By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.
Watched the main Republican debate on CNBC Wednesday. This is the part where I’m supposed to complain about something. How about I not do that?
The debate featured the top 10 polling candidates and was preceded by a previous debate featuring another four.
This is a strong Republican field – maybe the strongest in memory. Those 14 candidates included two business leaders, a neurosurgeon, five current senators and one former one, and five current or former governors. While they all support smaller government, they are quite different – in background, in temperament, and in beliefs. One of the candidates is African-American, one is a woman, and three are the sons of immigrants – in two cases, Cuba, and in the other, India. One is the son of a former president and brother of another, but he must ask for our votes just as they did.
Over the course of an evening, these 14 ambitious high achievers stood in front of the American people, presented their ideas and qualifications, and asked for our votes. There were inaccuracies, of course, and promises based on bad math. But there were also substantive arguments based on detailed policy positions, and there was passion based on true belief.
Policies come and go. What’s more important is the process. The candidates disagreed, and it’s almost certain that some of them don’t like each other. But no one was going to draw a sword or stage, or amass their armies to seize power. The candidates faced challenging questions from moderators who had no reason to fear them, and they spoke before an audience that acted with restraint but felt free to express its approval and disapproval.
The Democrats’ slate of candidates is, unfortunately, thinner, the party’s establishment having chosen to rally behind one candidate early in the process. But it should be noted that the one candidate could be the first female president. Meanwhile, her main challenger is a person who is not a member of a political party and calls himself a socialist. Think I’m insulting him? I’m not. Regardless of what one thinks about his label, it’s good that voters are getting a chance to consider his ideas.
Please take a moment and consider the alternatives under which many people have lived in the past and under which many live today. The obvious example is Syria, which is engulfed in a religious civil war with many sides. ISIS is attempting to install a Muslim caliphate through tools such as beheading people based on their religion. The Assad government maintains power by dropping crude barrel bombs that kill indiscriminately. No wonder that war has produced more than 4 million refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In China, 1.4 billion people are ruled by a Communist Party that, this week, decided to double its previous limit and allow families to have two children instead of just one. It holds onto power by promising unending economic growth, a promise it cannot possibly keep. North Koreans worship their leader or face the consequences.
Of course the American system is less than it should be. Of course it’s often corrupted by money and ego and partisanship. Of course problems are not being solved. Of course the media can be irresponsible and annoying.
But there has to be some balance between seeing all the flaws and seeing only flaws. Can’t there be something between naive and pessimistic? How about “optimistically realistic”?
The late writer David Foster Wallace told the story of two young fish who were met by an older fish swimming in the opposite direction. “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” said the older fish. After swimming a ways, one of the young fish looked at his buddy and said, “What’s water?”
The idea is that we can become so accustomed to our surroundings that we don’t realize they exist. The same is true for we who have lived in a society that is imperfect but, in the history of human existence, amazingly free and prosperous. What’s freedom? Most of us don’t know, because we haven’t experienced the opposite.
I don’t know, either. But I think it has something to do with my future president standing on a stage armed only with ideas and qualifications and asking for my vote, and my deciding whether or not to give it. Sorry, no complaints today.
Steve,
While I certainly agree with you that we should be grateful to live in a country where we are free and aren’t told how many children we can have, I do have some concerns about this field of candidates.
Personally, I don’t see this as a strong Republican field. My first reaction to that statement was that it was a stronger field when John McCain was standing by himself (without Sarah Palin, of course). And then there is “passion based on true belief” that can be very troubling. The “neurosurgeon” (I so wanted them to stop calling him doctor!) has said such outlandish things like… if the Jews had had guns, the Holocaust would have been avoided or people who go into prison straight come out gay (implying that being gay is a choice). Scary.
Sorry for venting, Steve. You are being introspective and reasonable as always, and I feel very frustrated that the American public seems to be “listening” to some of these people.
Thank you for “trying” to keep me reasonable. It just didn’t work this time.
Thanks, Mrs. Draper. I was trying to look at the bright side this time. I return to complaining this next column. I promise!