darkspires ([info]darkspires) wrote,
@ 2008-06-19 09:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: curious

Distraction
I suppose I want to think about anything else while I wait. The typical ostrich behavior when threatened. Anyhow, mind free and floating, I began to wonder about the U.S election.

First, I should say I know absolutely nothing about U.S politics and am not caught up in politics in general. Working for the government means impartiality seeps into a person's psyche. What has fascinated me this time around is the unique candidates. There is Obama, promising to become the first African/American president, and Clinton, for a while promising to become the first women president. On the other side appears to be McCain, who is more of a background figure for the press, although I have just found some public gaffs of his.

What is the difference between Republican and Democrat in terms of major policies and why is McCain being ignored? Do the press choose the president? We heard a lot about Clinton and Obama, so why not McCain? Again, just curious and not rooting for anyone, although it would have been amusing to see the first woman president in office and be able to laugh from across the boarder.


Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]ruralwriter
2008-06-19 04:03 pm UTC (link)
I understand the ostrich syndrome, so I'll hopefully offer you some distraction.

I think there are two reasons that Obama and Clinton garnered so much more press:

1) The primary contest (i.e., the selection process in which voters in individual states get to "vote"--either by a "vote," just going into a voting booth like usual, or by a "caucus"--which I think means "voting by jury" where essentially everyone standing in a room must come to agree on the same candidate) between the Democratic candidates lasted *much* longer than primaries generally do. The Republican primary was over much more quickly, selecting John McCain.

2) Obama and Clinton offered firsts - the first time for either an African-American and a woman to have, er, "viable" candidacies. Firsts make good stories.

These are gross oversimplifications of the two parties:

Republicans are generally aligned with "fiscally conservative" policies (although one can always argue with that) and believe in limiting taxes primarily on businesses, but also on individuals (especially wealthier ones, it seems). Lately, they're also more aligned with religious factions that believe in creating laws based on a certain Christian set of believes (such as, they oppose abortion, oppose stem cell research, etc.) Republicans are generally opposed to "social programs" like Welfare, Social Security (the program which gives money to senior citizens from employee/employer taxes), etc. Republicans generally are perceived as being more "favorable" to the military - i.e., giving more budget to the military.

Democrats are generally aligned with the social programs like providing health care, if not "universally" to all citizens, at least to children. They tend to favor stem cell research, access to abortion, education not based on religious viewpoints, etc. Theoretically, they're more in favor of protecting the environment.

Of course, nothing is ever particularly simple. No one candidate will fully conform to the generally held party beliefs. And parties change: One hundred years ago, the president who pushed our national parks and was a great believer in the environment was a Republican. Now we have George Bush, who doesn't believe in global warming and suppresses scientific research to conform to his mindset...aiee.

I would very much have liked to have seen a woman in office. A while back, I figured out that only 16% of people in Congress are women. But...I guess that time is not to be.

Sadly, I think it seems the press does offer a lot of influence in voting. I think the fact that the press (which is generally owned by conservative conglomerates) ignored Bush's idiocy led to him getting elected multiple times. I think candidates these days have to be very telegenic and, sadly, it seems politics is a lot more like a "reality television show" than the reality of electing someone to powerful office.

My brother works in politics and in a different party from the one I generally identify with. I've found my belief in anyone particular party fading somewhat...and realize that for politicians to get anything accomplished they generally all have to compromise....

Those are just my opinions.

I hope that's helpful.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]darkspires
2008-06-19 04:42 pm UTC (link)
Wow! Thank you. This clears up a lot of wooliness I had on the subject. Now I have a much better idea of what the parties represent.

The environmental issue is one close to my heart so I am sad that the present president is not supporting the planet. I hope your next one will.

And yes, politicians do sing variations on the theme once they are elected and they find out exactly how things stand and for what good and valid reason. I can see this first hand. I also remember several occasions when a U.S candidate has sworn to reveal the secrets of area 51 only to suffer total amnesia on election. I really don't imagine there is anything there except for military research, but the back tracking is hilarious to observe.

Hugs.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…