In this era of instant news, is there now instant truth? Today, how do you know who to believe? It used to be amusing to watch one group of media condemn another group as being a tool of this or that political philosophy. But we’ve now trained a group of journalists that somehow their opinions are more newsworthy than just reporting the events, and every story must support either their personal or corporate political position. It would be nice if we lived in the idyllic world of lake Woebegone “the little town that time forgot and the decades cannot improve ... where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”
Before us looms an election where we are presented with two, less than compelling, candidates, and a dozen or so alternative options. At the same time, we have some fundamental principles for how our society should be that weigh in the balance of this choice. If we were unified in our beliefs perhaps it would be different, but we are not. Perhaps, we have never been.
Historically we can expect about 60% of eligible voters will go to the polls and cast a ballot for the various candidates, including those running for the office of the President of the United States. The demographics of that turn out will be the deciding factor. My sense is the media, and the pollsters, don’t really have a clue as to how upset the average American is with the status quo.
Voters will make their choices based more on who they don’t want than who can do the job. Why? Because our history has shown the promises of the campaign are always empty.
Thanks to the transparency standards set over the past eight years by the current chief executive, whoever wins this election will believe they can dismiss the Congress and rule by executive order. I am afraid we will be electing America’s first Caesar.
Good luck to us.