Last night was the first presidential debate between our simultaneously beloved and hated engineer of Obamacare and Ted Kennedy's former unsuccessful opponent in the 1994 Massachusetts senatorial election. According to most polls taken by such credible newscasts as CNN and MSNBC, Governor Romney was the victor, demonstrating an aggressive, take-no-moderation-from-the-moderator approach while our incumbent President seemed to have other things on his mind. Some of us thought it was his wedding anniversary and the uncomfortable couch and/or doghouse that certainly awaited him, but that very same hero who had conceptualized the Internet, thus dragging us out of the Dark Ages that we call the early '90s, generously set us straight, reasoning that Colorado's altitude has been known to impede even a world leader's ability to think straight when answering pre-planned questions that he and his campaign had to approve in advance.
Let me just acknowledge my preference for Mitt Romney for two primary reasons: I like having a strong military and I dislike Obamacare because I'm pretty sure Obama just looked at the European version and thought it was a good idea at the time, not realizing that the system wasn't built in a day--or four years.
But let's be honest. No matter who gets elected this November, life will go on. I must admit that I was an early boarder on the Apocalypse train on November 5 of 2008. I seriously thought our country was doomed and found minor solace in knowing that God's Plan requires things to get worse before they get better. I definitely have my political preferences, but after watching the debate last night and observing each candidate's struggle to be heard in the first of many chances to be heard, I am no longer worried. And here's why:
As a former Institute teacher of mine observed this morning on Facebook, "...both candidates are sincere individuals who want to help this country and its citizens." I don't disagree with that. I believe Romney and Obama both want to make this country better and restore the economy to the boom it enjoyed ten years ago (you know, back when we were only a couple trillion dollars in debt), not to mention the tense yet sincere respect and fear we once elicited from our Cold War adversaries after beating them to the Moon.
The only real difference is how they plan to do it and what their priorities are. One man believes that a world superpower is founded primarily upon a fierce military, while the other seems to think that while it would be nice to be a superpower, it's more important to make nice with leaders that have a history of hating our Godless culture, leaving more money to fund education reform. One man thinks that the way to fix the economy is to remain competitive and reduce taxes as well as Government regulation, while the other thinks the best way is to increase taxes on the wealthy and offer even more regulation and assistance to those who have been hit hard by this recession. One man means to keep healthcare privatized and save Social Security by reforming Medicare and the way in which it is distributed, while the other wants to make healthcare available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.
Newsflash: Those are all great ideas! The freest, most secure nation has a strong military, is deeply rooted in education and culture, keeps good relations with foreign powers whether those powers hate them or not, encourages its citizens to be self-sufficient, contributing members of society, and takes good care of its citizens by not overcharging them for the right to live without hunger and disease. When Christ comes, that's probably how He'll run things.
The problem is that we are not that nation. I don't know that we ever were. I do know that for years we have been a beacon of light in comparison to the rest of the planet, demonstrating that through hard work and the drive to succeed, man can achieve his dream--even if that dream is as simple as living comfortably in a one-bedroom apartment that sees healthy portions of food on the table three times a day. That is really all we can ask for anymore. We can't have it all, and neither candidate is going to give it all. These days the lot of us are angry because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we are entitled to everything that would protect us from pain and misery, and when that protection doesn't come, we point the finger at our President, forgetting that our system is set up in such a way that no one person will ever have the power to give to or take away from us what we believe we inherently deserve as American citizens and as human beings.
Instead, sacrifices need to be made--by all of us. Most of us understand that--albeit begrudgingly--but we have our own ideas of what those sacrifices should be. Some believe education should be favored over defense; others believe that education cannot be properly provided by a nation vulnerable to attack by its enemies, so defense should take priority; those who favor public healthcare correctly believe that a strong nation is composed of healthy, well-taken-care-of citizens, while opponents of public healthcare do not hate the poor, but rather they feel that it will dissuade healthcare workers from doing their best in a noncompetitive environment. On the other hand, a good friend of mine believes that we as a nation will gain more respect and deference from the rest of the world if we put more focus on art and culture.
Are any of us wrong? Maybe, but who are any of us to say that it's those who disagree with us? Most of us who say as much don't have any sort of degree that would remotely qualify us to make such a declaration. It is a severe logical fallacy to suggest that because Romney wants to take care of the military first, he hates teachers. On the same token, it would be hypocritical of me to accuse Obama of being unpatriotic for not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, as I have forgotten to do so more than once. So Romney doesn't want to be taxed more just because he has been more fortunate than the average person; would you? So Obama may or may not be Muslim; the Muslim faith is basically peaceful, and besides, he cannot rewrite the Constitution to enforce his alleged faith on the rest of us.
Bottom line: No matter who becomes President, people are going to die because of it. It's just a question of how. Will someone die because he/she is unemployed and can't afford healthcare, or will someone die at the hands of a negligent, overworked doctor? Because while it may be in a minority of cases, one of those scenarios will happen depending on who wins next month. Your candidate will not make you safe from death, disease, starvation, or any sort of danger or discomfort. At the end of the day, each candidate will make mistakes, each candidate will fail in certain areas, and each candidate will break promises. And those shortcomings we attribute to most ordinary human beings will have a negative effect on people, while either candidate's successes will benefit us as well. Don't kid yourself into thinking that one is our savior and the other our destruction. Just do your part to promote the good of all men, and remember that the good of all men does not consist of demonizing one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment