Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA |
In terms of the media, one thing we probably could do well to get over, is some notion of holding politicians to some kind of standard of 'scandal-proof' squeaky-clean moralism, at least if they aren't claiming to try to rule by these notions when most people don't live by them.
It has the effect of meaning that no one who's *interesting* or has *seen much of life* is even able to get far in seeking office.
White-collar dishonesty may be alive and well, but I kind of *want* some of our government to have inhaled a little in college, or had some sex or gotten drunk once in a while. Actually hurting people or being dishonest with money is one thing, but, hey, if you had a hippie phase, what did you learn from it? That's what I want to know.
Evangelicals get a pass on this if they claim to be 'born again,' (Dubya being a prime example,) but that doesn't help.
I mean how especially on the Democratic side, you have to have been really kind of boring to pass the de facto religious tests for office/moralistic scandalmongers' vettings, and that's not what we need, right now.
We need people with some clue about life, not those sequestered from it for their political ambitions since 'A Current Affair' hit the airwaves.
We need some Jeffersons and Franklins and even Jacksons.
Frankly, one of the most sensible and insightful conservatives I've ever met actually smoked a significant lot of pot in college, (ironically while me, the freaky mystical punk chick had gotten quite bored with the stuff long since. ) ...he probably wouldn't fit in the Republican machine at all, but of all conservatives I've met, really seemed to have his head on straight, despite trying really hard to be a womanizer. I dunno if anyone from his crowd was going for it, though.
Still remember thinking, 'This guy's smart, articulate, reasonably-easy-on the-eyes, manages to be not-obnoxious despite the caricatured 'I'm in college' thing he riffed on, and actually has the makings of a manager and even leader.'
Most of all, not in lockstep about anything: if he was, in my opinion, naively pro-business, that was cause he had some kind of intention to commit himself to his own. If he had an opinion, there was a reason for it, and it didn't come as part of a package.
He'd have been totally-disqualified from politics, though. Mostly, just cause he met folks like me and stuff.
And I think of that, cause the 'Young Republicans' of the time were indistinguishable from those among them who were just skinheads that grew out their hair a bit and wore business suits around, among whom are people actually in the GOP machine.
It's worse with Democrats, too, because it's the *Republicans* who make a big fuss about anything 'undesireable' in their past.
So, we get boring Dems with a tendency to succumb to pressures like that.
Frankly I think if we want to start getting along and ...indeed, start with those things we all want and accomplish them, ...we have to resist these identity politics. I really don't care if my politician got some sex. I do care if they are using the government, money, or religion, as some kind of *substitute* for it.
|