Curmudgeon's Corner

Candidates vs. Office Holders

Posted by Al Campbell on Dec. 11, 2009

Political, Quality of Life, Village Board, Wisconsin, U.S.

The Obama speech at the ceremony where he received the Nobel Peace prize marked the stark realization that occurs when a candidate takes the office for which he or she campaigned.

Amazing isn't it that all the problems, perceived and real, seem so easily solved when a candidate takes them on?  Amazing isn't it that those same issues become insoluble once the person is in that office?

It seems that we fall for this routine more often than not; we seem prone to voting for the person who promises the most.  Have we not lived long enough to recognize that those who promise the most tend to deliver the least?  There is a decided difference in the fantasy land in which the candidate operates as contrasted with the realities that hit him or her immediately after being sworn in.  This seems an almost uniform rule that can be applied to candidates of all stripes.  The exceptions to this rule are few and far between.

It seems that we, the electorate, are probably more to blame for this phenomenon than are the candidates spinning the yarns.  If this tactic didn't bear rewards, votes in this case, the technique would be abandoned immediately.  If we, the electorate, were to simply decide in mass that we'd no longer be the suckers we seem to be, then maybe we'd get more responsible candidates and have a better grip on reality as the result.

This, of course, is about as likely as a long string of summer days in the midst of a Wisconsin winter; it can happen but it isn't very likely.

Too bad there is not a court where the candidate can be held responsible for the lies he or she told, or for the things they said that they should've known were falsehoods simply on their face.  The only such court is the 'court of public opinion', and that is the most fickle court of them all.

Playing off the "Watching Washington Work" blog from yesterday, we are now seeing what we bought in the last national election.  We bought more deception, more disingenuousness, more radicalism and less openness.  We bought higher and higher spending since the politicians spend our money, not their own.  We bought potential major legislation that has been and is being negotiated based on political goals rather than on what is good for us citizens.  We bought the ability to joke about "Chicago-style politics" and to watch as supposed leaders in both the Senate and the House display their ignorance and their deceptiveness.

We bought all this with a vote, a vote that has a huge downside and not much of an upside so far as I can discern at the moment.  May I be proven wrong; I really hope that will be the case; but, I doubt that I'll have to retract these words.

Maybe, just maybe, we ought to place a higher value on our little votes.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to force our politicians to tell the truth when they are "on the stump".  And maybe we should reward those who tell the truth rather than those who promise the most.

Yes, I guess I really do live in a fantasy land; but, it is nice to dream on a cold winter morning.

~~~~~~

The Curmudgeon Blog today is titled "Tail Wagging The Dog?".