Political Rant Vol. II

In my previous political rant (23 Feb), I bemoaned the fact that Americans seem to elect presidents based more on their personal appeal than their stance on the issues. This, of course, is perfectly understandable. A person with a wooden personality is much less likely to sway the hearts and minds of the voting public than a skilled orator with a firm grasp on the principles of rhetoric. Often, it's not so much what they say but how they say it. It still boils down to style over substance, and that's something that, in my opinion, really needs to change. I don't hold out much hope for it, though.

Today's rant has to do with another aspect of politics, namely, the American political party system. Anyone with even a smattering of civics knowledge knows that our various parties each select and run the candidate they feel best represents them. Conservative Republicans generally represent business and traditional thinking, while Liberal Democrats tend to want to be a voice for "the little guy", and ensure that everyone gets a piece of the American dream. In an effort to ensure that all candidates have a chance, we also have the Green Party, the Libertarians, and even the communists. In theory, this all sounds very fair. As a young boy, I remember hearing from any number of sources that the beauty of America is that anyone born here has a shot at being president. Age and experience, however, have proven to me that this is not the case. America does not have a multi-party system, and it is not just the Republicans and the Democrats either. There is only one party: It is the party of money.

Just this week, many Democratic hopefuls either announced or were expected to announce the amount of money they have raised thus far (with 20 months to go until election) to fund their race to the White House. Those candidates who fail to raise enough capital are doomed to defeat, in that they will not be able to afford to get their message to the voters. Now, a case could certainly be made that their message isn't the one the bulk of voters want to hear. If, however, they happen to be independently wealthy, well, they might still have a shot, a la Ross Perot. The fact remains that if you do not have money, you cannot be the president.

It is a candidate's stance on the issues and their experience that should be on the minds of the voters. Innumerable cases of beltway corruption are sure to leave a bad taste in the mouths of voters, and it should. However, not being in tune with the inner workings of politics should send up a red flag for voters. Do we want a commander-in-chief who has never worn the uniform? As a veteran of an infantry battalion, I would not want someone who has never volunteered to place himself in harm's way for his country to decide to send others there. Likewise, I'm not sure I'd want a president that has served one term as a senator or governor to be at the helm of the most powerful government on the planet.

I don't care if Barack Obama is black. I do care, however, that he is a first-term senator with a voting record that hardly fills one page, and I am concerned that between himself and Hillary Clinton, they have already raised nearly 16 million dollars more than ALL presidential candidates combined at the same point in an election just four years ago. Neither Obama nor Clinton is a veteran.

I don't care if Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and that shouldn't be an issue, but trust me, it will be. I do care that he has limited political experience, having served only one term as the governor of Massachusetts. And again, he is not a veteran. He is, however, by any stretch, a rich man who donated 6.3 million dollars to his own gubernatorial campaign, at the time a state record.

I hope today's civics lesson is clear.