SQJ Taipei

RealLivePreacher recently posted Why political debates aren’t very helpful

From that post…

So the debate becomes just another format for candidates to deliver campaign speeches. True, the speeches are more off-the-cuff, so you can see how they react under pressure. But that’s what we are hearing. Sound bites and campaign speeches. We hear what the campaigns want us to think about the issues. This is one step removed from reality.

Now if that was all that was happening with modern debates, it wouldn’t be so bad. After all, politicians have been giving campaign speeches for as long as anyone can remember.

Unfortunately, there is a second step that takes us even further away from reality. Right after the event itself, television pundits step in to analyze the debate. The debate itself was an event in time, but the minute it is over it no longer exists except in the fading memories and impressions of the few people who were actually listening closely.

So true… so true.

I was able to watch/listen to the 2nd presidential debate this morning while sitting at the computer… and I just kept thinking how useless it was.

Most people will hear what they want to hear from their own preferred candidate and then everyone will just hear and watch the soundbites that the various media outlets have chosen for ratings purposes only.

I watched the HBO miniseries John Adams this past summer (or whenever it was on… can’t remember for sure). It was excellent in *many* ways and I recommend it. One scene that really caught my attention was when John Adams received a letter delivered by a man on horseback that informed him that he had been elected president. I wasn’t just thinking nostalgic about the early days of the republic and the simpler life and slower pace, etc. What I enjoyed thinking about was that the “candidates” didn’t campaign for months (or years) before the election. Yes, I know the election was not by popular vote so there was less need to campaign on a larger scale. But I just loved thinking about how it went down in those days and got me thinking about election reform here in the present day. I have a few ideas - which are not what this post is really about and I’m not sure I’m ready to share them anyway because I’m sure I don’t understand their implications fully at this point.

When choosing the candidate you’ll cast your vote for, RLP suggests the following…

First, choose the issues that are most important to you…

After you select one or two or maybe three top issues, take the time to research and read what the candidates say they are going to do. Since you’re only dealing with a few issues, surely you can do that. And you won’t be listening to what the candidates say about their opponent. You’ll put forth your best effort to find out the truth about what they plan to do.

Then make your choice.

THIS IS IMPORTANT: Due diligence is all that is required of you. If you have a Ph.D. in economics, for example, you should bring all of your knowledge to play in your decision. If you never graduated from high school and have a hard time reading, bring the best you have to this as well.

I like this… especially the last part. Do your own due diligence. There are people EVERYWHERE out there… TV, radio, internet (including this blog! lol)… who are trying to tell all of us WHAT to think. We have the power to think for ourselves and to make up our own minds.

If you haven’t wrestled over how you are going to handle this coming election, I submit that you are outsourcing your responsibility to others who may or may not have your family, personal, and/or national interests in mind.

RLP shared his top 2 issues… war and health care.

Here are my top 3 at the moment… war, energy, understanding of the US Constitution (the limits of the federal government and the rights of the citizens).