Presidential Campaigns

Have Presidential Campaigns become predictable?

The same issues resurface, and the same old tired arguments take place repeatedly campaign after campaign. The only difference in each passing Election Year is merely the American faces we will watch insulting one another. Obviously, candidates will find it impossible to implement their platforms once elected because of the obstacles and potential that will have neither been addressed nor determined.  (Click on title to read more.) 

Candidates bravely step-up despite the insulting scrutiny they will face for simply having the courage to announce their candidacy to contribute toward an improvement to the status of our country. They are admirable citizens who contribute toward helping with the continual requirement to manage America. They deserve lots of credit.

They care so much that they are willing to subject themselves to scrutiny and humiliation for having made mistakes typical of the rest of us. They have done the many things that all the rest of us have, which in younger adult and in “mature” years are actually quite common tendencies. Because of the privacy we will not respect of our candidates, leaders understandably refuse to step-up.

Rather than learning from our mistakes, we seem to suppress them with denial while highlighting the very same mistakes of others. Human beings, each of whom is equal in dignity, have all done things that warrant regret or shame. But, those who have the courage to help manage the country subject themselves to awkward situations because of the personal revelations of which all the rest of us are safeguarded—unknown citizens, that is—whose popularity isn’t enough for the spotlight. (What ever happened to slander and libel?)

Candidates may have been caught doing something stupid such as: driving while under the influence; AWOL; tried pot and got fired from a job; being rude or mean to someone (directly or by gossip); or curious tendencies with pornography (as have several of my ex-boyfriends—well more accurately all of them and as a matter of shameful fact me too).

I sincerely doubt there are more than five human beings within America who can honestly claim innocence in strength among these temptations. I can probably name two but that would be generously presumptuous.

Candidates, like all human beings, have tendencies to do several stupid and embarrassing things throughout life. Surely, these human beings have received forgiveness from those whom they hurt or disrespected and may have wisely asked God for forgiveness.

However, the trouble loving busy body in the safety of the audience is less forgiving and demands to know about the mistakes or sins of the candidate, but quite predictably would not be willing to divulge similar probing questions asked of him. The trouble loving busy body cannot fathom how an upstanding citizen could possibly make a stupid error in judgment. The trouble loving busy body who does not attract the spotlight can point fingers. Since the focus is on the candidate, the trouble loving busy body indirectly enjoys an assumed comfortable innocence. Furthermore, the trouble loving busy body may have no intention of becoming a presidential candidate and therefore may find ease toward admitting similar behavior to the world and ironically warrants applause and merit among the “cool”.

I honestly believe all candidates wish to fulfill their sense of patriotic responsibility—whatever the role. I am convinced that they are committed to improve our dilemmas. What American wouldn’t want to make a positive mark in history? Sure, every one of us makes mistakes; I have yet to meet a human being who hasn’t. (That’s not the problem!) Courageously, well-accomplished citizens want to help and therefore become candidates, upon which they engage in debate within such an austere forum. (That’s still not the problem!) They are promoted for the plausibility by which they defend their relative opinions rather than for their authentic knowledge. (That’s the problem!)

In the event they receive some quenching applause, they develop confidence; so the degree of applause tends to confirm their opinion. Gradually, therefore, eloquently articulated opinion qualifies a candidate to eventually graduate to insult the other party’s qualifier. To avoid humiliation, ambiguity seems to be the smartest avenue through which direct insults are “politely” maximized and encouraged by endorsing applause.

Consequently, ambiguous opinion and applause confirms candidates as qualified for eventual nomination. But the audiences are increasingly unaware that the growing lack of interest in “the issues” relegates the qualification for US President to that of getting an A on skills such as language, eye contact, and enunciation in speech 101. It’s as if we’re back in college, but the students (the audience) are grading the teachers (the candidates) on very little more than the ability to speak ambiguously well.

Prior to gaining the opportunity to argue against the other party, candidates have a chance to argue within their own. If it were a question as to whether one party were right or wrong, each united party would simply promote the best qualified rather than tirelessly fight for position, and that’s prior to confronting the “opponent’s” candidate. Conversely, each party finds difficulty selecting a unanimous candidate.

