Does the way the presidential campaign stretches out for months (and really, years) before the election result in the country electing the better candidate? Does it serve the nation's interests? Would the electorate be better informed by the media covering the current activities of the already-elected officials than telling us what those vying to be Commander-in-Chief say they would do? And does what the media reports really lead voters to contemplate the complexities of the candidates' positions before casting their ballots, rather than going with that gut feeling when in the booth?
In order: Probably not, unlikely, perhaps, and I doubt it.
If you are one who has already decided that irrespective of what they say you will vote against the Republican nominee (merely because you don't like the GOP) or you will vote against the incumbent president (merely because you want any Republican in the Oval Office), there's really no reason to pay the slightest attention to the campaigns and the coverage of them other than for the sheer entertainment value; only to get the jokes made between now and November would there be justification for devoting your time to any specifics of what Romney or Obama say in regards to getting elected.
Having an already-made mind may be seen as laziness but I'd call it efficiency; politics is a sport that few of us actually play but where there's the suggestion that we're supposed to be avid spectators, even though any ostensible victory for "our" side every fourth year is merely a temporary high preceding the inevitable disappointment that comes from realizing that soon the promises of what would be done are swept aside by the promises of what will be done after the next one.
You may as well get on with whatever you actually enjoy doing in your free time.
If you are undecided and give a crap, that suggests you enjoy spending that free time paying attention. And good for you if you have that sort of fortitude, but I also must offer my sympathies—that cannot be easy for you.
~
There is no user manual for our democracy.
In order: Probably not, unlikely, perhaps, and I doubt it.
If you are one who has already decided that irrespective of what they say you will vote against the Republican nominee (merely because you don't like the GOP) or you will vote against the incumbent president (merely because you want any Republican in the Oval Office), there's really no reason to pay the slightest attention to the campaigns and the coverage of them other than for the sheer entertainment value; only to get the jokes made between now and November would there be justification for devoting your time to any specifics of what Romney or Obama say in regards to getting elected.
Having an already-made mind may be seen as laziness but I'd call it efficiency; politics is a sport that few of us actually play but where there's the suggestion that we're supposed to be avid spectators, even though any ostensible victory for "our" side every fourth year is merely a temporary high preceding the inevitable disappointment that comes from realizing that soon the promises of what would be done are swept aside by the promises of what will be done after the next one.
You may as well get on with whatever you actually enjoy doing in your free time.
If you are undecided and give a crap, that suggests you enjoy spending that free time paying attention. And good for you if you have that sort of fortitude, but I also must offer my sympathies—that cannot be easy for you.
~
There is no user manual for our democracy.
The lack of a user manual is an impediment; the lack of an IQ test to limit participation is a death sentence.
ReplyDelete