Voters No Longer Decide What They Want
October 27th 2007 19:21
I'm young and with politics I'm only in my second voting year yet somehow I think before my time there was a bett world in which politicians where not trying to convince people whats good for them but people were saying what they wanted and getting it through different politicians.
For instance our Prime Minister says he would have tagged along with the US into Iraq war even if it was clear and obvious that the majority disagreed. Is this an act of defiance against the people who voted him in? Of course. Is he trying to convince the voters whats good for them rather than the other way around? Most certainly.
Then theres George Bush who is particularly good at it, with his 'with us or against us' policy he has managed to really stretch reality with the voters. Rudy Giulliani may top him, of course with 9/11. He has essentially put himself in the position that if you don't agree with him then you don't believe 9/11 was a tragedy then you support terrorists. So you HAVE TO (for instance) believe that fighting AIDS is somehow similar to fighting terrorists and if you don't agree on fighting AIDS in the manner he believes it should be then you don't believe in fighting terrorists then you are siding with the enemy. You have to agree with him, his job isn't to listen to your opinions and take it into account, his job is to change your opinions to fit with that of his campaign sponsors so he will twist everything and anything he can to fit the views of the people who run him.
Why do we bow down and instead of choose a politician who agrees with us choose a politician who convinces us? I believe politics has turned into a game for large corporations which provide campaign funds to these people. A politician can't have his own views and can't craft his own views to gel with the publics opinion because he will lose his campaign funding if he does. So what does he do? Talk about how right he is and how everyone should agree with him.
For instance our Prime Minister says he would have tagged along with the US into Iraq war even if it was clear and obvious that the majority disagreed. Is this an act of defiance against the people who voted him in? Of course. Is he trying to convince the voters whats good for them rather than the other way around? Most certainly.
Then theres George Bush who is particularly good at it, with his 'with us or against us' policy he has managed to really stretch reality with the voters. Rudy Giulliani may top him, of course with 9/11. He has essentially put himself in the position that if you don't agree with him then you don't believe 9/11 was a tragedy then you support terrorists. So you HAVE TO (for instance) believe that fighting AIDS is somehow similar to fighting terrorists and if you don't agree on fighting AIDS in the manner he believes it should be then you don't believe in fighting terrorists then you are siding with the enemy. You have to agree with him, his job isn't to listen to your opinions and take it into account, his job is to change your opinions to fit with that of his campaign sponsors so he will twist everything and anything he can to fit the views of the people who run him.
Why do we bow down and instead of choose a politician who agrees with us choose a politician who convinces us? I believe politics has turned into a game for large corporations which provide campaign funds to these people. A politician can't have his own views and can't craft his own views to gel with the publics opinion because he will lose his campaign funding if he does. So what does he do? Talk about how right he is and how everyone should agree with him.
| 30 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