In the past, I was of the opinion that candidates were manipulating us for votes. However, such opinion is overruled with deeper listening. I have learned many aspects about people all around this beautiful planet. I know when expressions are genuine and can easily recognize honesty. Although there’s a slight bit of manipulation among the ambiguity, facial expressions rarely misrepresent conviction. They really do care but don’t understand the confused system into which they attempt to implement their proposals of mere passion-driven benevolence by wanting so badly for government to pacify us too. Unaware that our country has relegated to such a socialistic governing style, we don’t recognize that we’re going in reverse simply because of the fact that we are stuck at the opinion-level!

Intelligent Candidates

Candidates engage in intelligent debate. The same tired issues are addressed with the same tired responses. They insult one another as they appeal to the voters’ entertainment-needs only to repeat the mistakes of the past. Quite inevitably, division becomes the culprit, collaboration becomes the challenge, and political prejudice strengthens only the barrier.

Intelligent candidates engage in “debate” while articulately expressing their opinions without listening to the one with whom they are debating. Such debate is much less about collaboration and much more about a demonstration of intelligence. While muffling with ambiguity, it’s quite obvious that these human beings are extremely intelligent. If they were able to maintain all that while listening too, well that would be nothing short of remarkable! However, human beings who relegate to such “debate” frequently close their mind, which inhibits learning from those with differing data, information, and intelligence of which might be authentic. Therefore, their opinions, although justified as intelligence at some level, remain stagnant.

If we weren’t so divided, these intelligent human beings would contribute so much more from their obvious brainpower, and we could step higher than the elementary levels of opinion. Collaboration between parties could so immensely be to our benefit as a wiser more compassionate group of American human beings. It’s not their fault…parties have been “at each other's throats” for several decades with very little variance regarding opinion. The benefits of recognizing this could be immeasurable! Human beings from both parties would soon recognize that the benefits of collaboration increasingly become less about compromise and more about advancing toward authenticity and obviously the common good.

A conversation between two confident human beings in-touch with their mind can potentially minimize conflicting opinion while becoming increasingly less tense and defensive. The transition that shifts an opinion to the knowledge-level is greatly facilitated by a healthy mind and an informed conscience wherein listening and thinking take place and understanding matures. The continual improvement in conversation between two persons who function at such a level is limitless. When such minds collide, learning takes place and opinions are eliminated or referred to as yesterday’s intelligence. Consequently, authentic education on subjects of interest has no limit and continually improves. This is the kind of collaboration we must be able to develop, recognize, and promote into leadership positions (private enterprise and government). 

Unfortunately, aside from such qualifications as charisma, distinguished appearance, and eloquence, we tend to form the elect into intelligent managers who become limited by political prejudice. Defensive anger becomes offensive and begets the same, perpetuates, and gradually becomes increasingly inefficient. It takes intelligent but defensive human beings to relate to intelligent but defensive human beings within the gray relativism wherein opinion all too frequently dismisses fact. It takes listening, thinking, and understanding to develop toward knowledge among human beings functioning confidently with a maturing mind.

It’s time we “raise the bar”. The only road, however, is for all citizens to collectively inform and develop our minds as well by increasing the degree of interest through which we listen, think, and learn, and from which understanding and knowledge agrees with wisdom.

Candidates Insult the President (law of supply and demand)

Hopefully, the President will have acquired “thick skin” for the bravery necessary for further public-humiliation. The previous “punishment” for having stepped-up three years prior was delivered by only one “opposing” candidate. This time he must endure attacks from several candidates from the opposing party—and this is a united country? If we understood teamwork, we would offer informed constructive criticism by making respectable suggestions rather than dedicating hours upon hours in hate-filled conversation to humiliate the heck out of the President who is the quarterback of our team, as it were.

Regardless of the presidents’ party affiliation, they are all treated with a similar degree of “respect”. Hypothetically, if the current President (2003) were democrat and served with the exact methods arriving at the exact consequences regarding foreign and domestic policy, the republicans would be insulting him with equal energy. Getting into that position seems to become the main objective because each party holds the perception that the other party is the weaker of the two.

