Bush as Symptom

There has never been a coup in the United States. No military leader has assumed the presidency by force of will or army. Nevertheless, we have had a president for the last six years who has proven time and again that he cares not what anyone thinks. He does what he wants in dictatorial fashion.

But America is a democracy and Bush is not really a dictator. The American people are responsible for putting George Bush in office. He is thus a symptom, but not the illness. The illness is one of collective bad judgement by us Americans, and a laziness in the way we gather information about, and come to understand, those who would be our leaders.

We’ve become extremely ideological and narrow minded in the way we treat politics. Too many of us look for a President who promises movement on a narrow though understandably important issue, such as moral direction, without taking into account the competency of the candidate to reach such a goal in a way that is inclusive, as our democracy is meant to be. And, believing that the candidate is dedicated to leading the country down a moral path, we fail to see the signs that the very candidate himself lacks the moral compass to lead us there. Bush has proven his lack of such a moral compass on many occasions, the most recent being his decision to send more troops to Iraq. This decision has to do with Bush’s unwillingness to admit his policy has failed, rather than doing what's right. American soldiers’ lives are the pawns in Bush’s game of ego.

So, America made a big mistake in electing Bush. His low approval rating among his constituency is evidence of how we feel. The question is, what can be done to limit the possibility that we’ll make such a mistake again?

We are politically naïve and horribly underinformed. We rarely take it upon ourselves to seek information about candidates, relying instead on TV ads to tell us all the bad things the other guy has done. We don’t really know what a candidate stands for nor do we know much, really, about his past decisions as a politician.

However, much of this information is out there. In the days before an election newspapers devote pages to candidates, dissecting their views and actions to get beyond heresy and offer a real analysis of what a candidate plans to do. Candidates' actual platforms, with plans laid out on paper, are printed in the papers.

But, people don’t bother to look. Often, they don’t know such resources are available.

What we need is a web site, special high-visibility newspaper, or TV show dedicated to presenting a candidate’s platform as the candidate him or herself lays it out. The format would include key categories such as healthcare, taxes, war policy where the candidate would clearly, concisely and briefly write exactly what he planned to do and where he planned to get the money for it. There would be no mention of other candidates. The site, or paper or program would be heavily advertised.

Surveys would be sent out to all constituencies asking voters to rate the top seven issues of importance. These issues would be ranked and the candidate would have to outline his policy on each, and how he would vote. He would then include an additional seven issues that were not ranked by the public but which he thinks need to be addressed. Politicians should be visionaries who have an idea of what’s important regardless of the actual publicity an issue receives. He would state his policy on these issues and how he would vote on them.

Then, he’d say where he’d get money from. And, he’d be forced to say which programs he’d cut, if necessary, to make budget. This would force him to come clean about issues that he doesn’t view as important. To keep him honest, he’d have to justify how cutting those programs would allow him to come up with enough money to pay for what he wants to do. That way, he can’t squeak by saying that he’d cut insignificant programs no one cares about anyway.

This whole program would be funded by tax dollars. Outrageous? Not when you consider that the government funds the candidacy of presidential hopefuls. It makes perfect sense that government fund the awareness of its people as well. Candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have already stated their intention to forfeit the $150 million offered by the federal government to fund their campaigns. Use that money, instead, to fund a program of awareness and knowledge, to counteract the misinformation and negative campaigning that has kept many American from developing opinions about their candidates that are based on fact.