Our Political System is Gay!

 

Can anybody tell me why America seems to crave having a woman or a black man in the White House at this particular time?  During this election, all of a sudden, we have two white women and one black man in the running in the two major political parties.

 

 

We Need a Civilizing Influence Now

 

Consider our Presidential Campaigns. Somehow, the standard now allows candidates to attack each other in order to win.  (That is often considered a typical male characteristic–though I have to say, when women do fight, they can be pretty nasty too!)

 

 

Too Much Money Wasted

 

In my way of thinking, it’s practically sinful allowing anyone to be able to use so much money, however they got it, simply on campaigning.  Currently, its main use seems to be for the purpose of slandering the competition in order to get what one wants: to be President.

 

 

Campaign Process

 

A campaign process could incorporate right-brain techniques and current trends even beyond technology for winning the Presidency in ways that I think might be so fun, absolutely nobody would miss watching the competitions on TV! …Sort of the difference between laundry soap ads on TV thirty years ago and the kind of ads you see today.

 

 

Advertisers really have to work at being able to capture the attention of viewers, now that those who have satellite dishes and DVRs can speed through taped programs and ads anytime they want to.  As a result, ads can be so fun to watch now, they can be better than the programs we originally intended to see.  (Some of those Geico ads might be among them.)

Why can’t Presidential elections be as much fun to watch as some of the ads nowadays?  During election season, we’re forced to watch and hear the same complaining, abusive stuff over and over and over, and that does very little to show us who we should be voting for anyway, much of the time.  Surely we can do better than that!

See my “Different Kind of Campaign” page.  It’s about an idea for a different kind of campaign that I think might be fun, fun, fun for the whole family to do and to watch, and might not even cost candidates a cent!  (Maybe anyone in America who was truly qualified could become President someday!

 

Whether or not a candidate gets donations in such small amounts that it doesn’t “count”, or whether a candidate takes anything from the government coffers to run his or her campaign or not should not matter!

I think that money could be used for better things and still be able to demonstrate the things in a campaign that voters need to know, showing us what kinds of things they would do for the country if they were elected and what kind of person they are.

It’s deceitful to do anything else, I think.

Do we allow sports competitors to take drugs so they can outshine their competition?

Of course not.  It has to all be based on what a candidate is naturally able to do.

Allowing some candidates better access to money to further their campaigns over that of any other competitor does exactly the same thing, the way I see it.  If they do such manipulative things to get into office, they should be disqualified…unless they are equally willing to continue raising funds from outside sources during the entire time he or she was President in order to run the country, as a way of showing us what he would do as President.  All of it!!!!!

(We could sure use the money to pay off our national debt, plus the trillion or so dollars that our leaders voted to be applied to stabilizing our economy!)

One of the current candidates says he wants to tax the rich more to redistribute the wealth.

You say it doesn’t affect the poor when the rich get taxed in this country?

Sure it does, because where do the jobs come from?

They come, most of the time, from businesses that get busy and need help.

Some of the highest expenditures a company ever has is for wages and the taxes that go along with hiring people.

Raise taxes on the rich, and you may find yourself losing your job. Your boss may not have enough money to pay Peter (the IRS) and Paul (his employees).

Right now, even if a candidate tried to be nice, he would eventually have to provide rebuttal to the attacks or risk having the voters believe what the competitor said about him. (It seems we voters do believe that kind of thing, too, if there is no response to a competitor’s attacks.)

I see abuse as being a normal part of our Presidential Campaigns now. I really think we need a new format for them, if only to stop the abuse.

Why do we allow candidates to abuse each other? Because we need to know that they can handle the abuse of politics and politicians and leaders around the world? Abuse creates abuse, and sometimes war.

Why is it allowable for any of the news media to abuse or try to bring disfavor to candidates they don’t approve of? I thought journalists and such were supposed to be non-biased!  And neither church or charity leaders are even allowed to say anything to influence elections now, or they supposedly risk losing their tax-exempt status.  (If they are liberal church leaders who condemn America it doesn’t seem to matter, however.) 

Among America’s entities, are only journalists allowed freedom of speech in this country? 

I have another question. Why do we allow followers of politicians (those who try to get their candidate elected) to be abusive?  We don’t let (say) employees be abusive, if we want to maintain good working or business-to-customer relationships.  It’s even illegal to do so.

In fact, in a sports contest, we would disqualify someone for abusing one of his or her competitors.

Our laws don’t let advertisers slander or put down other advertisers.  Why are politicians allowed to get away with doing that to their competitors or other politicians?

All may be fair in love and war, but as far as I know, politics was not supposed to be included in either of those categories.

Shouldn’t there be some level of decency or dignity allowed for every person who appears in public, as well?  We have made heroes or villains of anyone who is famous, and it seems to be perfectly okay to trash them, put them on a pedestal, or hunt them down.

People are people.  Rich or famous or political people are people too.

While selling things on eBay, I corresponded briefly with someone from Holland and discovered that he’s been watching our elections on TV, too.  I think we would do immeasurably more for our candidates and for our country in the eyes of people around the world if we required our candidates and their followers to show respect for each other, in speeches, in debates, in interviews, even in speeches they might give in other countries.  If the other person becomes President, the speeches the first candidate gave may very well lower the opinion the whole world has about our country. 

We need a good reputation in the world in order to do trade and other business well and to help our own economy.

At least in theory, women who are real women are the civilizing part of society.  We soften things up, we focus on understanding and resolving issues and meeting needs; we reduce the abuse.