Not only do they have to endure and address the insults and public-humiliation once, they must go through it again, receiving further libel and slander the second time around since there’s much more known about the candidate as an incumbent, due to a “job well done” by the trouble loving busy body.

Especially if the incumbent is of the other party, we find ways to disagree without understanding “the whole enchilada”. Disclosing certain confidential information might satisfy the curiosity of the one holding the remote but, if the President submits to addressing these requests, such entertainment may betray the Oath of Office. We really don’t have complete information with which to assess and debate the President’s decisions. If our elections were respectable, we could find assurance in the President’s capacity in deciding whether to withhold information consistent with his oath as our President.

Need to know (It’s confidential!)

Furthermore, there are countless human beings supporting the cause to try to insult the poor guy for having made such a seemingly unwise decision, while unaware that the decision may well have served to safeguard the very human being doing the insulting. Certain information is left confidential for a reason including the reports that come from reliable sources—not always at liberty to report regardless of the persistence from which we think we need to know. But, since the “need to know” persists, the decision to make a statement compels some kind of diplomatic release, be it fabricated or misleading.

These sources from which we demand information have confidential clearances for good reason; it’s not exactly a peaceful world out there! They must not release certain information, and thus reports may obviously be incomplete or misleading. Why? They are under oath to safeguard the life, liberty, equality, and dignity of each precious human being (white, yellow, pink, brown, and black), the red, white, and blue, and the republic for which it stands “united”. Since we’ve molded the elect into such puppets, it’s a wonder they still manage to have enough backbone to thus momentarily disregard ratings.

Superman (the standard we expect of the President)

Parts of each of the President’s decisions cannot be completely and accurately analyzed because of citizens’ limited scope on both sides of the spectrum with regard to:

1.  Lack of information from which to make an accurate assessment

2.  Minimal interest in the President’s responsibilities including:

• The cumulative obstacles beyond control, as a result of the given pressure of a must know-it-all expectation from his entire “team” of US citizens, thus lacking the opportunity of even beginning to scratch and study the surface of the colossal obstacles he faces;
• An entire lifetime of leaders between countries “agreeing to disagree” by which sanctions are the bonds of the bridge (an approach that substitutes relationships); and
• Under oath (not a mere contract but a promise made to the ultimate Supreme Justice—God Almighty).

...all in a quick three-year span before the discouraged team members (constituents, opponents, candidates) use the President’s lack of “quarterback”-ability to highlight his failures regarding issues such as the environment, economy, education, inflation, healthcare, social security, eloquence, diplomacy, wars, and taxes, which repeatedly pave the “Road to the White House”.

American citizens are not nearly as focused on our presidents’ leadership. Rather, questioning their character is what constantly preoccupies us for the sake of sophisticated gossip—AKA our patriotic duty. Since their character is so persistently attacked, presidents hide their mistakes (before, during, and after the election) and cleverly attempt to portray perfection—implicitly compliant to the trouble loving busy body. Therefore, we never get the opportunity to really know our patriotic representatives as candidates nor as presidents.

Having been in similar predicaments, former presidents should help assuage the people’s concern by nationally addressing that some things must be kept confidential to safeguard the country. Incidentally, I admire the courage of those who have to some degree done so, although without of course seeming to show much empathy since they might label themselves with the other party.

We don’t stop insulting when the elect becomes President. We relentlessly insult all the more. If only we would value leadership, the entire country could give such a good example as to what freedom encourages—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—while we wisely and compassionately work on our dreams, hence The American Dream.

Some critics have less information than others, but collective groups will assess the limited information and prematurely draw conclusions, usually led by a weak incentive to insult.

Our election system when weak encourages candidates to insult the incumbent. Candidates argue how the President has done everything wrong. They tell how they will do everything differently, make everything better, and everything will be solved! And to top-it-off, funds are raised in the amounts of hundreds of millions of dollars, gaining a following from major television networks throughout the country.

Candidates Insult One Another

Along the paving trail, candidates are televised with groups of “supporters” in an audience setting, while they insult one another and simultaneously express to audiences there and in living rooms across the country how much they care about Americans and what they will do for us.

However, the one with whom they argue wants equally to “go to bat for us”! These amazingly strong and courageous human beings have enormous heart. They really do care about us and I for one appreciate it from the very bottom of my heart; but, because of the austere forum, they unfortunately seem to forget the objective.

The Main Event

Just prior to Election Day, each party puts on its best “dog and pony show”. After the Primary Election, the candidates will be “supported” by voters from their party’s respective corners…many of whom previously applauded and voted against them in the Primary Election. (This is funny, but at the same time it’s sad because this book is actually non-fiction.) Obviously, the candidates’ party only minimally supports them.

These “dog and pony shows” divide the country in half. The best speakers available will articulate with eloquence and charming charisma how the other party is so un-American. Of course, a gifted speaker can stir feelings without saying anything at all, and the audience will be “moved”! Then these “moving” speeches will close with “God Bless the United States of America”, only after elaborating how advanced we will have become in technology, humanity, the military, and so forth under their “leadership”.

Convinced that they can make a difference, patriotic citizens aging thirty-something and older go into politics. If they’re not elected, they give-up, grow old and bitter. But, the patriotic enthusiasm of the younger citizens naively supports the candidate of their liking, and the cycle continues advancing the political mediocrity.

Isn’t it obvious why a president has such a difficult time implementing a platform regardless of the many additional obstacles he will encounter?

It’s great that American citizens step-up, as we all should. We should all be in this team together and manage it well. As a matter of fact, each and every American citizen is in this team whether or not we manage it well. All citizens should be interested in this team. A team effort could serve to help the leadership inspire the rest of Americans toward true camaraderie among all human beings—each of whom is precious and precisely equal in dignity!

Any American-born citizen can become President. The US is one of few countries whose citizens are not deemed ineligible based on a hierarchy of classes such as that within a monarchy. I applaud those of you who step-up to such a responsibility. However, once you are elected, make sure you don’t diminish the opportunity that freedom encourages by telling Americans you will take care of us with varying semantics.

No! You want to bring us all along with you so we can assist you! You don’t want to “take care of us” during your four-to-eight years as our “babysitter”! You want us to become strong team members, don’t you?

In that regard, it’s important to promote incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability. As these collectively take root, the increasing team effort will be recognized, and “the issues” (the environment, economy, healthcare, National Security, education, social security, malpractice) will recover with a clean bill of health.

As Americans are increasingly truly inspired, all these solvable issues will in fact be a mere rut in past history. And, the more we are into life, the more we are into being ALIVE as human beings who can love, feel, think, improve, and our example will encourage others to do the same. As we become increasingly dependable and responsible with incentive and purpose while understanding what freedom really means, we will do everything possible to become and maintain healthy for as long as humanly possible, because we will all have a sense of direction and responsibility and, quite simply, rather than having a sense of being “too busy” within a mind-numbing rat race, we will have a real sense of purpose!

As incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability improve, taxes (for example) eventually will not be a problem or an “issue” of which candidates must debate. Rather than hoping for income tax, united citizens can and will gladly pay in full our national debt as the value of our currency improves. Unlike greed, genuine good ole responsibility can improve our sanity; and, moreover, we can ironically “afford to buy gas” since it won’t be so “expensive”.

It’s not that gas is so “expensive”; the dollar is increasingly worthless! Oh that’s not to say that they aint “making hay while the sun shines”; but come on, everybody who knows how to fill out a form is getting money for free! And, moreover, strong capable men and women who are responsibly building great business have to cleverly look to the government for grants. You see—even they start to increase taxes and devalue the dollar and inflation becomes another “debatable” topic among the barrage of confused “issues”. This is not compliant to the finest American motto my ears have ever heard.

Many of us applaud the brilliant patriotic words of President John F. Kennedy—“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!”—but we simply relegate these words and use them as a punch line. Granted, implementing this fine motto is quite difficult when most of us are grabbing whatever we can as though “there is no tomorrow”!

