|
Edited on Sat Aug-27-11 11:36 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
The #1 thing that might make some real difference in Congressional and/or Presidential races IMHO would be making candidates whom profess to hate government explain WHY the hell they want to be in government if they hate it so much? Maybe it might make people think twice before electing somebody to a government post who is clearly not wanting to do his/her job. The Republicans have been able to skate past this point much too easily in the past. This seems like a simple commonsense point that most people should easily understand.
After all:
Schools don't hire teachers whom don't want to teach.
The Police force doesn't accept and train people whom don't want to enforce the law.
No business that I know would ever hire somebody who told their interviewer that they don't believe in the company, don't want to be there, and won't do their job if hired.
So................why should we hire people to represent us if profess they hate "government" so much and essentially only want to be there to make it as dysfunctional as possible and to keep anything meaningful from happening, as well as to sell government off to their private sector buddies and campaign donors?
:shrug:
I don't expect everybody running for office to agree on everything and I can accept that there is a wide range of opinions about what government should do and how it should do it but I'm fine with that as long as the people at least accept the premise that they are running for public office and prepared to actually do their job to represent their constituents and keep the government running as smoothly as possibly. At one point in time, we had some semblance of bipartisanship and cooperation between the two parties and the concept of compromise was not a dirty word- on either side. While both parties fought over things all of the times, at the end of the day both sides used to (pre-Gingrich revolution) both recognize that things like government shutdowns and defaulting on our debts were BAD things that shouldn't even be risked for any reasons and that some genuine give and take on both sides would be necessary to avoid them. People on both sides also used to recognize that we, as a government, don't accept let alone condone undemocratic and/or human rights violations things like indefinite detention, torture, etc. That was supposed to be what the "bad guys" were doing to other people during WW2 and what we executed many of our enemies for after the dust settled. Both sides used to agree that invading and occupying a foreign country absent a (real) imminent threat to our country (such as during WW2) or to the world-at-large was a bad idea. Frankly, it pains me to think about the degree to which our country has fallen, particularly in a moral sense during just the past decade.
We can start changing this IMHO, however, if we start actually electing the right kind of people to office whom recognize and take their responsibilities as public officials seriously and doing what we can to keep the people whom don't out of office.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
