O'Dowd Politics

A call for pragmatism in politics.

Archive for the tag “election”

26 Nov 2012
2 Comments

Young People are Narrow-Sighted

Having just passed my third decade, I’m absolutely appalled by how narrow-sighted young people have become.  The departure of America from capitalism to selfishism has completely changed the electoral dynamic in this country.  At one time people voted on principle: conservatives voted for smaller government, more individual liberty, business-friendly policies, and religious freedom; liberals on the other hand, voted to gain a larger, more centralized government,  entitlements for the poor, elderly, and downtrodden, fewer moral restrictions, and the removal of religion as a central element of our society–principles no doubt that many on each side still espouse in their selections for public office.  An increasing factor, however, has become the power of the selfish pocketbook in the political arena.

It is no secret that campaign financing has been a major issue over the past few years in U.S. elections, court battles, and public discourse.  McCain-Feingold’s attempt to limit campaign contributions from corporations and special interest groups went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to promoting their interests. (Interesting topic as courts recently found that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religious liberty in the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare–a ruling that is being appealed.) Individuals, in a similar vein have become increasingly concerned about protecting their own financial interests in elections, in much the same way that corporations do.  The major problem?  Individuals vote while corporations do not.  While buying, bribing, and blackmailing for votes is illegal; promising real and tangible economic benefits to specific key voting groups is not.  President Obama did not have hoards of representatives at polling places handing out crisp twenties to everyone who promised to vote for the Democratic candidate, but he did promise to provide thousands of dollars in benefits to the youth, free healthcare to the poor, free assistance to the elderly, and free citizenship waivers to the young illegal immigrants in the form of differed action.  Bribes? Maybe not.  Bribes? Certainly.

News outlets reported today that 60% of voters under 30 years of age voted for Obama, though down from his high in 2008 of 2 in 3 young people, it was enough to push him over the finish line in key battle-ground states.  Why?  Again I ask why did so many young people vote for the democrat? Because they took the bribe–and forgot to read the fine print.

No doubt most people missed the key details–that annoying voice that spoke really fast at the end of every Obama campaign ad.  In it’s entirety it went something like this:

“Young people of America, if you care about your education, your health, your aging parents, or your kitty at home you have no other choice than to vote for President Obama this November.  

He will stand up for your right to have limitless unprotected intercourse with the other gender, your gender, or no gender at all.  Plus he guarantees you free healthcare and will personally ensure that you will have double the funding from educational grants and limitless student loans.

The choice is clear!  Vote for Obama for a funner, happier, and carefree lifestyle today!”

(Following in a fast, almost undecipherable voice:)  This candidate makes no guarantees regarding the possibility of contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, a lifetime of regrets from your abortion(s), or likely limits to your future success.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, free healthcare, or free college tuition; this is  a loan that must be repaid in your future including low probability of finding a job out of college, no federal retirement, high inflation, and an unlikelihood of having a stable, happy family life.  Vote Obama for  a great now!  No guarantees for your future!

Back to my point.  Young people are too narrow-sighted to consider their future.  Historically their natural desire for instant gratification would have been tempered by concern for their moral upbringing, consideration for their parents or grandparents, and a true appreciation for American values and freedom.  All this is gone now–replaced by the seduction of lies, pandering, and bribery.  Youth vote for a care-free present with no consideration for the day when the loan comes due–a debt we will all pay with interest.

O’Dowd

Posted in Moral Issues, Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
12 Nov 2012

“It could be worse” is just as good a reason to vote for Obama as any, right?

The only problem is that it’s not better…but it could be worse right?

image

Posted in Politics and tagged , | Leave a comment
09 Nov 2012

If I were to run for president I wouldn’t pander for votes.

Pandering is for losers.  Voters can tell if a candidate is only taking a position for votes–right?  Take this last election as an example:  President Obama developed the deferred action policy to gain the Hispanic vote and “evolved” his position on gay marriage just to help appease two segments of the electorate that were less than enthusiastic about his performance on the issues that were so important to them.  How about Mitt Romney?  Did he claim to support policies that were clearly different from his past record in the public eye all while never offering a plausible explanation as to why is position had changed?  This may a little more difficult to determine as Romney didn’t have the power to implement new policies during the election like his opponent did, but one could make the argument that it was a little disingenuous to both hate Obamacare and defend his actions on socialized medicine while he was the governor of Massachusetts.  Not to mention his public statements about putting coal companies out of business while he was governor–contrasting sharply with his “friend of coal” lovefests while pounding the pavement in Pennsylvania during the heat of the election.  One thing is for certain; pandering is an unavoidable evil in politics today as both sides work to gain a few extra votes with demographics that are less than ecstatic about their success at gaining public office.

We all hate pandering and most of us can see through it knowing that a sudden change to a position that we have hoped to see for so long is most likely just a quick fling to take our vote and run—not unlike the flaky friend we had in college that would invite us to a party just so we would bring our cute friend along with us.  Even so, we still fall for it sometimes, especially when the new position is exactly what we have been hoping and praying for.  Now it’s there, right in front of us—like a mirage in the desert to satisfy our thirst right before we expire from lack of water.  In the moment of bliss we forget that four years ago somebody offered us the same thing and then got “so busy” with the economy or the war in Afghanistan, or working on alternative energy issues that he completely forgot to do anything until he needed our vote.  Oh well, you think, perhaps it will be different this time and besides, what do I have to lose since the other guy hasn’t even offered to help.  You just got pandered!

If I were to run for president I wouldn’t pander.  Period.  Politicians have to take artificial positions simply because they’ve already made enemies when it wasn’t necessary, or they have poor communication skills to articulate complex views.  Obama already had the support of the LGBT community; he didn’t need to come out for gay marriage, especially when he had pandered for the christian black vote four years earlier by standing against homosexual unions.  Romney was out of line when he spoke out against coal plants as a governor.  He made enemies when it wasn’t necessary and had to backtrack during his campaign by attacking the other guy rather than admitting he was wrong in the past.  Nope, I won’t pander.  I’ll be man enough to stand on principles that fit my belief system and humble enough to admit when I’m wrong, apologize, and move on.  Sure, I might lose a few votes from some groups that don’t particularly benefit from my policies, but at least everyone will know where I stand and I won’t have to pretend to be something I’m not.

Mark it down, put it in your time capsule, chisel it into stone—when O’Dowd runs for president he will tell you the truth, have carefully articulated views on policy for every demographic and issue, and will be willing to admit he’s wrong when he’s boneheaded enough to say something dumb.  (Writing in third person: not good!)  Here’s the bottom line:  pandering is for losers, it’s disingenuous, artificial, and as obvious as a three headed dog.  If I run for president I’ll be honest, fair, nice, and modify my position if I realize I was wrong and can articulate why my position has changed.  Flip-flop maybe; pander never.

O’Dowd

Posted in If I were to run for president., Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
07 Nov 2012

O’Dowd for Political Pragmatism

Welcome to O’Dowd Politics where we will dive deep into the inner workings of the political environment of the United States of America.  Though I am a Republican, and make no apologies about it; I hope to keep a critical eye on both parties, using their key principles to evaluate their moves and postures, hoping to discern whether Washington is keeping us as a “city on a hill”–an example of freedom and liberty to the world.

“For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” — John Winthrop

In this blog we will look closely at the key principles of the U.S., consider the motivations of each political party, and focus on whether politicians are providing real, pragmatic solutions, or simply pandering for votes.  I hope you will stay tuned for a wild ride into the darkest, dingiest, and deepest crevasses of politics to see if there is a way forward through the political morass that binds our country.

Happy reading!

O’Dowd

Posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation