I haven’t had much time to blog lately because of work and some other commitments, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the election, and who I really like now that its shifting into full speed ahead.
I was going to start researching into them to start thinking about who I'd like to choose when I stopped myself and realized that I know nothing about their politics, you know, besides which party they belong to. What’s interesting about that is that I watch and read the news much more than the average person. Even more interesting is that I live in Boston, which was caught in the blast radius of the 500 megaton TRP carpet bombing of political ads coinciding with the New Hampshire primary a couple weeks ago.
So here’s the problem: they’re spending a lot of time and effort on buying ads and inserting ready made sound bites into their speeches, but I have no clue what any of them a actually stand for.
Unlike most Americans, I plan on finding out before I vote, but many voters are not going to go digging for information, which means they are going to be voting not based on politics, but on whichever romanticized version of a real life candidate they “like” the most, or maybe based on whatever party they follow like a football team.
It seems to me that something is horribly broken; especially given the incredible array of communications methods campaigns have at their disposal. Maybe this is all part of their plan. Maybe they don’t care if people like their candidate’s politics or if they think he’s a sharp dresser … so long as they get elected. Which is fair, they’re just doing their jobs, but then that points a finger squarely at the voters for allowing emotional electioneering at expense of any sort of rational platforming. This could mean that the thinking of elections being popularity contests is true. And if that’s the case, even in these menacing times, I can't help but feel a little bit alarmed.