Just eliminating the abuse in campaigns might actually do more to show us who each candidate really is and what he or she would do for us, because none of them could then base the rest of their campaigns on how well they were able to put everyone else down. 

(And let’s face it, just because a competitor tells everyone in all their ads that the other guy is doing something wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are telling the truth.)

It gives me a picture of any candidate who would do such things as being someone who is eager to make war.  I am personally quite sure that I don’t want that kind of person in office in these volatile times.

One of my philosophies is, “it takes one to know one.” If one candidate wants to bring up a point about the other candidate, maybe some (verified) neutral party should be appointed for the task of bringing it up and making investigations in depth for both candidates.  That neutral party or team could be the ones appointed to reveal the outcome to America.

Myself, I tend to not even think of some things unless I’ve experienced or practiced them myself somewhere along the line, or knew well someone who did.  One of my questions might be how candidates even know to bring certain things up about any other candidate?

Are we sure it’s entirely because of which group any of the candidates represent? I think it might be because we actually need some different things to happen in our country now!

Pure and simple, I think American government is gay, and maybe we just need some new perspectives in government–some new relationships–now.

What?

I am trying to describe the kind of relationships I see at play in government today.

Even though we have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party to balance things out, for the most part I see it as still being mostly two different groups of men fighting for the power between themselves; one group of men’s perspectives and ways of doing things versus another group of men’s perspectives and ways of doing things.

In a marriage-style relationship between a man and a woman, there is still the dynamic of vying for balance of power present, but there are different kinds of perspectives and ways of doing things than when the gender of both partners is the same.

Back when America was formed, only Caucasian males were considered important enough to help out with any part of the decision-making about what the government would be like.  (Or maybe part of it was that women had so many children back then that they simply didn’t have time to do anything else?)

Indians were not important in the process, except to a few (even though they helped the white man get established here); women were not important (they were considered criminals if they tried to find a way to give input); blacks could only be slaves, and so on.

Even as late as 1920, women who wanted to have a say in government were abused and treated like criminals, and it was considered appropriate (at least by President Woodrow Wilson) to do so.

Our forefathers may have meant exactly what they said when they said, “…all men are created equal.”  (…Unless you were from a different background than they were, that is.  Blacks certainly weren’t considered equal, even if they were men.) 

Men, not women. (Nor children, nor anyone else who was not considered to be equal.)

Just to let you know, I’m not making a judgment for or against men.  We need them!

It’s just been my observation that usually things work better, in nature (or, as a part of it, in human beings), if they follow a path similar to the way God made things to function.  (Parallel to the way nature is set up, if you will.)

If you eat food your body is not able to receive complete nutrition from, you can cause things to malfunction in your body after a while. Teeth can decay, bones can become brittle, livers can become diseased.

A book on nutrition told me that the closer foods are to their natural state when ripe, the better our bodies will function after we eat them.

The less processed foods are when we eat them, the better health we will usually have as a result.

(Non-nature example here): If you put the wrong kind of fuel in your car, your car might sputter and die somewhere you don’t want it to!  (It’s happened in one car I rode in!)

I think Daniel Pink is right. Right now America needs more of the kind of things we typically associate with women: right-brain activities. We are just “left-brained out” for awhile!

As I’ve mentioned before, women are typically associated with certain things:

• the color pink
• bringing forth/nurturing new life
• creativity
• intuition
• religious activities
• nurturing
• cleaning up messes
• putting flowers on the table
• writing letters, sending out cards for birthdays, weddings, Christmas, “keeping in touch”
• keeping house
• coordinating all household events for the sake of efficiency in running the household
• being the peacemaker or the counselor (though men sometimes do it too)
• resolving quarrels
• saving money
• volunteer (unpaid) work, and being the one who puts together nutritious meals/mind-expanding activities that keep herself, the kids and her husband healthy and able to function at peak efficiency

Voila! Exactly what we need right now in America.  (Well, maybe not any more of the color pink, though  the wisdom of someone like Daniel Pink might be welcome.)

I think it may not necessarily be that we need a woman in the White House–just someone who is right-brained enough to understand some of the kinds of things that needed to happen from a woman’s point of view, in the way a woman might typically do them.

When human beings function the way they are made to function best, the left side of the brain functions right alongside the right side of the brain.  If either side of the brain functions alone, it faces serious challenges.

The best brain function is not the left side or the right side of the brain. It’s the whole brain that functions best, the kind of brain that is most capable of easily making shifts back and forth so that it can function at top capacity.

To my eye, our government has mostly left-brain function, having male characteristics, since it was created when only men were considered to be correct in the way things were done.

You say, we already have women in government positions.

Do we?  Women who do things in government the way a woman would do them?

How long has it been since our government has had a good cleaning from top to bottom?  (A typical woman’s function in society.)

Maybe we could bring about a better balance–one that might include a little bit different arrangement of government to accommodate the part that’s been missing for so long.

Men are typically seen as being the leaders, the logical ones, the ones who have the final authority and the overview.

Of course, men bring many other important things to the table as well. But they are typically the more aggressive half of our species, the ones who are most likely to choose go to war (and to cause it sometimes).  We do need someone to protect our country–otherwise anything we do inside of it is all for nothing.

I read an anthropology book once that said that if every part of a society caters to the men and nothing accommodates the women, it becomes like the society of a certain Brazilian tribe, one of the most violent and abusive societies on earth.  Women there don’t think their men even love them unless their husbands beat them, it’s so bad.  And the same problems are perpetuated in their society generation after generation, due solely to the fact that the men have all the say and the women have none.

Advertisement