Proud to be an American, Where at Least I know... Something, I'm not Sure What, Though

Proud to be an American, Where at Least I Know... Something, I'm not Sure What, Though

     Another presidential election has been tearing the country in half for the past few months (coincidentally, this one is approximately four years after the last one), and the country is split, yet again, along the border of Red and Blue, Left and Right, Conservative and Republican, Elephant and Donkey, Fascist Corporate Android and Shiftless Dirty Hippy. Brothers turn against brothers; fathers against sons, a neighbor is at his neighbor's throat- the country has been cleaved in two as if by the giant paring knife of God. The media is in a tizzy; news corporations throwing their weight behind one candidate or the other. The entire nation is setting up for the final showdown: Team Romney versus Team Obama. The gloves are off, the gauntlet is dropped, the safety switch is set in the "off" position. 

But that's what elections are for, right? 

     The bi-partisan system we have set up in this nation is broken. There's no two ways about it. George Washington himself (Father of our Country and all that) warned us against forsaking the unity of our government in his farewell address.  I know I'm not the first to point this out, and I certainly won't be the last, but it could use reiterating that, when each politician is representing a particular wavelength of the imagined political spectrum, that politician will feel obliged to support decision based upon what he or she feels his or her party would vote for, as opposed to what they feel is for the greater good. 

     To some extent, both candidates running for president currently are guilty of "party-pandering politics," to coin a phrase. Mitt Romney, for instance, had quite a different view on many key issues four years ago, if anybody remembers that. He was pro-choice and pro-equal marriage rights. As he found out, though, that doesn't make one a "real Republican." Of course, to win votes, Mr. Romney began adopting the views of his party because, as I mentioned, he is trying to discuss what the right thing for a president to is, he's just worried about convincing the nation that he's really a Republican. 

     President Obama, on the other hand, is leaning in the opposite direction. He's straying further and further away from what he originally promised four years ago, only this time, it isn't to appeal to his own party- it's to appeal to the opposing party. President Obama came into office, I feel, completely ready and willing to carry out all the plans he told us he had, but he hit a brick wall: Congress wasn't behind him any more. In 2010, when the majority shifted to Conservative, all of President Obama's plans were shot out of the sky. Now, he's just giving in. He's compromising. He's trying to strike a happy medium, but both sides are turning out unhappy about it. Or at least that's how I see it. 

     It really comes down to the lesser of two evils in this election. In 2008, Obama was the clear superior to John McCain, and not only because Joe Biden is less of a raving lunatic than some people. John McCain was obviously willing to keep his promises, and he would have had a Republican Congress behind him all the way. What the 2008 election came down to was a decision between effective and malicious or well-meaning but inefficient. 

    This election, though, is coming down to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. It's no longer the candidates' effectiveness that's in question. At this point, it's not even about winning new votes. Everyone who is going to vote this year has already decided who they're going to vote for, because, as we've established, it's not the candidate but the party that sways people one way or the other. Now, all it comes down to is whether or not Mitt Romney can get all the already-Republican voters to turn up on election night, and if Barack Obama can do the same. Their campaigning not to convince people who to vote for, but to convince them to vote, period. 

    You know what we need? We need someone who isn't from the "left" or the "right." I don't mean someone who falls directly in the middle of the spectrum: what I mean is that we need a presidential candidate who doesn't define himself by what is expected of him according to his political affiliation. We need a president who is willing to do what must be done, regardless of outrage from either side of the Liberal/Conservative boundary- someone who, prefferably, has no political experience, but experience in the military, American business, the North American countryside, or a combination of all three. 

   

     But where? Where can we find such a man? Who can answer America's cry for help in her time of need?! 

Oh, yeah. Him. 

     That's right, folks. America needs a new Teddy Roosevelt. Think about it: they called him the Trustbuster. He specialized in ending industry monopolies, regulating business, and finding compromises between major corporations and labor unions, so those on the Liberal side of the border would find him agreeable.  

     "Hmm... Why would we need someone called the Trustbuster?" 

     "All of the country's major banks and lending ferms are merging and the moneylending industry is almost entirely unregulated, resulting in banks taking what they want, giving what they know people can't pay back, and doing so without any fear of repercussions." 

     "Oh, yeah. That's right." 

     On the other side of the fence, he was a military man who supported hunting and encouraged pursuit the American dream. That's all Republicans look for in a candidate, anyway. (Or so I've observed.) To make the deal even sweeter on both sides, Teddy Roosevelt ran as a member of the Bull Moose Party. That means that Democrats can vote for him without being made fun of by their Democrat friends and Republicans can fly his campaign flag without being shunned at the office's water cooler.

     To make a long story short: Bi-partisan = ineffective. Teddy Roosevelt = totally awesome. That is all.