunt over the amount of tax he pays a year is ludicrous. If the tax loop holes exist, then it is legal to use them. I am sure, you would if you were aware of them. Change legislation if you don't like them. Bottom line is, it is extremely unlikely that a presidential candidate will ever come out of the working or the middle class. These guys are all well-off financially. So why is one guy getting crucified for being richER than the others?
Next one, I have recently read about. Rick Santorum. Now before this goes into a biased rant that has nothing to do with the topic, let me say, that I am strongly against any monotheistic religion of any kind, may it be Christianity, Islam, Jewish or any other that I forgot to mention (I can't say anything about polytheistic ones like Hinduism, because I don't know enough about it). So any slight against fundamental Christians has to be excused. But (the big but) why on earth is religion a big topic in politics?!? Why should we care, that he thinks it is better to have children after marriage than before? He does it all to gain the votes of the very devout Christians, but it really takes more to run a state than to preach celibacy until marriage and twisting the ten holy commandments into obscurity so that they fit your bidding. Personally speaking, religion should not be a factor in ANY political election. Once you introduce religion, it is very hard to take sides. Hardly anyone has the luxury of being born to completely non-religious parents. My parents are very liberal, but they still have the catholic label. Introducing religion into elections is simply fishing for votes. That's all there is to it. However, once you are president, you will not only have to deal with one religion that gave you the votes, you have to deal with all of them. And just remember, your great American nation said that all are created equal, bro. Now you are up shit creek, because the other religious fanatics will stir up shit and they will not believe you, because you are from the other side. So, I think, in a perfect world, Santorum shouldn't even be a candidate. Everything he has going for himself is christian, conservative mumbojumbo. He has not shown to be competent, just... devout and a little bit homophobic. This is, however, also a great witch hunt example by the media. They throw random quotes at him and make him say things, he may not want to say. In this case, I am kinda glad. But that is just a personal opinion, because I don't like the man much. I really hope, it didn't show in the paragraph.
My last specimen, that is a bit of a counterpart to the ones above is good ole Rick Perry. Now, in his case, I guess that he lost his following, is justified, because he was not able to give one of his main political changes (see below for not remembering the Ministry of Energy and the 'Oops'-moment). I cannot and I also don't want to imagine the pressure that the people exposed to, but this is the counter example to competent. Presentation is a big part of almost any well-paid job and you need to have this nailed. He failed, like so many other people in a job interview (me included in several instances) and as a consequence he did not get the job.
Conclusively, what I am probably trying to say with this rant is, that I am a big fan of getting the right guy for the job. Currently, I don't feel that the credentials needed for a presidential campaign are necessarily the right credentials for BEING president. You may end up with a guy who is awesome at winning the campaign but not at being the president or someone who is just a puppet of the industry (Iwillnotsayanynameswhatsoever).
Of course, ideally, what you wanna have, is a guy (or girl) that is a good citizen and a person to look up to who doesn't do anything wrong. A knight in shining armour kinda guy who rides into peril to rescue the damsel in distress. But let's be honest, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan was there a damsel to be rescued? In turn, what damsel did the Americans rescue when they invaded Afghanistan some time later? I say it again, you don't need a role-model. All you need is a knowledgeable, diplomatic hipocrite who will look at every opportunity that presents itself to further the chances of its nation in order for the small man to go about his business and live a relatively peaceful life.
The media shines such a big light on the people that are candidating and nothing is sacred anymore. I would find it an intrusion into my private life, if an employer asks me in an interview to tell him what my sexual practices are or my religion, while in a presidential campaign this is common ground. I think, the people should get real and get away from this televised inquisition.
No comments:
Post a Comment