Political Candidacy

OK so I’m really writing this as a feeble attempt to be constructive outside of my regular job. Nevertheless my topic is an issue I was thinking about on my way in to the daily grind. It’s a question really. What can we really expect from any political candidate? Forget that they’re mostly derived from an elite minority of the American social demographic. What I am saying is that any candidate that has a chance of winning is doomed from the start at making real change for the larger part of American life.

First of all, they all have to operate in a political environment that refuses to be altered without all those parties involved making some headway toward their own agenda, and if they’re towing the line of a major party….you get the point. Its a symptom of a government that has built upon a system of reciprocity between two major parties. And, if some candidate (assuming they get elected) decides to go it alone, they will find opposition at every turn. Just look at Jimmy Carter. The man tried to push agendas that are still pertinent today (foreign policy in the middle east, environmental conservation, energy policy reform) but without giving way to his political counterparts, he was almost completely ineffective…just another single term president. Many people say that Bill Clinton had such success because he was a moderate more than a liberal. I think this is true. His ability to compromise served him well. But, on the other hand, compromise often erodes the integrity of an agenda or political plan and this was also evident during the Clinton years. And so I think anyone who campaigns on the platform of drastic change (i.e. Barack Obama, Ron Paul) is setting themselves up for failure despite their good intentions.  But then it occurs to me that they of all people should know what I am talking about. So are they under the impression that they can do what other Presidents have failed to accomplish? Or, are they just lying to us again? It is more sensible to believe the latter (in my own opinion of course). Ralph Nader at least was able to admit that if he was elected he would be unable to do much change to the current political system because it’s been fortified over such a long period of time. The candidate I would vote for would have one or two things (important things) that they would change. The rest would be as it has been. That way, there would be something to judge their efficiency by, and any other positive change that came about during their presidency would simply be an added bonus. However, the American public could really hold that candidate to those promises instead of getting the age-old “I need more time in office” routine. I’m just saying…Knockemdown

Leave a Reply