Yes, Mitt Romney is finally the pretty-sure, just-about, inevitable nominee. You can tell because he and the President are now criticizing each other by name. Sigh. It's going to be a long seven months.
And he wouldn't be a terrible president. I'd hope for something along the lines of a H.W. Bush. (Heaven forbid the W without the H!). We know what we have with President Obama. About half of us think he's just fine or even good. About a quarter of us absolutely detest him for reasons I'm still trying to understand. The remaining quarter aren't much in favor of him either, but without all the birtherism or other suspicions that he is somehow just "not one of us."
It seems to me that the principal characterizations of each, used both in positive and negative ways depending on which side you find yourself, do tend to draw a clear distinction about what we want for the future of the country - and what it is our country is about. Do we want to strive to be an organized community? or a profitable company?
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution gives us a purpose that We the People are trying to form a more perfect Union which tends toward the need for an organized community. But to pay for the common defense and provide for the general welfare all take money and it would be helpful if we were a profitable company. And we've got to do it all somehow in a way that still establishes justice, ensures domestic tranquility, and secures the blessings of liberty. Fortunately, we have the rest of the Constitution that gives us a lot of process to work those things out.
We need a little of both. If only there was a way to get the Community Organizer and the Profitable Company man to work together with their respective talents to accomplish good for us all. We have to choose one or the other, but that doesn't mean we can't take good from each and find the common ground. After all, it is we the people, not one person, who is ultimately in charge of our more perfect Union.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
4 comments:
Comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree as many do. You can even be passionate (in moderation). Comments that contain offensive language, too many caps, conspiracy theories, gratuitous Mormon bashing, personal attacks on others who comment, or commercial solicitations- I send to spam. This is a troll-free zone. Charity always!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if (though not likely in this election) it would ever be possible to have a candidate with a running mate from the other major party. Our first few presidents had the runner-up as a vice president - did it help bipartisanship, or create more divisiveness and fears of the Presidency fall into the hands of the "other side"?
ReplyDeleteSo, in a perfect world where everyone got along, and left vitriol for those that despise the American way of life, the 2012 ticket would look like this:
ReplyDeleteD - Obama-Romney
R - Romney-Obama
I dont know if it would be a perfect world, since a at least a few of our first presidents and vice presidents didn't get along. Though I may be wrong on the historical aspect (as I'm now looking it up and seeing taht we used to have a vice-presidential election, seperate from the presidential). I think right now, it would just feel wierd.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Frank and Dale. Yes, it is a bit overly idealistic to have a Prez and VP from two different parties. That's why we have the 12th Amendment based on the historical problem created by Jefferson being John Adams's VP as they were fighting to build their own national parties. And then the nightmare of the election of 1800 when Aaron Burr almost became President. Washington and the founders were a little overly idealistic in thinking there would be no parties. They clearly anticipated "factions" though, and the Constitution works with that. I've opined before that the two party system creates another check or balance of power with the tension between a party in power and that out of power depending on which branch or among the branches (even the Judicial!) It just doesn't work to well to have a split executive as we learned by 1800.
ReplyDelete