Americans are sick and tired of hearing how much your opponent sucks. Petty name calling of your opponents proves an utter arrogance of the political process that reeks with the fetid and rancid rancor of illegitimate discussion. Providing a forum devoid of discussion and limiting the choice of voters to a â€œwho is the least of the worseâ€ is as dangerous to the American political process as the fear the negative discussions engender. A political process without discussion or debate and devoid of respect and consideration is as dangerous as the feared actions of terrorists. Yet there is hope.
A political campaign should not be about what the candidates are against, or whom they are against, or what is bad about the other candidate. The rapid spiral into the morass of spin-doctors, negative campaigning, and terrorism against the voter should stop. The positive debate by candidates would be refreshing and energizing to the voters, and that is likely why it wonâ€™t happen. After all, the more people stay away from the polls the more likely a small few can decide the future of all 300 million Americans with little fear. There are a few things candidates can do to increase substantially their hopes for getting elected.
Tell voters what you are for and why it is important. While discussions of what is different between two candidates are valid donâ€™t waste our time by telling us what is wrong with your opposition. Voters want to know about your political views. Voters want to hear how a candidate will change and make their lives safer and better. Candidates for some reason spend too much time fear mongering and pushing uncertainty and doubt when they could be architecting a better and richer America. Terrorism is a horrible thing, but if it is the only dialog we are going to have havenâ€™t the terrorist won? Abortion is a lively topic for debate and likely we could say the same about gay marriage, but more voters are interested in fiscal responsibility balanced by government mandated services. Where is the discussion of social contract between a government and the people represented by a budget?
Donâ€™t talk down to the voters they are way smarter than most politicians will admit. Mudslinging political diatribes in 30 second chunks might swell the chests of the righteous and malcontent, but it causes most voters to ignore the candidates. A decision based on the least negative is neither a good decision nor a decision candidates can realistically compete towards. The average American voter is smarter than most of the worldâ€™s populations and that is reflected in the size of Americaâ€™s economy and the resiliency of our population. The American education system has been drubbed and belittled by intellectually dishonest statistical anomalous results you would think Americans are brain dead whereas the truth might be better that American politicians are malignant
When given a choice between fear mongering and generating hope we need hope. Through the vapid short sightedness of those who would create fear and foist fear as choice we can realize the mistakes of the past and move forward not making them. We know that fear makes poor choices. The fallow failing fear of terrorism is a selective and desensitizing aroma fetid in the intellectual dishonesty it carries. Terrorism is not battled by fear but by hope and change. Those providing hope and change based on the honesty of debate and the courage of a positive choice are those who most likely will win against terrorism. Being positive and debating based on the realities of a situation will not necessarily degenerate into fear mongering. Using fear to make choices though is an instant attempt to manipulate the voter. Manipulating the voter through fear is dishonest and filled with the stigma of childish misinformation.
Be an agent of positive enlightened change and a courageous manager of government while respecting the process and people. The government belongs to the people and any person voted into office is there at the will of the people as a steward of their will and needs. Those with desire to change and with dogmatic agendas should be honest about them. The indictment is not against the agenda or the dogma as this is the flip side of the same coin found in hope and desires. The courage to defend and discuss those issues should be held in an open environment. When the government travels down the path towards secrecy and implicit fear the bonds of trust erode and the people have reserved the right to refute those actions by the government. For those who would be leaders and have been leaders the voters want to see a choice based on the positive outcomes rather than how few people die. We realize that we have only fear to fear and that the concrete block thinking of binary decision making leads towards a world that voters can refuse to allow to come to fruition.