OK, maybe not that cold but it did dip below 32 degrees last night which, when you're camping in a tent, is very cold! Noah and I did just that last night with the Cub Scouts in order to earn our Polar Bear badges and we will remember our evening huddled together for warmth when we wear them proudly. All right, maybe that's a bit melodramatic - we were actually fairly comfortable for the night. We put our individual sleeping bags inside a double bag and put the whole thing on an air mattress. We camped with about twenty other scouts and their families out at BSA Camp Moultrie out on Lake Moultrie. It was an adventure, but we're glad to be home now and are looking forward to hot showers and warm beds.
Today being the Democratic primary in South Carolina, I stopped and voted on the way home. I was one of only a dozen or so voters at our polling place (which is Zoe's school gym.) And I was one of only three white voters there. Needless to say there is not a large population of Democrats in our area and those that are, are almost exclusively black. The woman who checked me in to vote asked me twice if I realized I was voting in the Democratic primary. I assured her that I was in complete control of my senses. As I had predicted, I really didn't know who I was going to vote for until I arrived at the polls. Well, truth be told, I decided while I was driving to the school. Noah and I had left the campground around four and during the thirty minute ride back home, Noah fell asleep. This gave me some quite time to contemplate my decision. Shamefully, I haven't put as much research into this election as I did four years ago. I haven't even used one of those on-line questionnaires that identifies the candidate that best matches your political priorities. But while I was driving I came to the realisation that more than finding a candidate that perfectly matches my sensibility, my role in this election is to make my vote count and help my party elect the best person to lead this county and effect change. To that end I decided to vote for Obama. I think I really made that decision four years ago when I watched him on television speaking at the Democratic convention in Boston.
I have said publicly on several occasions that George Bush is a buffoon and an idiot (usually after a glass of wine or several beers.) I've accused him of being a puppet and unintelligent. But the fact is that you don't get to be President of this country by being an idiot. It takes a lot of hard work and perseverance and you have to know what you're doing. Americans may be slowly being overrun by apathy but we aren't yet at a point where we'll elect a buffoon to the oval office - at least I sincerely hope we're not. But the one thing you do have to do, and the one thing that I feel ol' Georgie hasn't been very effective at, is leading. I believe him to be a man of strong convictions and beliefs but that doesn't make him a good leader. Leadership requires charisma and articulation. It requires someone who can unify and motivate and persuade. In my opinion, George W has failed on all counts. For this round of voting at least, my vote went with the person I felt was best equipped to both win the nomination as well lead the country.
Posts
6 comments:
Yes, it's me again.
I want to know, when you say "after a glass of wine or several beers," is that after YOU have had a glass of wine or several beers, or after Bush has had a glass of wine or several beers? :)
On the voting thing, I agree that if you MUST vote Democrat [insert sarcasm here], Obama is the best choice. However, I disagree that leadership and charisma are that important. I could go along with unity being important, but even then I think it is not the MOST important thing. I'll tell you why...
Picture a group of people on a bridge. These are just random people, and they do not have anyone necessarily "leading" them; they are just there. Now, some articulate person with a lot of charisma pops up and persuades them that jumping off of the bridge would be a really good idea. Of course not EVERYONE goes for the idea, but this "leader" who has emerged eventually convinces the majority of the group that they should jump off of the bridge. However, there is one person with sense who is frantically trying to stop the "jumpers." This person sees the potential dangers of the situation and tries his/her best to save everyone else from falling to their doom. But, no one listens because this person is not the best speaker and does not have the ability to gain that much attention. The few people who do listen join him/her in quickly putting up a safety net under the bridge. The people who jump are upset that these other people spoiled their fun, but at least they are saved from their own stupidity.
Now, what do you think is more important? A charismatic leader with a unifying force, or someone who will go against what is popular to make the best decisions for the whole? Let's face it, the common person is not that smart or informed about everything they should know. People are gullible and fickle. However, even if they do have someone leading them who DOES convince them of the proper (for lack of a better word) things to do, it doesn't really matter. The common people are not the ones making the decisions (other than voting for the people who DO make the decisions). So, it doesn't matter so much how much a president "gets through" to his constituents; it just matters that, when the tough decisions have to be made, he/she will make the best ones, even if they are not popular or are not communicated well to the public. (Although, all of the outward leadership skills would be a nice bonus so that our country does not look stupid to the rest of the world. But, to me, that's just gravy.)
You know me; I love being outdoors and hiking/camping. I think it's great that you are doing the Scout thing with Noah; it's the sort of stuff I want to be able to do with my own kids some day.
I have to go with Becky on the political/leadership thing. I would much rather have someone in office who makes the best decsions for the nation regardless of what the popular thought is at the time. The people may hate him/her now but History might proclaim them to be that pivitol person who made a tough decsion at a crucial junction in time. Please don't think that I am implying that Bush is that person; I am not. Only History will truly be able to make that claim. Maybe he is an idiot (although I totally agree that idiots do not reside in the White House, regardless of their particular political affiliation)but again; only time can tell.
So here is another question for thought...
Is the role of the President to be...
1) Someone who listens to the will of the people but then ultimately does what he/she thinks is the right thing to do...
or...
2) Someone who acts only as the mouthpiece of the will of the people as expressed through majority rules voting?
hmmm...
Hey Chris! I had no idea Southern Transplant was now a blog (I think my email must have changed and I stopped getting those?)!!! Woohoo! I still very much enjoy reading what you have to share. :)
I actually found out because I use feedburner and it lets me know how many visits I get and from where, and there was your blog address. So THAT made me realize (and then see!) that you have a link to my blog on your page! I am so honored! Thank you! (Although I am somewhat ashamed that I have not been writing much lately...new year transition is going slowly.)
I look forward to reading your blog regularly, and I've been meaning to add a blog roll to my site, so when I do, I will definitely be adding yours!!
PS-I think you are quite brave to post about politics! :))
Tommy and Becky,
As usuall, you both make good points and they are well taken. However, I'd point out that no where in my original post did I say I was looking for a candidate who would make the easy or popular decision. On the contrary, I'm looking for someone who is willing to make the tough decisions but is also capable of "leading" the country through those decisions. I agree that Bush has been faced with some very difficult situations and that he's been willing to make unpopular decisions because he believed that his position was the correct one. But then, when presenting his position to the nation, he always seems to be hunched over and embracing the podium like he's holdng on for dear life. He stammers and tries unsuccessfully to link two coherent sentences togher. This just doesn't instill much confidence in me.
To follow Becky's example through - If we're all stuck on a bridge, my hope is that someone with plan to safely get everyone off the bridge steps forward. Perhaps the plan sounds dangerous or crazy, but this person has the abilty to articulate thier plan to us in such a way that everyone rallies together for the good of the whole.
That make sense?
Yes, it does make sense and I will certainly give you the point that Bush is not necessarily the most articulate person I have ever seen in my life. I would also be happy to see someone in the White House who could do the right thing but also be able to present him/herself in such a way that the other side at least has some respect for him/her.
I know what you're saying. I too would want someone to come up with a plan to get off of the bridge and be brave (and well-spoken) enough to get everyone to follow. My point is just that leadership and speaking skills (including charisma and such things) by themselves do not necessarily make someone a TRUE "leader". At the end of the day, it is not about how the president relates to the people, it is about the decisions he/she makes when it is just up to him/her.
Post a Comment