Last week I presented three questions I believe will give us our best chance of knowing what kind of president the candidates will make, and help us determine who to vote for. Those questions are:
• Is the candidate saying what’s on their mind or what their campaign consultants are telling them to say and/or what their corporate and other big money donors are telling them they’d better say?
• Does what the candidate says reflect the realities of the world or is it happy talk that presents a rose colored glasses view of the world?
• Would the candidate be more likely, if elected, to take the steps necessary to address the problems facing the nation or simply continue on with more of the same policies?
To answer the first question, one must understand that most candidates for the presidency never say anything worth hearing, let alone actually remembering. That’s because what they say is actually written for them by campaign consultants hired to craft messages that make the candidate look like they are strong, forceful, independent and committed to strong positions on the issues without actually being any of those things.
A candidate’s message is designed to, first, appeal to enough of the party’s base to get them the nomination, and then, secondly, appeal to enough of the rest of the electorate to win them the White House. To do that, candidates, under the direction of their campaign consultants, take stands that are designed not to offend any potential group of voters. To speak their minds would risk turning groups of voters to vote for some other candidate.
This means that candidates who actually speak their minds are rarer than hen’s teeth.
If a candidate actually speaks his or her mind, they will violate the protocol of modern politics, namely not taking a stand on certain issues or if you do, don’t rock the boat and spew happy talk that means nothing.
You can be even more sure of this if the candidate refuses to apologize for what they say and keeps on saying it.
As for the second question, this requires us voters to look at the world around us with a critical eye, do our homework about the condition of the world, and come to grips with the results of our observations. The average person will no doubt reach politically incorrect, boat rocking conclusions that will never be confused with happy talk wishful thinking.
Having done so, the average person will then compare their conclusions with what the candidates are saying to determine whether what they are saying actually jibes with the way the world actually is. If it does, then the candidate is not only saying what is on their mind, but is actually facing the reality of the world as it is rather than presenting a Potemkin Village version of it.
The third question is the hardest to answer because even though a candidate may sound like they are speaking their mind and what they are saying jibes with reality, it could still just be designed to get votes. Furthermore, we can’t actually see into the future and determine whether the new president will try to follow through with what they’ve said or forget what they’ve said and go along to get along.
While that is possible, it is also possible that the candidate may actually be courageous enough to translate words into actions. To do so would be to risk the even greater wrath of those who have benefited from the status quo that is wrecking this country. A new president also might realize they were elected because they defied those forces.
They might realize that it was their defiance that rallied voters to their side and got them elected. In doing so, they will understand that they must follow through on what they have said. By doing so, the American people will have their back and help them turn this country around.
The success of such candidates this year will depend on whether Americans are tired of being skinned by our two-faced party system.
Charles Warner is a staff writer for The Union Times and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer only and do not represent the newspaper’s opinion.