The Shortcomings of Our Political Discourse

I have chosen to lose my blogger virginity on the topic of the presidential primaries, in an attempt to address a deeper issue that is as current as it is important.

It is that wonderful time in the political season when a handful of candidates from the major parties are vying for our attention and support. They are working strenuously to separate themselves from their like minded presidential hopefuls in order to win nomination. The electorate, meanwhile, is left to separate the truth from the spin and identify the candidates it will support. On a personal level, prospective voters will examine candidates in relation to the issues, and draw conclusions that will eventually lead to a choice on election day.

Pessimists will quip that the general election (and indeed the primaries) always boils down to a choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils. This is true to some significant degree, however inevitable as a consequence of our system of government and the inescapable shortcomings of human beings. How, then, do we choose to support one candidate or another when all of them represent stances on some issues that we cannot square with our own? A popular sentiment is that no candidate is perfect, so voters should either focus on one issue that is important to them and choose their candidate accordingly, or support the candidate that identifies with the greatest number of issues they support. Sort of a quality vs. quantity method of choosing political candidates. I would submit that these approaches are flawed, and contribute to the misguided nature of our political discourse.

What does the average voter consider in preparation for an election? Our discourse manifestly shows that issues of abortion, gay marriage, taxes, health care, the environment, and foreign policy dominate the conscious of the electorate. Voters will ask of their candidates: "Do you believe that life starts at the moment of conception?" or "Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?" or "Will you raise the minimum wage?" Questions of this sort are legitimate, insofar as they are important to such a large percentage of the electorate. The problem is that something fundamental in our discourse is lost in the smoke of our moral battles. The right questions about key issues are simply not being asked or discussed with the amount of frequency or vigor they deserve. Instead of "should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to legislate marriage?" Instead of "will you raise the minimum wage?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to impose a minimum wage, and should there be one at all?"

Of course, many people will have to ask themselves these questions before they ask them of their candidates. This is a consequence of the widespread acceptance of our system of government without sufficient examination or criticism. Not enough people ask the fundamental questions, and this blurs the lens through which most of us examine our candidates. Should it matter to you, for example, what Mit Romney believes about the sanctity of marriage? Maybe. Certainly not to the extent our discourse suggests. It should matter just as much to you what Mit Romney believes about the role of government, or lack thereof, in regard to marriage. The criteria with which we judge our politicians (and, indeed, our own political beliefs) is top heavy. The structure of our political discourse is a house of cards that will topple violently unless we begin honestly appraising the foundations of government and politics. Let's start asking the right questions of our own political beliefs, and ultimately, those of our candidates.