There are, of course, many things that seem impossible to accurately predict: the target of our president-elect’s next twitter tirade; the first Atlanta Brave to hit a home run in Sun Trust Park. Or, for that matter, the next time the Braves will win the World Series. Even weather forecasters’ predictions, with all their modern, sophisticated technology, are often hit or miss. But predicting national politics is anything but hit or miss.
With the passage or introduction of a bill in either house of Congress, the 24-hour news networks will immediately have guests, usually Washington insiders or members of Congress, on their programs to give their views on the proposal.
To no one’s surprise, partisan bickering quickly erupts. Those favoring the proposal laud its merits; those opposed portray it as the worst piece of legislation ever. If the issue involves a policy initiative from the executive branch, members of the president’s party will give it their undying support; those in the other party will characterize it as the worst presidential action in the history of the republic. This has resulted in further gridlock in Congress with the president going it alone by using executive action to impose his will upon the nation.
The cry from the losers in the recent presidential election to abolish the Electoral College was also quite predictable. Had the outcome of the election been reversed there would have been no such outcry from these protesters.
The criticism by the media regarding many of the president-elect’s cabinet officers is also predictable. Having backed the losing presidential candidate, the media’s goal now is to prevent Senate confirmation of these nominees and, in general, derail the new administration as much possible.
We have more elections more often for more public officials than any other democracy in the world. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, political parties were invented for the purpose of electing candidates for office in order to control government.
The single biggest factor determining how people decide to vote is party preference. Thus it is imperative that each party nominate candidates capable of clearly articulating a coherent set of programs to the voters consistent with party ideology and clearly different from the other party.
In the recent presidential election the only admirable quality showed by either candidate was determination. Otherwise, the 2016 presidential campaign was – to borrow a phrase from the honorable Gerald Ford – “a long national nightmare.”
We do not need candidates for high office presented as role models or preserving someone else’s legacy. We do not need pro athletes, pop stars or Hollywood celebrities telling us who to vote for. If voters do not know more about the issues and the candidates than this crowd, they probably should not vote.
We do not need candidates telling the crowds only what they want to hear. We do need candidates who tell voters what they and their party intend to do about our nation’s problems and how they intend to do it. Voters then need to vote for the candidate whose party’s program most closely reflects their own ideas and hold the parties responsible for unkept promises by voting their members out of office at the next election.
Glenn H. Walker
Fayetteville, Ga.
