Ah, again today there’s a vote — a vote before the vote as to whom will lead us next.
Funny… ok, so maybe not… but I keep hearing all these slants and shared perspectives on the current election cycle. Typically, it primarily equates to criticism of one side only, simultaneously ignoring the glaring discrepancies and questions on the side of the sharer. In fact, I keep hearing comments about people being “angry” or “the year of the angry voter.” I’ve noticed that some talk only about anger on one side of the aisle, yet my common sense stab suggests the anger exists across multiple aisles; otherwise there would likely be no rise to either a Sanders or Trump.
I hear significant dissatisfaction — minimal enthusiasm. How many times have we each viewed a meme, articulating something along the lines of “tell me… is there someone else I can vote for? … please??”
Again, the dissatisfaction is across all aisles.
So I sit here pondering the cause and effect. The effect seems the aforementioned anger and dissatisfaction. The cause, it seems, lies in the behavior of those who’ve gone before this current slate of candidates.
I’m wondering if there is a prevalent feeling that a majority of those who’ve served via elected office in recent decades have mixed up public and self service; they’re so entwined that people can’t seem to discern the difference. We’ve seen far too many seem to rhetorically suggest that they are somehow “God’s gift” to us. Sorry, but none who believe they are “God’s gift” would seem to comprehend the humility necessary in the position God has allowed them to hold.
I wonder if we’ve been worn down by the promises of those who’ve gone before. The elect seem to often void their campaign promises as soon as sworn in… Did they not mean what they said? Did they say what they meant? Are they unable to do what they said? Or did they just make certain, pleasing promises in order to increase the likelihood of election?
There also seems this unfortunate impression in too many of the elect that they don’t truly care about their constituents. Wait. I’ll re-phrase: the elect only care for about half of their constituents.
Since when has it been considered wise policy making to enact sweeping decisions that only half of the people support? Are all the other people simply wrong? Shouldn’t the fact that so many issues are so divided prompt us to find a solution that accounts for both opinions — instead of pushing solely one opinion through no matter the size of the opposition? I must admit, I have gotten a little tired of the rhetorical justification that it’s “the right thing to do” when a significant half exists that disagrees with such specific, sweeping policy. People can disagree; and their opinion matters.
What that says to this semi-humble observer, is that such an elected office holder is only good at listening to half the people. Listening to half does not equate to listening well.
When the elect do not listen well, many — on all sides of the aisles — become angry or dissatisfied. Such gives credence to the obvious lack of enthusiasm for the current, so-called “establishment” candidates… and such gives rise to the atypical candidates, such as either Sanders or Trump.
Funny, but some seem to only understand the popularity of Sanders but not Trump; others seem to only understand the popularity of Trump but not Sanders. I suggest their waves of popularity — however long they last — are born from the same circumstance. Too many who’ve gone before have failed to lead us well.
What does it mean to lead well? To be humble… to be solid morally and ethically… to be honest… and to consistently listen to far more than half the people.
Respectfully…
AR
