What goes into your process of determining how you are going to vote? Now, I realize many people instantly would talk about party or their self-described political status such as conservative, liberal, libertarian or other, but it’s historically clear that many factors come into play.
And many of these reasons simply are stupid.
For instance, there were people who didn’t like President Jimmy Carter because of his smile — not his accomplishments or policies but the way he looked. They also didn’t like that he didn’t serve alcohol at White House functions and took umbrage at his sincere embrace of Christian faith.
Consider Richard Nixon for a moment. When he ran against John F. Kennedy there was a highly viewed debate between the two candidates. Nixon had a five o’ clock shadow and was perspiring on camera. Kennedy looked cool as a cucumber. Many TV viewers thought that Kennedy won, but I’ve read reporting from that time that indicated that people who listened to it on radio thought Nixon was the winner. The appearances of the two candidates didn’t matter to that audience.
Remember as well that Kennedy was a Catholic and there were criticisms that the Vatican would influence his administration. That didn’t happen, did it?
Once more, none of these reasons really amounted to any serious consideration about the choice of a candidate.
People have voted for party, for religion, for race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and as well as gender, and none of these have anything to do with what a candidate believes and what a candidate has done.
You see, it’s a lot easier to simply use one of these reasons than it is to actually do some research.
One would think the availability of information from the internet would make things better for someone deciding about whom to support, but it hasn’t. We have slid down into the world of rumors, lies and unsubstantiated claims that are far more part of the election process than 100 years ago.
The truth doesn’t seem to matter to people. Too many Americans want is a candidate who makes them comfortable with their fears and prejudices. They are afraid and for some reason they enjoy being afraid. Former President Donald Trump plays upon these fears, which is the one great talent he has as a politician.
For reasons I can’t explain why there are many Americans who seem to believe that establishing a dictatorship with Trump as our Fearless Leader is a good idea.
What happened to Republicans like Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower and Everett Dirkson? I may not have agreed with them about everything, but none of these folks who ever have supported the establishment of a dictatorship.
Being a Republican is one thing, but being someone who actively thinks a dictatorship is the way to go is well beyond any sort of traditional definition of conservatism.
It doesn’t matter that Haitian immigrants who are legally here have not been eating pets. It doesn’t matter that people living in those communities angrily dispute this claim. It doesn’t matter that state Republican election officials from a number of states confirmed that President Joe Biden won the election. It doesn’t matter the Trump actively encouraged a coup attempt or that he is a convicted felon. Pulling out of debate opportunities and interviews, having difficulty speaking and spending an inordinate amount of time hawking merchandise to the faithful are not considered to be negatives.
People who support Trump apparently believe these acts aren’t important.
A cartoonist named Ted Rall, whose work I admire, finds both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris truly objectionable and recently posted, “Well, there are many other options, including not voting and voting for one of the two or three independent candidates on the ballot.”
OK, but nothing will be changed by not voting, and while I support a person’s right to vote for whomever they chose, supporting the Green Party or the Libertarian Party is a waste of the vote.
Both independent parties have been active for years and neither has made any real impact on local, state or national politics.
The last third-party candidate who truly made an impact among voters was Ross Perot, who won 19.7 million votes for an 18.9% share of the popular vote in 1992, and in 1996 received 8.4% of the vote. No third-party candidate on the ballot this year could even come close to those figures.
No, the choice is limited to the two candidates of the major parties and there is a huge difference between the philosophies that make up the foundations of their candidacies. If you’re still sitting on the fence, please do the institution of American democracy a favor and look beyond the hype, the rumors, the unsubstantiated claims. Look at the last eight years and examine what has happened. Be truthful to yourself and to our republic.
G. Michael Dobbs has worked for Reminder Publishing for 23 years of his nearly 50-year-career in the Western Mass. media scene, and previously served as the executive editor. He has spent his time with the publisher covering local politics, interesting people and events. The opinions expressed within the article are that of the author’s and do not represent the opinions and beliefs of the paper.
