So unlike mainstream America where political, local, and international news are hurled at you through a slingshot on a nearly 24hr updated basis, news comes in short stuttered bursts here. I check MSNBC, BBC, and the New York Times on my cell phone when I can, allowing for phone credit and time.
The one thing that caught my attention today was the demonizing of politicians. While this may be largely in part due to what the networks deem acceptable and relevant for my phone feed, it seems almost every article I read about any politician is negative. Whether it's Clinton, Palin, Obama, Sotomayor...
I'm wondering about the nature we view politicians. We elect them into great positions of power and stature, hoping they change the fabric of our society. Fixing the wrongs and curing the ills they so often campaign about. Sure, you campaign in poetry and govern in prose - but have we become so cynical and impatient as to never view a politician positively?
The majority of news I'm receiving is regarding House and Senate Democrats trying to slip off stage regarding Health Care reform. Talks of Obama "moving too quickly" or hastily. Talks of Democrats moving away from Obama because he is either "too liberal" or that their constituencies are finding out that his plans for success are slow-acting. I'm only 24, with no major background or interest in economics, but even I know that an entire economy (a global one at that,) doesn't possess the power to change overnight.
I figured that out of any politican, Obama would have been the one to galvanize the country together. And yes, he seems to have succeeded past his election date. But here we are, 7 months after the fact with doubts and fears having crept into our culture, with the rats already beginning to jump off the ship before the leaking starts.
I keep finding myself wondering whether or not it's our fault. Have we become so cynical and thirsty for blood we'll just jump towards any negative act for the sake of drama? Can we ever have a politician that we can tolerate for more than the length of our attention spans?
Probably not. It's interesting living a lifestyle that doesn't really give me an opportunity to associate myself with drama that tends to encompass college, family, and high school. Please, if its me and my phone feed, let me know. Let me know what exactly it is I'm missing.
I will just say, regarding the health care debate - I'm confused as to what the argument behind the anti-universal stance really is. Either universal health care will be too good and not give private insurance companies a chance to compete in a capitalist market, or that the quality will too low and we'll have to wait 9 months for doctors and adequate care. Are they really arguing that universal health care will be both better and worse than the system we have now?
2 comments:
You will get different opinions by those both inside the health care system and those outside it. Those that need the care, and have no money love the idea. Those that work within it tend to agree that a universal system is terrible with long waits and inadquate care. If you are dying of cancer, do you choose the best doctor probably getting the most money, or the freebie guy?
I'm just a secretary, but didn't Lehman Bros. prove that an entire economy can change overnight? Freedom of expression protects a society's right to react to a situation in any way its people see fit (within the statutes of the law) - rationally or irrationally, with or without an adequate digestion period.
If you were in the States you would have more information about the health care debate than you could ever want (or read, or understand) - but it sounds like you don't know how to react to your highly concentrated news feed either. Right?
Post a Comment