|
|
Think ... People, THINK! |
|
|
|
Think ... People, THINK! |
|
|
|
|
There is nothing inherently wrong with "politics". By definition "politics" is: 1. The science or art of political
government, The problem, of course, is people - the people who practice politics and the people that permit them to practice. The most "efficient" form of government is the benevolent Dictator. The problem is finding a benevolent one ... and keeping him/her that way. Democracy in a small organization can work well. Everyone has a voice and a vote, and the majority (or defined criteria) "wins" (or sets the course). Democracy in a State or Country doesn't work quite so well. Individual voices are now through paid "politicians". Besides their human traits (good and bad), politicians have additional driving factors -- (1) compromise, and (2) keeping a job (re-election). Even when we find one with more good traits than bad ones, and he/she professes to value what we do, he or she must still bargain and compromise to get something done because there are always opposing views. Bargaining and compromise are so much a part of a politicians life that honesty and personal integrity often suffer. The age-old expression, "He would trade his mother-in-law to get what he wants," continues to be applicable today. I think honesty and personal integrity should be the primary traits that we should look for in a representative. We then convince this representative with reason and facts as to how he/she should vote to represent us. What do you think? At one time I thought McCain and Lieberman would have been the best candidates running together for president and vice-president. Both seemed to be as honest as politicians can be, and both seemed to do some independent thinking. One could have been President and the other Vice President, and then after 2 years they could have switched positions. Although our voting system today wouldn't allow a Republican and Democrat to be elected together to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, I think the concept is worth exploring further. Image a Republican and Democrat "working together" for the betterment of the country. What do you think? In our form of government, a politician is often confronted with a dilemma -- to vote for the good of the constituency that elected him/her (e.g. to benefit the State or District) or to vote for the good of the larger entity (e.g. to benefit the Nation). If every State representative votes for what is best for his/her State, shouldn't the aggregate be in the best interest of the Nation? On the other hand, shouldn't what is best for the Nation be Congress' top priority? I think it depends on the facts of the specific issue at hand. What do you think? "Parties" are a problem. If you are a "Democrat" or a "Republican" or a "T-Party" person or an "X-Party" person or any-party person, do you really support everything that party stands for? ... every "plank" in that party's "platform"? I think we should all consider ourselves Independents; gather the facts and vote for what we then think is the right candidate or the best choice for an issue. What do you think? If you feel the need to e-mail comments, use: info@thinkpeoplethink.org |
