I've been thinking... this was the one attraction that drew me towards computers and the on-line community. When you're online, (at least in the golden days), there was no race, no sex. People were judged by their actions, and their character. People were judged by what they say and by what they do.
I wonder if all political debates were limited to being on-line, what would happen? Instead of having "names" and their pictures posted, they would be labeled such as:
All they would be allowed to do would be to write articles and participate in on-line chats concerning their views. Thus us, the voters would be limited to choosing our candidates by reacting only on where they stand on the issues, their character, and how they respond to challenging questions and comments.
There would be no risk of someone choosing a candidate by how good looking they are, how well they play to the media, whether they are a man or a woman, or what race they are. It truly makes me wonder how these elections would really pan out.
Would the politicians we have in office now be the same? Would the divisions that are evident now exist to such an extent?
Yes, there are people who come from every possible background. Some people are more "liberal" then others, while some are more "conservative".
There will always be those who will hold choice over the life of human beings, and there will always be those who appose them.
There will always be those who want the government to become a "nanny state", and there will always be those who appose them.
And of course, there will always be the middle ground, which I think would consist of most of the population.
If the above scenario were really to happen, I think we'd see a complete difference then what we have today.
However, people can become emotionally charged and extremely defensive. They are unable to look past their emotions and consider the meat of the matter.
Through the media, candidates now petition the public not on policies and character, but on divisive issues such as sex, race, and emotions.
For example, let us consider both presidents Clinton and Bush. Both of them have done some good for the country, yet the political opposition for both presidents would/will refuse to give them credit. Instead they will work on the publics' emotions and attempt to divide the country, just so their political party can become stronger.
In the case of Bill Clinton, the Republican party did it's best to tear him down. Don't get me wrong, I loath Mr. Clinton, but I can and do admit that he did bring some positive benefits to the country. You'll never hear that from the mainstream Conservatives or Republican party.
In the case of George Bush, nothing he does will soothe the rabid hatred directed towards him from the far left and the Democratic party.
In elections, candidates, when they are drawing close in the poles will bring out "attack" advertisements, in the hopes that they will turn the publics' emotions negatively enough against their opponents that they will be elevated to victory.
The politics that run this country are no longer based on issues, but instead on emotions. Each political party is willing, and continues, to divide this country just so that their party will either remain in power or grab it. the evidence is all around us.
So what I ask is for people to step back for a moment. Ignore all those negative attacks. Ignore how well a candidate looks. Ignore what "party" they belong to. Instead, take a long hard look at what they are saying. Is it consistent with what they have said in the past, as well as what they have voted on? Or are they "changing their tune" based on polls and what they think the voting public wants to hear? What is their personal character? Are they known for "dirty deeds", or are they known to put the interests of the public above their own? Remember, our politicians are supposed to be "public servants", placing the needs of the country over their own personal ambitions and the ambitions of the party they belong to.
I have been a Republican for as long as I can remember. However, the Republican party I initially supported is now extremely different then what it is today. In the same vein, the Democrat party is no longer what it was originally purposed to be.
Thus, I no longer consider myself a Republican, but a conservative. The two are quite different these days.
Being "liberal" was what created the United States. It was that particular mindset that drove the colonists to rebel against the oppression of the crown. Being a liberal in that sense was the greatest thing in the world!
On the same token, it was the conservatives that went to war over the issues of slavery and national unity. Being a conservative in that sense was the greatest thing in the world!
However, these days all of that has changed. We now focus on the emotional aspect of politics as well as issues that shouldn't even matter (sex, race, etc).
It would be very tempting to blame the politicians for this. But if we take a serious look at ourselves, we are the ones to blame. The politicians are only using "what works" to get the votes. They know that the American public reacts strongly to emotional ploys, so that is what they use.
Is there any wonder why this nation is in the state it's in today?