|
|||||
|
Oh, to be that Ohio man who could decide race!
I guess we are coming to that point. The winner of the Presidential Election in Alabama has already been announced. I guess we should be pleased that we live next to a state for which the decision has not yet been declared. That way, we at least get occasional flyovers by the candidates. I also remember that when I was a child, I asked my father why the presidential candidates never campaigned in Alabama. He told me back then that both political parties knew that Alabama was going to vote for the Democratic candidate. There was no need to campaign here. Of course, Alabama voting for the national Democratic candidate is a thing of the past. There are still some remnants of that political quirk in local elections. On the local scene, the Democratic Primary seems to be much more important than the November election. I am not sure that the Republican Party even puts forth candidates for License Commissioner or Probate Judge. I have the impression that it is not considered to be any conflict of loyalty or breach of conscience to be a strong supporter of the local Democratic Party and vote Republican in most non-local elections. In Georgia, we have seen that you can be a Democratic Senator and speak for the Republican candidate on a national stage. The Mobile paper says that the outcome of the Presidential election lies in the hands of the citizens of eight states. Those are lucky people. I hope they are studying. It must be hard for them to make their decisions. What are they to consider in making their choice? In polls, they are asked with which candidate they would like to have a beer. This is a quality on which to make such an important decision by those whose vote counts? It is one thing for me to base my vote on such a thing, but it is another for someone from Florida to vote with the answer to that question as a decision maker. There have been only a few good sources of information about comparisons of the two candidates. One was the PBS Frontline program: Choice 2004. This program simply followed the two candidate’s lives, telling what they were doing during various years. It told where Bush was and what he was doing in some year and where Kerry was and what he was doing at that same time. If you believe that people are a continuation of all their experiences, then this program gave insight in who the two candidates are and how they might act in the next four years. It would be too bad if those whose vote counts missed that program. It gave an opportunity to see the candidates without the repeated litany of sound bites honed by speech writers and without the concern of how the candidates looked before the camera. In an effort to understand the issues, I have despaired at what the candidates choose to discuss. How can one get a true appraisal of the state of the economy, of Social Security and Medicare, on who really pays an equitable share of their taxes, of energy independence, of out sourcing of jobs, of the development of science and technology, of medical care in the United States? Did reducing the federal income taxes help the economy or hurt the economy? Since the Alabama vote doesn’t count, it is probably better to look outside the state for help from people who are concerned with these issues and whose life’s work is spent working in some of these areas. I don’t know names for experts in all those areas. I do respect the opinion of the editors of Scientific American. They have taken a position. I assume there is some comparable respected journal in the medical field. Because of my background, I would look to leaders in colleges and universities. Their lives are dependent on their being knowledgeable in their field of work. What recommendations do they make for which candidate will serve best? In the discussions of who will be President next year, it seems most of the time the speaker is quick to declare that our decision should be independent of whether or not the candidate is a Statesman of the World, as well as President of the United States. I would be slower to put that aside. This issue is important in making alliances. One editorial did what I thought was a good job in making a comparison. The author, David Brooks, considered the election as a conflict of visions. He pointed out that a politician from the sparsely populated South and West are more likely to champion freedom, self-sufficiency, individualism. Politicians from the cities are likely to champion the virtues of social justice, tolerance, interdependence. Politicians from sparsely populated areas are more likely to say they want government off people’s backs. Politicians from denser areas are more likely to want government to play at least a refereeing role. Brooks wrote that the question these ideas ask are whether free people will live in basic harmony and not need any central authority to govern their interactions. Or, will people living in a crowded world need to gather to work out differences and manage problems? I thought this perspective of the two candidates gave me a view a little above the fray about who served best during the Viet Nam conflict, and what was meant by a sentence made in the context of a huge paragraph. But for the folks in Grove Hill, none of this matters. Our vote for a presidential candidate counts for naught. We can vote for whomever we want. Our state’s electoral decision has been predicted. On the other hand, we all have friends and relatives who live in Florida. Call them. Send them an email. Write them a letter. They vote for us all. They are the 2004 counterpart of that man in Ohio who was the center of the short story which I read 50 years ago. Sometimes, late in the evening, I wonder what would happen if we surprised the pundits? Do you think then that presidential candidates would seek our vote?
Jim Herod taught for years at Georgia Tech before retiring and moving to Grove Hill with his wife, the former Martha Duke. He is a native Alabamian.
Another Viewpoint Jim Herod
|
|||||