This is a discouraging disincentive for the responsible American entrepreneurs, as citizens lose focus on the initial meaning of a fine concept, the American Dream, which is dissolving while gradually being redefined as a reward for the “survival of the fittest”, which promotes selfishness, greed, and the mentality of “what’s in it for me?” at the cost of the actual strength of this country.

As responsible human beings coexist in such a country’s regressing nobility with an obvious lack of leadership, we gradually become greedy by default as the greedy get “richer” and the generous gradually drift into adopting this mentality too. It’s as if the generous are surrendering to the strong current of greed, rather than together maintaining the responsible opportunity it meant years ago in this “the land of opportunity”, wherein freedom encouraged incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability in an effort to assist the common goal—the common good.

Now, let’s bring up the word help or assist…

(In the NBA, an “assist” is recorded on the stat sheet for the player who passed the ball to the team member who scored.)

The word assist is not synonymous with the word pacify. When one assists, one helps the recipient. When one pacifies, one does not help the recipient. When one helps, one encourages confidence and responsibility. When one pacifies, one discourages confidence and responsibility, enabling insecurity and the entitlement mentality. This is in fact the very reason for the selfishness and the “self-sufficiency”, which brings us full circle as to why responsible and generous people eventually become greedy. This is the precise reason wise and compassionate leadership is a must in a free country. In the absence of such leadership, the demise will inevitably activate an “avalanche”-effect.

The rich get “richer” and the poor get poorer?

The following illustration can be approached with countless variables but the simplest is money. On this illustration, strong and rich are meant as neither negative nor positive terms, but they are meant as weak terms when used in quotation marks, indicating that they only seem what they otherwise define.

Note "cause and effect" in each of the following statements:

• When the strong includes, respects, and assists the weak, the weak become strong.
• When the strong ignores, disrespects, and dishonors the weak, the weak become weaker.
• When the weak become weaker, a gap begins to form between the weak and the strong—resulting in division and political issues.
• When the strong become “stronger” and the weak become weaker, the strong become “rich” and the weak become poor.
• When the weak and poor begin to eventually outnumber the “strong” and “rich”, the value of the dollar begins to depreciate at the exact rate as the weak grow in number.
• Although the “strong” and “rich” might have a gazillion dollars, it isn’t worth much.  Savings depreciate with inflation, and the stock-market becomes the most sought-after source of income by investing old money—on American stock?
• When the weak and poor begin to voice their opinions, the weak and poor grow in number.
• The strong and rich don’t know what is happening to their zeal and money.  They become bitter and/or might even go into politics and naïvely try to “help” while accepting a salary (to the tune of six figures).
• However, when the strong includes, respects, and assists the weak and the weak become strong, commonsense is proven by the wisdom and compassion of the strong group’s obvious leadership as unity dissolves political issues.

Many Americans are unfamiliar with the hunger, zeal, courage, hope, and perseverance and other such attributes that served to unite and motivate our ancestors as they tuned-in to their potential during hardship. Therefore, many of us have lost sight of the meaning of the American Dream. While “going with the flow”, many of us have unintentionally succumb to the luxury of “freebies”, and we are becoming increasingly dependent on our government rather than inspired by our freedom!

A greed-driven motivation does not lead to a wise end nor does misguided benevolence from a sense of pity for the citizens. Once elected, please don’t attempt to implement more programs so you can “take care of us” as if we were babies. At one point, that was working quite smoothly; but, any more, so many programs have been added that the more recent programs don’t have a chance to really take root and therefore cannot serve to “take care of us” as effectively.

Basically unaware of cause and effect, once candidates are elected into the country’s leadership positions, they tell us how they will improve the system; but the jobs and the programs they will implement, although seemingly compassionate, wise, or generous, will eventually add to the problem because of our courage they extinguish with their pity.

In fact, responsible American entrepreneurs are upset with government because of the tax effect, hence self-sufficiency. Also, as taxes continue to increase, the value of the dollar continues to decrease. Depending on the mood in DC, our tax rates fluctuate but continue to increase nonetheless.

