Post by dadough38 on Nov 16, 2011 21:40:02 GMT -5
In running for office in America, each candidate takes an unspoken oath to America’s voters: to represent the voter’s views, to solve the nation’s problems and, most importantly, to never cross party lines. Claims to the contrary are absolutely false; if a candidate preaches moderation or reason above liberal or conservative, they aren’t elected to office because that’s not what voters want to hear from their candidate. To make it to office, a candidate must acknowledge and speak the rhetoric of consensus that their base provides for them, and temper their own views for the sake of a title, which destroys the integrity of each candidate, rendering the entire process flawed.
By speaking what is fed to them by their base, the Republican primary candidates lose the independent spark that marks free thought and expression. Party lines isolate these candidates within their base to the point where no quantity of debates or speeches will shift a significant portion of the voters. A Democrat is not apt to vote for a Republican simply because those candidates are likely not speaking the rhetoric Democrats want to hear, and for good reason; alienating a portion of the Republican base for the chance to acquire a small number of new Democrat supporters is a time-tested mistake for candidacy. The Republican candidates realize that a sharp mind and good ideas are less likely to succeed than a sharp PR crew and a good teleprompter, and this degradation of the political process takes the honesty out of each candidate, bar none.
The consequences of speaking the rhetoric accepted by the Republican party are felt nationwide, and no candidate is willing to give an inch. The give and take of support based on rhetoric leaves potential prospects groping for a portion of their base that eludes them, and then swinging to the center as the general election forces them to appeal to a wider audience. To truly embrace the multiplicity of candidates, both voters and candidates would have to forsake the small ‘D’ or ‘R’ that appears next to their name each time they speak, and that is not going to happen in the current system within which titles represent the whole of the candidate.
The ideal of American voting still comes off strong regardless of the political flip-flopping because of an elaborate dance that the Republican primary candidates are engaged in. The smoke and mirrors surrounding them shroud the fact that, even though they may appear to be the ideal reformer, an individual in a sea of mediocrity, or even the ideal candidate, they still need to walk a fine line that keeps themselves looking ‘correct’ and their opponents looking ‘wrong’ at all times. With this method finding such consistent support, candidates’ political opinions continue into extremism where no candidate truly intends to deliver on campaign promises.
When candidates speak only what their base requires, the voting process loses validity owing to candidates typecasting themselves into moulds that represent society’s rhetoric. It seems almost naïve to think that candidates believe exactly what voters believe on every level, and it certainly is, given the system; Americans have fallen to the point of ‘settling’ rather than finding the ideal candidate. The rhetoric candidates speak to reach as broad an audience as possible is the embodiment of the shortcomings of the voting process; candidates change themselves for additional votes. To truly end this appealing to rhetoric, candidates and voters must make the commitment to represent themselves with personal beliefs rather than the rhetoric set by society, and these beliefs must truly epitomize the campaign process.
Word Count: 596
By speaking what is fed to them by their base, the Republican primary candidates lose the independent spark that marks free thought and expression. Party lines isolate these candidates within their base to the point where no quantity of debates or speeches will shift a significant portion of the voters. A Democrat is not apt to vote for a Republican simply because those candidates are likely not speaking the rhetoric Democrats want to hear, and for good reason; alienating a portion of the Republican base for the chance to acquire a small number of new Democrat supporters is a time-tested mistake for candidacy. The Republican candidates realize that a sharp mind and good ideas are less likely to succeed than a sharp PR crew and a good teleprompter, and this degradation of the political process takes the honesty out of each candidate, bar none.
The consequences of speaking the rhetoric accepted by the Republican party are felt nationwide, and no candidate is willing to give an inch. The give and take of support based on rhetoric leaves potential prospects groping for a portion of their base that eludes them, and then swinging to the center as the general election forces them to appeal to a wider audience. To truly embrace the multiplicity of candidates, both voters and candidates would have to forsake the small ‘D’ or ‘R’ that appears next to their name each time they speak, and that is not going to happen in the current system within which titles represent the whole of the candidate.
The ideal of American voting still comes off strong regardless of the political flip-flopping because of an elaborate dance that the Republican primary candidates are engaged in. The smoke and mirrors surrounding them shroud the fact that, even though they may appear to be the ideal reformer, an individual in a sea of mediocrity, or even the ideal candidate, they still need to walk a fine line that keeps themselves looking ‘correct’ and their opponents looking ‘wrong’ at all times. With this method finding such consistent support, candidates’ political opinions continue into extremism where no candidate truly intends to deliver on campaign promises.
When candidates speak only what their base requires, the voting process loses validity owing to candidates typecasting themselves into moulds that represent society’s rhetoric. It seems almost naïve to think that candidates believe exactly what voters believe on every level, and it certainly is, given the system; Americans have fallen to the point of ‘settling’ rather than finding the ideal candidate. The rhetoric candidates speak to reach as broad an audience as possible is the embodiment of the shortcomings of the voting process; candidates change themselves for additional votes. To truly end this appealing to rhetoric, candidates and voters must make the commitment to represent themselves with personal beliefs rather than the rhetoric set by society, and these beliefs must truly epitomize the campaign process.
Word Count: 596