We hear much from the mass media about political attack ads and the divisiveness of the Republican primaries. Why the divisiveness? I would argue that it is a symptom, not a cause:
Consider the mass media's motivation to maximize profits. Given a choice between educating and titillating, the media too often chooses the latter. This generally leads to more heated discourse versus insight, encourages emotional reaction versus a reasoned debate.
The intensity of the campaign for the Republican nomination is in part due to the vulnerability of the Obama Presidency. Given unfavorable public reaction and the failure of Obama's policies, his reelection is in doubt. The relatively large number of candidates declaring for the nomination is because they sense that Obama will very possibly be a one term president.
Part of the acrimony in the Republican primary is due to a split in the party itself. Paradoxically, there is not a significant difference in philosophy among the candidates. There is, however, a long standing debate between conservatives and more centrist, establishment party members. This conflict is heightened by the critical nature of our problems as well as the ultimate prize of the presidency and control of the party.
No candidate has inspired wide spread support and confidence in his leadership. There has been some modest levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But in the absence of major differences in policy, the issue of electability has been in the forefront. Attacks have highlighted each candidate's weaknesses for what will surely be a hard fought general election.
We are at a crossroads: larger government or smaller, more regulation or less, more spending or less, more taxes or less, more debt or less, a society governed from the top or one with individual choice and freedom, a confident and bold America or a diminished America. The stakes are high and time is of the essence! It will not be kind to us if we make the wrong selection.
If candidates really believe that the country is in deep trouble and conservative principles and ideas are the best remedy, they must put aside their personal ambitions in favor of the public interest. They must stress that conservatism is vastly superior to Obama's policies; that the road to prosperity is to increase the size of the economy and not to divide it into ever decreasing, smaller shares. America does have a bright future if only we grab hold of our destiny.
Politicians should follow the example of our founding fathers who risked all in order to gain the freedoms that each of us cherish. They should follow the example of statesmen, not political partisans.
Consider the mass media's motivation to maximize profits. Given a choice between educating and titillating, the media too often chooses the latter. This generally leads to more heated discourse versus insight, encourages emotional reaction versus a reasoned debate.
The intensity of the campaign for the Republican nomination is in part due to the vulnerability of the Obama Presidency. Given unfavorable public reaction and the failure of Obama's policies, his reelection is in doubt. The relatively large number of candidates declaring for the nomination is because they sense that Obama will very possibly be a one term president.
Part of the acrimony in the Republican primary is due to a split in the party itself. Paradoxically, there is not a significant difference in philosophy among the candidates. There is, however, a long standing debate between conservatives and more centrist, establishment party members. This conflict is heightened by the critical nature of our problems as well as the ultimate prize of the presidency and control of the party.
No candidate has inspired wide spread support and confidence in his leadership. There has been some modest levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But in the absence of major differences in policy, the issue of electability has been in the forefront. Attacks have highlighted each candidate's weaknesses for what will surely be a hard fought general election.
We are at a crossroads: larger government or smaller, more regulation or less, more spending or less, more taxes or less, more debt or less, a society governed from the top or one with individual choice and freedom, a confident and bold America or a diminished America. The stakes are high and time is of the essence! It will not be kind to us if we make the wrong selection.
If candidates really believe that the country is in deep trouble and conservative principles and ideas are the best remedy, they must put aside their personal ambitions in favor of the public interest. They must stress that conservatism is vastly superior to Obama's policies; that the road to prosperity is to increase the size of the economy and not to divide it into ever decreasing, smaller shares. America does have a bright future if only we grab hold of our destiny.
Politicians should follow the example of our founding fathers who risked all in order to gain the freedoms that each of us cherish. They should follow the example of statesmen, not political partisans.