The common-nonsense is irresponsibly overlooked. This mistake exponentially perpetuates; and a candidate’s opinion on the debated “issues” becomes increasingly less significant.

Candidates are patriotic and really do care. They have made genuine efforts by arduously grappling with issues to improve our country’s dilemmas. However, the more they seem to try, the more confusing it becomes, resulting unfortunately in the minimizing respect for the presidency as well as the capacity therein to implement improvement.

Once elected, they deliver eloquent speeches—written likely by someone else. The speeches don’t seem to convey the importance of effectively emphasizing that the strength of America is the foundation of honorable principles by which it was built, and the required leadership thereafter by which it must be sustained. Standing ovations must be facing the other direction; the team gets the credit, not the President!

(The President can easily lead if the team will do what ought to be done. It would be quite tempting to gloat as President if the entire country would do so but the credit would wisely go to the citizens. If only American citizens were humble enough to serve this country as a wise compassionate team, wow, what a great country this could be, if only we could stop taking our freedom for granted!)

“Solve for x” in the presidential debate

The problem and the solution are less about the debated issues and more about the degree of incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability in the citizen. Rather than “creating jobs” (for example) wherein human beings merely work for money, we must seek to increase our hope while encouraging one another, for each person has brilliant potential and should have the opportunity to realize dreams. The human being is the most amazing living organism my two eyes have ever seen!

We cannot wisely place blame on anyone. The fact that campaigns have become a ring for mudslinging is no one person’s fault. The lack of interest in “the issues” by which candidates are elected certainly cannot be the fault of merely one citizen, one thousand citizens, or one million citizens. Rather, the precise level of incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability among the total US population is precisely the degree to which these “issues” become subjects of debate.

Media Representative:  So, presidential candidate:  regarding the environment, economy, taxes, social security, healthcare, malpractice, and homeland security, what will you do? (You have two minutes to address each issue!)

Candidate:  Well, let’s see…

                My 2¢ ± the going-rate for opinion ($150 M) + tax

X = __________________________________________________

                                   Countless Variables

Human beings have to be extremely optimistic to grapple with and manage such tired issues, since the only common denominator among these issues is countless variables. (Also, aside from optimistic, in order to convey actual conviction, it helps obviously to be a little naïve.)

The mere fact that American citizens actually go to the polls to vote proves not only optimistic support for a hopeless algebraic equation but quite obviously the immense hope in the human being they support, as one they believe has the brilliance with which to solve such a problem. It’s no wonder candidates are expected to be perfectly flawless. Given this algebraic equation, if a human being actually could “solve for x”, I would be awestruck by such an unprecedented genius, for it is an impossible challenge!

You see, these issues are not the problem within which to “solve for x”. These unresolved “issues” continually in debate are in fact the consequence of the problem! In other words, as incentive, purpose, responsibility, and dependability improve, these issues gradually become less of a “factor”.

Thinking, listening, understanding, and learning are essential elements in management and leadership, toward which mutual respect enhances unity with each human being precisely equal in dignity.

Leadership is quite crucial in realigning America at this stage of events! Humility must wisely replace all arrogance! (By the way, the more arrogant one is, the weaker one will become and the more security one will need because of fear!) Camaraderie is extremely essential in realigning our team effort solidified by unity. We must strengthen the weakest link rather than weaken the strength of our team.

I could so easily team-up with a friend of mine and selfishly gain immense monetary wealth right now if I would so choose. However, the wealth I care about is that of a healthy, wise, and united country! It’s not money that I want; I want to understand how I can help you. My goal is to improve physically, spiritually, mentally, each day of course, but while improving, I hope to become the weakest link…not by becoming weaker but by your strength surpassing mine! I want to encourage you just so that one day I can taste the sweetness of your success when you take the baton (like in a relay team) as you give it your all only to hand the baton to your kids while I’m left in your dust.

Rather than division, presidential campaigns can improve unity in our home constructed on such a strong foundation that supports these beautiful United States of America!