What We Should Care About
Dear Readers,
Sorry for the recent short hiatus. There's obviously been a lot going on that is in need of comment, but life and work keep getting in the way and I find it hard to make time to write every day. Must try harder, or sleep less.
I guess I'm having to resign myself to a two year presidential cycle, so might as well join the party and start commenting on some things.
The media has been obsessed recently with how much money is being raised by the various candidates and what it means in terms of their chances, and I guess this is consistent with what Americans must care about since we love a good horserace.
But, there are some things that it seems to me that anyone who thinks they are qualified to vote (as opposed to merely being qualified to vote by virtue of citizenship and proper voting age) should care about and know. Here is an interesting list http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/04/post_3419.html#016237 that I wonder if anyone even reading this could make an educated guess on any of the listed items.
I'm sure, like Michael Tomasky, we could think of an even more extensive list of things that we think our presidential aspirants should know and care about that affect most of us on a daily basis.
For myself, I don't give a rats ass who is raising the most money, and in fact, agree with Barack Obama that the amounts are obscene. I'm also inclined more and more to look at the candidates in the second tier that might be coming up with the more interesting ideas since they're probably spending less time pandering for funds and spending more time thinking about ways to fix the problems in this country and around the world. Unless, of course, they're guys like Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter who are just pandering to a small ideological base and have no interest in solving problems, just installing a right wing religious agenda on the rest of us.
I also note with great interest the vote in Maryland yesterday that would like to get rid of the electoral college in favor of a truly national election by popular vote (oh, if only that had been the case in 2000, might the world be a really different place right now.) Recent elections have been primarily focused on a small number of "battleground" states with strategic numbers of votes in the electoral college where candidates felt that they could compete, leaving large swathes of the country unattended to or paid attention to by the campaigns. Some people worry that by getting rid of the electoral college, that small rural states will be left out of the political process altogether, and the parties worry that they might have to spend money in areas where they are not spending them now by having to go more places. These seem like specious arguments to me.
I think this would mean that candidates would have to appeal more broadly to common issues and not spend so much time pandering to narrow interests in one state and a different set of narrow interests in another state (hello, Rudy Giuliani).
What would be fascinating is to see who might run the first really modern campaign in a national election not based on the electoral college, using the internet and media much more broadly to appeal to many people in virtual town halls and having a very centralized campaign structure that focused on big ideas with specific solutions for the whole country.
It's hard to say if that would be a good thing. Sometimes there is nothing better than face to face communication to get to know the true measure of a candidate, but it's an interesting approach that may be tried in the near future.
Sorry for the recent short hiatus. There's obviously been a lot going on that is in need of comment, but life and work keep getting in the way and I find it hard to make time to write every day. Must try harder, or sleep less.
I guess I'm having to resign myself to a two year presidential cycle, so might as well join the party and start commenting on some things.
The media has been obsessed recently with how much money is being raised by the various candidates and what it means in terms of their chances, and I guess this is consistent with what Americans must care about since we love a good horserace.
But, there are some things that it seems to me that anyone who thinks they are qualified to vote (as opposed to merely being qualified to vote by virtue of citizenship and proper voting age) should care about and know. Here is an interesting list http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/04/post_3419.html#016237 that I wonder if anyone even reading this could make an educated guess on any of the listed items.
I'm sure, like Michael Tomasky, we could think of an even more extensive list of things that we think our presidential aspirants should know and care about that affect most of us on a daily basis.
For myself, I don't give a rats ass who is raising the most money, and in fact, agree with Barack Obama that the amounts are obscene. I'm also inclined more and more to look at the candidates in the second tier that might be coming up with the more interesting ideas since they're probably spending less time pandering for funds and spending more time thinking about ways to fix the problems in this country and around the world. Unless, of course, they're guys like Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter who are just pandering to a small ideological base and have no interest in solving problems, just installing a right wing religious agenda on the rest of us.
I also note with great interest the vote in Maryland yesterday that would like to get rid of the electoral college in favor of a truly national election by popular vote (oh, if only that had been the case in 2000, might the world be a really different place right now.) Recent elections have been primarily focused on a small number of "battleground" states with strategic numbers of votes in the electoral college where candidates felt that they could compete, leaving large swathes of the country unattended to or paid attention to by the campaigns. Some people worry that by getting rid of the electoral college, that small rural states will be left out of the political process altogether, and the parties worry that they might have to spend money in areas where they are not spending them now by having to go more places. These seem like specious arguments to me.
I think this would mean that candidates would have to appeal more broadly to common issues and not spend so much time pandering to narrow interests in one state and a different set of narrow interests in another state (hello, Rudy Giuliani).
What would be fascinating is to see who might run the first really modern campaign in a national election not based on the electoral college, using the internet and media much more broadly to appeal to many people in virtual town halls and having a very centralized campaign structure that focused on big ideas with specific solutions for the whole country.
It's hard to say if that would be a good thing. Sometimes there is nothing better than face to face communication to get to know the true measure of a candidate, but it's an interesting approach that may be tried in the near future.
posted by Paul Salinger at 1:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home