Midterm Exam

Mid-term elections, that is. And the best part is that the exam is ungraded. At least for now. We’ll have to wait and see what November 2nd brings and then wait further to see if the new boss is any different than the old boss. In the meantime, though, let’s look at some general issues that can be answered individually.

First of all, I’m curious about the level of excitement at rallies for many of the candidates. I can understand the excitement a prospect of change creates, but no change has occurred yet and, even though a new elected individual takes office there is no guarantee of change in the future. The excitement sounds like marketing to me and that means shills are in the crowd to amp up the reactions. Something less than transparent and honest, huh?

I’m also puzzled by the notion that political neophytes labeled as outsiders are running for office on the grounds of upsetting government’s apple cart and taking us all to a better day. Don’t get me wrong: I encourage grass roots efforts and have espoused their impact in previous writings. But there is a difference between instilling the desire for change in the halls of power and throwing them out to do it ourselves.

Have you ever been unhappy with your doctor or lawyer? And, if so, did you perform your own surgery or act as your own counsel? Probably not. You more than likely sought out another qualified professional, i.e. career-type, to take over. Why would the political world be any different? To think that Joe or Jane next-door-neighbor/just like me can step in and handle the rigors of governing is absurd. I don’t know about you, but I want someone a good deal smarter than I. I’m not voting for the person I’d most like to invite over for dinner. I’m voting for the best possible person to lead my city/state/country through the next several years. Or, perhaps worse yet: thinking that Joe or Jane CEO can take over a political position and run it like a board room is beyond naive. Different careers require different skill sets and we should all know this.  

Speaking of the CEO types running for office next month, has anyone asked why they would spend millions for a position that pays much less? Many claim to be fiscal conservatives, but the campaigns they are conducting spend money as if it’s going out of style. Meg Whitman, running for California’s Governor, has spent over $100 million of her own money! Either she is fiscally irresponsible or is planning for a huge return on her investment. The question in my mind centers around how she’s going to get that return and from whom.

There can be no argument that times are something less than ideal and everyone is looking for the first rays of sunshine after a terrible storm. Our error lies in the sense that someone who has never done this before will be more successful than someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. While a change in office-holder may well be in order, wouldn’t we be better served by electing someone who at least knows the modus operandi of the political animal?

While conversations, debates, and arguments over political topics tend to be filled with vitriol and high levels of emotion, I would suggest that a calmer state of mind is required before casting a ballot. Know the candidates, the issues, and the priorities you might share with a candidate. With this information, pull the lever or fill in the box or punch out the square (keeping an eye on any hanging chads). This is all best done with a calm and collected mind lest emotion sweep us to rash and unthought-out actions. 

Regardless, nothing will change overnight within any political system merely because a new class of freshmen (or an individual Governor “Frosh”) takes office. While the promise of better times may be enough for the campaign trail, we must look beyond the hype and cast our votes wisely. Doing any less may lead us to an even harsher reality.