|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
November 11, 2002
A Modest Proposal - Throw out the clowns
DISCLAIMER: This Modest Proposal is primarily directed to US subscribers; however, the subject may be of interest to each of you, and in fact, may fit your country as well. If you hold an elected office in the US (highly unlikely for the readers of this newsletters), then the contents are most likely going to be offensive. Having said that, here goes.
Most of the states in the US held elections on November 5th to vote for various public offices and on various referenda. Now, elections most everywhere in the world are a sign of participatory government, and probably most of you have a say in your office holders and laws. I am all for democracies and republics (the US being a republic, not a democracy). I am thankful that we have them.
Judy Collins, the singer had a very popular, poignant hit song some time ago called "Bring in the Clowns." Well, we had a bunch of clowns in this country running for office, and unfortunately, some of them got elected.
Why do I call them clowns?
They are clowns because of the buffoonish way they wage their campaigns. Voting for someone in this country is not a matter of weighing what the candidates say about what they will do and their qualifications. If a voter pays any mind to political advertising, he or she won't find out much about the candidate paying for the ad because the ad will be about how despicable, immoral, and poorly qualified, his or her opponent is. Come on! Is this practice designed to elect the candidate who has the least "sins" instead of the best qualifications?
By the time I endure seemingly endless repetitions of the raked muck and slung mud of US candidates, I am ready to go to Iraq and vote for Saddam since at least I wouldn't have to endure anti-Saddam hate commercials. They wouldn't last long anyway in favor of the public executions of anyone who had anything to do with them.
So, let's throw these clowns out of office. Vote for anyone who comes close to telling us something about why he or she would be a worthy officeholder. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a candidate who did not slander his or her opponent? Think about it. Candidate A tells us all of the alleged atrocities committed by his opponent, Candidate B. Candidate B, however, tells us why she should be elected based on her qualifications, agenda, and experience. What a relief that would be! I would vote for her simply because she was telling me why she should hold the office and not why her opponent shouldn't.
A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I worked for IBM in the days when IBM was a really great company - a bit monopolistic in the computer industry, but a great place to work. One of the principles of IBM in those days was to never, never, ever run down the competition. We were told repeatedly to be positive about what we had to offer, and let the other companies do what they may. That philosophy worked really well for IBM in those days (the 60's and 70's) and helped make IBM a gold standard for any kind of business.
Are candidates for public office so impoverished of qualifications that they couldn't find much good to say about themselves and therefore resort to assassinating the characters and lives of their opponents? Surely this is not the case in reality, but I am hard pressed to find evidence to the contrary. Even incumbents rarely tell us about their records in holding the office - it's just more trash talk about their opponents. Makes me wonder what they did in the last few years of "serving" the public.
To be fair, there are a few (precious few) candidates who spend most of their advertising budgets extolling their records and qualifications, and telling us what they will allegedly do if elected. I salute them, and I say to you as voters: In future elections use your vote to support candidates who tell you about themselves, not run down the other guy. The vote is still almighty. If you and I voted for these types of candidates even if we don't agree with everything they say or stand for, it won't be long before everyone begins to campaign that way.
That would make a difference, would it not?
Have you ever considered why running down the opposition is so popular? One answer is that doing so cleverly sidesteps what the agenda is of the candidate doing the trash talk. My Modest Proposal is let's throw out the clowns in favor of those who have at least a modicum of honesty.
So, you might ask, what does this have to do with spirituality? Two of my basic tenets about working to be a spiritual person are speaking my truth and doing what I say I will do. Saying what is in my heart free of judgment and acting on what I say create personal power for me (and I think for anyone else). Politicians rarely do either. Politics is mostly a fear-based arena. It doesn't have to be, but the opponent-bashing practices of this past election didn't embody a lot of truth and acceptance. Do I want fearful people running my country? No, I do not. Lies and deceit reflect a fearful mentality; else why lie and deceive?
The next time you vote, consider voting for the candidates who at least make an effort at speaking the truth and who can demonstrate that they do what they say they will do. Even if you don't agree with their policies, at least you know where they stand.
Comments and counter proposals
are welcome. Please email Ron McCray.
