Time to Wise up on Presidential Elections

Our quadrennial U.S. presidential election cycles are rather interesting events. They represent a moment in American civil engagement when voters swoon at the idealized fantasy that a better leader is looming out there just a ballot box vote away. Voters seem to get intoxicated by the pageantry, arousing stump speeches and saturation media coverage. But while these elections are vital to our Constitutional democracy, there are a few cautionary points voters should heed before getting sweep away in the spectacle and hype of the presidential campaign season:

Stop yearning for the next great political messiah -
The public needs to stop building presidents up to be more than what they are, which are public servants hired to do a job. Furthermore, political leaders aren’t omniscient beings endowed with powers that enable them to wave magic wands that instantly fix all the nation’s problems. We also don’t live in a dictatorship, so the president isn’t able to simply do what he wants at will. He’s only one person who must contend with an established political system, which includes a coequal branch of government (the U.S. Congress) that he must navigate and collaborate with in order to advance his agenda. Moreover, the president, no matter how well-intentioned or politically gifted, is limited in his ability to move his agenda due to the constraints of the legislative process, which can be extremely difficult.

Beware false political prophets -
These are the White House aspirants who boldly claim to possess the requisite skills and experience needed to solve all our problems. Voters of course cheer them on freely, enthusiastically drinking the Kool-Aid these charlatans peddle. But what voters fail to grasp while entranced in the intoxicating haze of scripted speeches and poll-tested campaign rhetoric is that there is a fundamental difference between “campaigning” and “governing.” As candidates vying to win their way into elected office, it’s easy to promise voters the moon on the campaign trail and make unrealistic assertions about what they can do once in office. Also, candidates are completely unburdened by having to make the tough decisions officeholders confronting real problems have to make everyday.

One reason high-office contenders get away with telling such fables stems from not usually being held accountable for their fantasy promises or intentions on the campaign trail. If the fables sound credible enough such as promising to fix Medicare and Social Security or easily creating millions of new jobs, candidates get the benefit of the doubt from voters who are often less concerned about the specific details no matter how impractical the claims may be.

In truth, if our country’s problems were as easy to fix as some candidates would naively have voters believe, wouldn’t they have been resolved already? That’s just something to keep in mind the next time you hear candidates promising something that seems too good to be true.

Change for change sake is seldom a good idea -
Contrary to popular belief, change isn’t always good. When election-year emotions and passions are running high, voters can get fired up, sometimes charging to the polls with a throw-the-bums-out mindset. And while there are many political bums that need to be thrown out of office from time to time, voters need to be careful that they are not hastily throwing in a new set of bums to replace those just booted. Well that‘s exactly what happened in the 2010 elections when voters stormed to the polls on a wave of so-called anger to throw out the Democrats who they replaced with band of anti-government conservative extremists called the Tea Party.

The prolonged debt-ceiling crisis was dragged out in large measure because Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives stubbornly refused to compromise, choosing instead to risk bringing our nation’s economy, which is already on shaky legs, to the brink of collapse. But such behavior was reasonably predictable given some of the extremist rhetoric many of these candidates espoused during the 2010 campaign. True, the public wisely rejected many of these candidates as not sufficiently qualified to hold elected office, but they also unwisely voted a number of them into office, and now we see the result.
Voter anger directed at our dysfunctional political process is fine, but it makes no sense to exacerbate the problem by electing hyper-partisan leaders who make matters worse. 

This is equally important when voters cast their votes for president. Voters should avoid making a partisan-fueled, knee-jerk decision that could have lasting consequences. Vote wisely, but more importantly, have realistic expectations for the candidate you choose.

The Problem of Celebrity

As Kim Kardashian prepares for her nuptials to NBA cutie Kris Humphries, and buzz about Jennifer Lopez’s recent divorce continues to adorn grocery store aisles everywhere, 
one question comes to mind:

Why are people so enthralled with the personal lives of celebrities?

I attribute this obsession on the part of the public to what I call “The Problem of Celebrity.” Our society is obsessed with people who have achieved money, success and extraordinary fame. We live vicariously through them. Look no further than the recent fanfare following the sudden death of Amy Winehouse, the reemergence and popularity of R&B singer Chris Brown following his domestic abuse incident, and the distant but not forgotten sex scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods.

Our daily news is an usual blend of savvy headlines like: “President Obama makes sharp remarks about the debt ceiling standoff....” “The victims of Norway are gone but not forgotten....” and “Kim Kardashian finally picks her wedding dress.” You can't be serious.

Who’s to blame for this moronic blend of substantive news and sorority girl antics? 

The public? The media? Or celebrities? Hold that thought.

