|
|
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Politics of...Politics?
I just finished reading this editorial in The Australian (one of the more prestigious national newspapers here).
It's a pretty interesting article related to the current American presidential campaign.
In truth, I have not followed this campaign with great interest so far. That isn't because I don't care or because I'm bored with it (I actually loathe reading these excuses for people's disengagement from such an important issue). It's simply because I've found this campaign to be too frustrating to watch, especially early on.
Why? Well, for one thing, I'm tired of hearing candidates insult the intelligence of Americans. I'm also tired of hearing and reading the absolutely ridiculous political commentary that seems to permeate every corner of the media - so much of it is utter rubbish that it's no wonder many people are confused or misguided.
In terms of the Democrats, I have to admit that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are exciting for obvious reasons - one is black and one is a woman. If either became president, it would obviously be an incredibly important moment in both American and world history.
But the sheer amount of horrible reporting and misguided debates I have seen surrounding these candidates is confusing at best and downright dangerous at worst.
I have never really been a fan of Hillary Clinton. I will admit that this is largely based on both her demeanor and her handling of various situations. Admittedly these are not solid reasons to disapprove of a candidate.
Having said that, I've also never outright hated Clinton. And frankly, I don't understand much of the poisonous comment that is fired in her direction on a regular basis. So much of it seems to be based on anything but substance - a lot of it relates to how she looks or how she talks or her husband or whatever else. It honestly makes me sick and every time I read the more venomous stuff, I honestly feel like I am losing brain cells.
Barack Obama seems to have been almost universally popular, especially among young people (who are unquestionably the most politically ignorant group in America).
To tell you the truth, I would say that in terms of what I actually agree with...it's probably 50/50 for me. Barack and Hillary are quite similar, with few key distinctions.
But I get annoyed that Hillary seems to take a lot of unreasonable flack, where Barack doesn't.
I saw one of Barack's newer speeches recently and I felt like I was wading through a swamp of stereotypical political catchphrases. He brings up a vague anecdote from the campaign trail, then he talks about "working families", then he returns to "change and the future" and so on.
None of these messages are inherently bad, but I noticed that his entire speech was nothing but canned soundbytes. It was almost as though it were designed specifically for TV distribution, rather than carrying any real sense of honesty or integrity.
If I find myself aligned with both candidates 50/50, then why am I being so hard on Obama, you might ask.
Well, partly because I think Hillary Clinton has been dragged through the mud far too much (to the point where many elements of the media have outright ignored Barack's petulance and arrogance).
Secondly, Hillary Clinton may be a political player, but she's generally quite frank. As I watch more debates, I notice that Hillary utilizes a combination of rhetoric and bluntness. The bluntness is not a bad thing though; to me, the bluntness says "I'm not going to insult your intelligence, I'm just going to tell you what I think."
I am finding that as I begin to actually follow this campaign, I trust Barack Obama less and less. He exhibits all the traits of a savvy showman, without the inherent wisdom or maturity to support it.
Overall, I suppose I am tired of the same old politics - in both politics itself as well as in the media and general public discourse.
I'm tired of hearing about how politicians will get rid of "special interest groups" - what does that even mean? Has anyone demanded a specific explanation?
It sounds good, but it never happens and is probably not feasible anyway. I mean, what about legitimate groups who lobby the Government? What about charities and foundations? What about political activist groups who advocate causes for sections of society?
Aren't they all really "special interests"?
I don't know how anyone can claim, with any degree of intellectual honesty, to outright remove special interests in politics.
Yes, you can act to curb collusion and corruption, but I am tired of hearing catchphrases. Logic and reason is what's needed.
And why is being experienced in Washington a bad thing?
In Australia, we tend to deliberately look for candidates who have significant political experience - especially federally. Why? Surely the answer is obvious: federal politics is a difficult battleground to navigate. Why on Earth would you want someone who is inexperienced in this field? Why would you want someone who will be dropped in the deep end without understanding how to achieve outcomes in such an environment?
I personally don't know.
I suppose that this little rant just reflects my overall disappointment. I find it ironic that the candidate favored by many is, ironically, the one who has most cynically manipulated the media.
I find it annoying that people who have no interest in politics - who "don't care" or think "they're all the same" - are the first to offer a political opinion.
And most importantly of all, I find it frustrating that so many people get caught up in empty slogans, media spin and image. What is the point of being politically active if you have nothing of real value to contribute?
I have seen some fiery political debates, especially among young people. What scares me is that the vast majority of these young people a) don't know what they're talking about, b) have no real understanding of the political system and c) do not have the historical knowledge to draw appropriate comparisons or to form reasoned conclusions.
It is ironic that there are many young people who worry about the future because they ignorantly reject the existing political system - yet my fears for the future tend to come from those very young people who are so self-obsessed, spoiled and ignorant that they themselves may one day be leading nations.
That thought, more than any concern about current political leaders, is what tends to cast the most doubt in my mind about the future.
I think some of you wanted a rant, so there you go! Haha. And now, for my responses to your responses. ~_^
Sesshomarufan: Sports forum, eh? That's a pretty interesting idea.
I have little interest in discussing sports myself (I tend to prefer to watch/participate), but I can understand people wanting this.
It's definitely something to consider.
And yes, the entire southern hemisphere is currently in the middle of summer.
I don't surf, no.
master hiko: What is that first paragraph supposed to mean? I think you should just tell me. You might be surprised. ~_^
Most people on OB are very friendly and warm. It's a really fun place to be. I'd definitely recommend checking it out at some point.
Aaryanna: Yep, I'm looking forward to continuing to work with Crystia when I get time. Even so far we've come a long way!
Even though I did not participate in Silver One, it's cool that it finished. That's a rare thing for RPGs.
Hal: Wow, your comments seem to get longer and longer!
First of all, I'm glad that the name may be changing from Spaces to Worlds.
For the uninitiated, my idea with "Worlds" was not derived from Mario or anything like that.
I actually saw a preview of the Spaces concept, with a site called (and I think I can say this) "Ghost in the Shell World". There were a couple of "World" pages and I felt it was a great fit. So I encouraged Adam to go with that name for the entire service.
Besides, as has been mentioned, there's already "MSN Spaces", "mySpace", etc.
And your opinions on OB are still welcome, even if you don't frequent.
Anyway about the other stuff, one thing you said really stood out:
"but I'm not in the position to relocate on the off-chance I might find new and/or better opportunities somewhere else."
I think that's the core of your problem.
When I really felt I needed a big change, you know what I did? I applied for a job in another state.
I flew up there, not even knowing if I'd get it. A friend put me up for about a month.
Then, I got it, moved into my own place and the rest was history. A year later I moved back to my home city, promotion and all.
My point is that a gamble is better than nothing at all. Better to try and fail than not to try, you know?
Ultimately, no matter how many rejections you experience, a job will never come to you. You may even have to completely change your living situation or your way of thinking in order to become employed.
I suppose the question is whether or not you are willing to do that. If not, then I suppose you have to accept the status quo.
In any case, it may indeed be worth trying to start your own business. You may find it more rewarding, too. So good luck!
|
|
Comments
(5)
« Home
|
|
|
| |
