Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

Are we ready to vote?

Nickolas Hoog - 3/5/2008

With non-proliferation hanging by a thread, tension boiling world wide, U.S. hegemony and soft power at its lowest point in decades, it is difficult to imagine that a single individual carries the solutions to these crises. But, here we are, skeptical and a little demoralized, watching the democratic and republican presidential candidates sweep across the nation, waving flags, shaking hands with farmers, kissing children, promising to pull us from the depths of what many have criticized as the worst administration in American history. The weight of responsibility that every citizen of the United States has in choosing the best candidate is tremendous, as the next ten years will be crucial to whether the U.S. continues to spiral into an economic depression or strengthen itself in an ever increasing global world.

Living in such a highly mediated world, it seems that so few take the time to research each candidate. Instead of watching an entire debate, we listen to a thirty-second blurb from an anchor about the most recent debate turnout (Hilary won! McCain Won!) without having ever taken the time to watch one. We read news articles about Obama and think that we know him well. He promises to bring change – whatever that may be – and voters are coming out in record numbers to support him. But, in looking at his entire political history, he has not done much to support change – so why are so many people casting their votes in his direction? As a citizen of the largest hegemony that the world has ever seen, I am troubled that the importance of our next presidential candidate, who will impact every corner of ever nation on multiple levels, has been reduced to a mediated circus of typically unreliable sources. I should know. I have worked for USA TODAY.

I am deeply troubled that Obama has gained the supporters that he has. The United States needs a president, who will be ready to take hold of this country on day one and who has the experience to set the stage for a new beginning in American history. It seems that since 9/11 the United States has spun into a chaotic power moves about without the say of the American people, without the support of our favors. The American Dream is dying. Yes, the citizens of the United States need to move forward into a new light, but Obama is certainly not the person to bring us into a post-9/11 world. He is a wonderful speaker and I admit that even I like him as civil rights activist, but as the American President he will only continue down the same path as President Bush with his inexperience. Should he win and become president, I can already predict the headlines of the New York Times, of USA Today, The New York Post on the following morning: "Why many say, 'No He Cant!'"; "He's in! But, can he do it?"

Obama continues to reiterate that he is the best candidate, who is more likely to bring change to America because he can unify people. But, I really have to ask, is that what makes a great leader? Is this the main thing that we should look for in a future president someone who can make people feel connected? Adolf Hitler was able to create a multitude of followers, and had his own "Yes we can!" campaign called Lebenstraum (the unification of Germany), and he led millions into a vicious battle throughout Europe in defense of Lebenstraum. If Obama is right that unifying people equals a great leader, then by his own beliefs would he say that Hitler was a great leader? From this example, it is easy to see that unifying people does not make a great leader. It is safe to say that Hitler, while able to create a movement was not a great, moral leader – and I am hardly making the comparison between Hitler and Obama as I am attacking the ideological structure of what so many Americans have been claiming to constitute a leader. What I do think is necessary for the American people to consider is what makes a great leader. Without defining the role of a leader, of a president, how then are we to decide who is the best candidate? In looking at the great American presidents, Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Kennedy, Roosevelt, they are deemed as such for making wise decisions based on previous experience and knowledge, for forming policies that were beneficial to the greater whole and not for the select elite. They were servants to the people and stopped at nothing to serve the people – and they all had the know-how to get things done. The United States operates on a global scale and Obama with his three years of experience is not able to effectively handle the United States on an international stage. He is an amazing civil rights leader. He is not a president; not yet, anyway.

The fact that many people believe that Obama would make a great president, in spite of his very short career, is astounding. Perhaps, his followers have never considered the gravity of what it means to be the President of the United States and the tremendous amount of responsibility that he/she has to the world – not just to the American people. Perhaps, they have not clearly thought about and defined what makes a great president. Most people would never want a medical student of three years to perform open-heart surgery on them. No, they want a qualified surgeon, who has 25+ years experience beneath his belt, who has a proven success rate – regardless of how well the medical student may speak or how many of his professors might tout about how great of a surgeon he may be. No one would take that risk – and heart surgery is a cakewalk compared to being the President of the United States.

If we, as Americans, are going to vote in a democratic society we should be fully prepared for that. The media has offered itself to the public as an eye into the world, as a source of information that people can rely on, and based on the results of last week's primaries, I am stunned that this could happen in a democratic society. Most people would argue that that is why Obama is where he is, that because he is contending in a democratic society that he can freely climb the ladder against the status quo. In order for this argument to work, three things have to be established: 1) we have to decide who or what is the status quo? Is it Hilary? The government? The corporations? The World Bank?; 2) We also have to look at society to see how it is formed and then we can assess whether or not Obama is climbing the ladder in a truly functional democratic society, and; 3) we have to assess whether or not Obama is, as a senator, not the status quo, as well.

The answers to number one and number three are difficult to prove and it is really up to each individual to decide who or what is the status quo (often bringing in multiple status quos), and the likeability of Obama for each individual is a toss up from person to person. Number one and number three are matters of personal opinion, particularly number three. Number two, however, can be looked at from within an analytical framework, studied, and decided on. For a democratic society to truly function there have to be many things at work. But, while there may be many things at play, two central elements are at the crux of democracy:

1) That information is free-flowing and impartial. A democratic society can only function properly when the people are well-informed about issues relevant to them. With only five major corporations essentially creating the "eye into the world" information is limited to the partiality of each corporation. Even if you do not believe that the information given by the media is partial, you must believe that it is impossible for five corporations to provide a democratic society all of the information that it needs to make informed decisions on topics from politics, local news, world news (coming from just about every nation), and so on. While there are five main media corporations, most of the news and information that we receive comes from two sources: The New York Times and The Washington Post, respectfully. Diversity of thought and opinion is the utmost important ingredient to learn about the world at large and forming sound opinions on topics that are crucial to a democratic society. If ninety-percent of the information circulated around a democratic society is coming from so few sources, how does that effect or impair our judgment and decision-making? It would be naïve to think that corporations do not have political agendas and that they do not yield their power to shape particular ideas that are beneficial to their progress. A truly informed society is a society that receives information from multiple points of view and from multiple sources, to hear every side of a topic and weight their opinions based on contrasting views.

2) That every voice is heard. In a democratic society, every voice has a right to be heard. Without a multiplicity of voices, people and groups are left marginalized and the media is free to endorse whoever and whatever it wants. I am not suggesting that we are experiencing the "Big Brother" theory with the media. Rather, we are experiencing a drought of perspectives and in a democratic society we are susceptible to making poor choices, especially at the ballot, because the information provided to us has been written by so few people, who have already made their choices. Informational media, if such a thing exists, should not be limited to the select few but should rather be an open forum through which various voices and opinions from all classes of society – from the elite to the lowest class – can be heard by the same audience, considered based on its own merit, and weighed respectfully by each receiver.

Most of all, a democratic society should be information-hungry and aware – and after the caucuses last week I am concerned that the public has not been given enough information to make a sound decision on the presidential candidates. It is upsetting that Americans are more likely to recognize the pop-tart Britney Spears than the actual presidential candidates, McCain, Clinton, Huckabee, and Obama: one of whom will be running this country, and thus, the structural system that directly impacts the lives of every American on a daily basis. The gravity of our next presidential candidate is massive, and the American people need to have the appropriate information given to them. If we do not receive a multiplicity of voices and contrasting points of view on each presidential candidate, and if we do not strongly question why we are voting for who we have chosen, and thus remain ignorant, we fail at having a truly democratic society.