You Vote for the Person and Not the Issues
February 19, 2008by Chris Chambers
Wait a minute. Suppress your contempt at my absurd statement and hear what I have to say. First off, let’s examine my assertion: “You vote for the person and not the issues.” It seems pretty clear. At least, it seems clear to me.
When voting, at least here in the United States, a candidate’s name appears on a ballot. Sometimes, as in a presidential contest, they run as a pair … George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney in 2004, for instance. Nowhere on the ballot does it list their positions on key issues or their upbringing or even their lineage. One votes for a combination of names and party identifiers. Who one votes for, in the privacy of the voting booth, is an inherently subjective matter. One doesn’t always vote for who they think will be the best fit for their constituency, who will most affect their life for the positive, or even who is the most competent. More often than not, a voter relies on their party identification as if a crutch to rationalize their choice.
“But,” the astute observer might inquire, “Isn’t the goal to elect the best leader for the constituency?” Not really. Who determines who the best is? Obviously not the voters. In any election, there is a minority of people who feel that their candidate was the best one for the job. There are no objective criteria to determine the “best possible candidate.”
“Well then, wouldn’t it be the goal to vote on the issue that most concerns us?” This is a rather quaint and simple-minded reason to vote. All candidates have their skeletons. Did you know that Barack Obama, while being vehemently against the war, supports curtailing NASA’s budget? Clinton isn’t any better. Did you know that under her healthcare plan, which mandates everyone buy into it, one would have their wages garnished if they choose their private healthcare over hers. Oh yeah, she also authorized the President to use force against Iraq. This authorization was pounced on by President Bush and is the reason why we’re still in Iraq now – almost five years later.
“Well, who should I vote for?” If you’re seriously asking this question, then you shouldn’t be voting. It’s up to every citizen to be well-informed of the process and the candidates before they vote. Their personal histories are fair game, their issue positions are fair game, their personalities are fair game, hell, if you want, even their poise and appearance are fair game. The President is not only the Commander-and-Chief of the United States but our figure-head to the entire world. A Buffoon-in-Chief isn’t respected in world affairs.
When voting for a candidate, evaluate them as a whole person. During the primary process, the primary reason to vote for someone, I feel, is their electability. Damn their particular positions. Who is the best person to beat the other guy in the general election ought to be one’s foremost concern. Are their positions mainstream enough to get them elected? Do they appear to be authentic? How eloquent are they? Do they appear to be from a good background? How have they handled their personal lives?
Case in point: There is/was an article on The Huffington Post the other month saying how Obama and Edwards were 95% alike on 73 key issues. With this in mind, why has Obama done so much better than Edwards in the primary? The answer is: everything but the issues, apparently. All of these subjective reasons – voting for “hope” and “change,” electing the first half-black and half-white person to the high position, voting for the tallest candidate, whatever – play an important role in a voter’s vote.
Now, I fully understand that a lot of people will still disagree with me. My aim is to inform and prod people into thinking about themselves. Don’t lie to yourself. Don’t be timid in who you vote for. Vote for whoever you want to after you know who they are. And if you think that researching a candidate’s background is too cumbersome then, well, maybe you should stay home on Election Day. The country will be better off with you not voting.
Actually, when asked how he would pay for his expensive education proposals Obama said, “There are some programs related to NASA, for example, that we would not eliminate — but defer — so that the spending is spread out over a longer period of time. There are a host of programs at the federal level that I think are less of a priority than making sure that our kids are getting a good start in life.” (NPR)
I’m not sure which part of Hillary’s healthcare plan you are referring to, but according to her website people can either keep their existing healthcare, or choose from a number of other private or public options. If by garnishing wages you mean raising taxes, I suppose that is likely- but I think that would be the case for everyone : ) Perhaps I am mistaken…
You’re both right regarding NASA. Obama does want to cut into NASA’s money, but it is also true that he doesn’t want to eliminate the programs altogether. Obviously with less money that will mean the programs will need more time to accomplish what needs to be done, and the missions in particular he’s looking to take money from are human missions to the Moon and to Mars.
Though I support Obama, this is my biggest problem with him. The money for education can come from a lot of places, but the advancement of human achievement and pure knowledge should not be one of the expenses. Isn’t it almost paradoxical to fund education by curtailing advancements in what we can teach our children and ourselves?
There’s an entire universe we know next to nothing about, and Bush’s support for plans that would take us to our closest celestial neighbors was one of maybe two things he’s done/said that I completely agreed with. Not to mention, the technology required to safely travel to Mars would likely turn into civilian gadgets that will make our lives on Earth more comfortable and safer.
It’s not paradoxical to fund education by curtailing advancements made by NASA. How can such a program continue to advance itself if the next generation isn’t prepared to carry the knowledge gained by it? What good are all our advancements in science if we do not have a well-educated generation of people to inherit it?
Obama is right. These programs are less of a priority. Saying that putting men on Mars is more important than making sure our children will have a good education is like building the roof of the house before even setting the foundation.
If you vote for an individual instead of issues, than you’re thought process is entirely wrong. I agree that you need to judge whether or not a person is being sincere about seeing through the issues that he or she has promoted, but if you don’t look at the issues than you are voting blind. Our generation might prove itself to vote on appearance rather than substance. We are wooed by words and promises. If you look at the issues, we are in danger if Barrack Obama is elected. His stance on the issues are extremely liberal and have a hint of socialism. America won the Cold War because of our economic strength, not our military. The Soviet Union’s economy was in shambles due to central planning and their socialist beliefs. So what do our Democratic politicians feed us? Socialist policies. We are in big big trouble. The bigger the government gets, the less economic influence American will have around the world. Our quality of life will be reduced, and the same people Barrack and the Dem’s say thet want to help will ultimately be the ones who are hurt the most.