        

In addition to the denigration of news in the U.S., it’s also a crude reality that people set higher standards for celebrities than they do for themselves. What happens when and if our beloved Kim Kardashian cheats on her reality TV husband? Will we continue to worship her? Or will we knock her off her tinsel town pedestal and treat her with the same disdain as Arnold Schwarzenegger? Again, hold that thought.

The public is notorious for boycotting celebrities when scandals break. We are quick to pass judgment and stop patronizing someone if we get wind they did something we don’t approve of. Because celebrities exhibit a talent, skill or image the everyday Joe or Joanna doesn’t possess, we make modern-day idols out of them and come short of deeming them superhuman. 

Truth is, people feel comfortable playing judge in the lives of celebrities because we have the luxury of seeing their lives and indiscretions played out for the world to see, while our own lives remain private and unbroadcasted. When you have that kind of access and anonymity coupled into one, people feel empowered, and exploit that power to the Nth degree.

Because celebrities have achieved in life what many only dream of, people expect them to be dreamlike in every way. Hence, the constant fanfare and never ending obsession. People feel the need to love everything about a celebrity in order to support them because we expect them to do something we're incapable of: attain perfection. 

We expect celebrities to live up to the hype we’ve created for them.  

And we throw tantrums when they don’t. 

The moment our expectations don’t materialize, we are forced to face the reality that the people we’ve been idolizing are just that: people. Not immortal super heroes, but rather everyday people just like us who garner public attention through the machinery of marketing, distribution and media. 

When faced with this reality, people become disgruntled. Rather than blame ourselves for having unfair and unrealistic expectations, we fault celebrities for not fulfilling our dreams. So who’s the real culprit: the public, the media or celebrities? I'll let you answer that.

Until people accept the fact that celebrities are not perfect, but just as flawed as we are, 
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us. 

And until the public takes more of an interest in news that actually matters, rather than how Kim Kardashian will look in her wedding dress, we’ll continue to be bombarded with more dense reality television.

Until then, it’s only downhill from here. -v7

Partisan Foolishness Drove Debt-Ceiling Debate

Some pundits and the national media have attempted to cast the debate over the nation’s debt ceiling as a philosophical difference in how the two political parties view the role of government in the U.S. In short, the prolonged and bitterly partisan debate over raising the debt ceiling was rooted in conservative or liberal principles about the nation’s economic governance. Baloney!

What we have all witnessed over the past weeks was nothing more than the worst kind of childish and petty political partisanship. The loins share of this divisive behavior was on full display among many Republicans in the House of Representatives who refused to budge (at all) on the issue of including tax increases in any agreed upon debt-reduction plan. Their entrenched opposition was not only out of step with most leading economists; it ran counter to the views of a majority of Americans who, to their credit, sensibly acknowledged that both revenue increases and spending cuts were needed to resolve the debt crisis.

No matter what the political composition of our U.S. Congress at any given time, legislating is often difficult  and will always require compromise to get things accomplished. Ideological intransigence is the very antithesis of sensible compromise.

The reality is that no matter what one’s ideological views -- conservative or liberal -- leaders must always be cognizant of their responsibility to act in the collective public interest. This means that sometimes strongly held ideological views must yield to the higher purpose of working cooperatively "for the greater good" to solve serious problems. The very definition of compromise means that all parties at the negotiation table won’t get everything they desire, but walk away with something.

It would be rather convenient for politicians to hide their base partisan antics under the guise of philosophical principle. But such transparent distortions of political reality don’t fly, and shame on the media for thinking they would.

Change Your Dating Expectations

Change. Too often women complain that their male counterparts should “change.” Women all over the world consistently express a chronic sense of dissatisfaction from men in key areas such as love, sex and monogamy. Women use a variety of mediums and platforms to share their plight and implore men to do a wealth of things such as: be more romantic; become better lovers; and embrace commitment and monogamy. 

I think women should do the changing.

Women should change their standards, expectations and drastically alter their level of tolerance for undesirable behavior. When this is set in motion, women will find that the caliber of men they date and their experiences with them will change - for the better. Women will get much more out of their romantic encounters if they do the changing instead of expecting men to. 

Ladies, instead of expecting more from men, expect more from yourselves.

You’ll be glad you did. -v7

What Happened to Personal Discretion?

It’s official; the art of personal discretion is dead. Face it, we now live in a popular culture where anything goes and everything is ripe for public display. Take a look at almost any reality TV program and you often see young, attractive people degrading themselves on national television in pursuit of a monetary prize or ephemeral fame.

Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class. 

 The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.

A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager  who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.

Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.

There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.

Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.

So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.

When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.

Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.