We Get What We Vote For

Like any political nerd, I love election years. The drama, the excitement, the staging, the speeches, I like it all. I am a sucker for soaring words about what’s possible. Elections can be a period of renewal, reminding us for what we stand and helping set a vision about how to tackle the obstacles standing in the way to our collective greatness.

Stop snickering; a good debate over issues can be both healthy and interesting.

As the Republican Convention wound down in Tampa last week and the Democrats began to gather in Charlotte this week, I began to grow concerned the high-minded was losing to the lowbrow. The candidates were going to choose character assault over vision building. Having determined the easiest way to amass votes was to tear down their opponent, they were opting against the more arduous task of inspiring people to aim higher. Campaign 2012 was beginning to make even this nerd weary.

I have been around politics for most of my life. I accept the well-proven fact negative campaigns work – fear sells, to a point. However, 2012 began with that. Too many candidates appear to be stuck in a nonproductive cycle of blame, smear and repeat. It is time for the candidates to put the mud down.

Nerds and non-nerds alike need to hear what candidates will do should they win. Saying the other guy is miserable is rarely a strong foundation upon which to build a victory platform. Americans are looking for leaders interested and capable of doing the job.

Theodore Roosevelt said “It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things.”

I have always liked that quote both for what it says and because it includes the word ‘behooves.’

As we enter the home stretch of this political cycle, both the nerd and the patriot in me remain hopeful the candidates will spend more time talking about the future and less about how bad the other guy is.

Don’t misunderstand, it can be important to draw distinctions between what one candidate has done or will do and what the other’s record or plans are. That is the healthy and interesting debate I talked about earlier. But, that is entirely different than a candidate standing at a podium and degrading his opponent without offering an alternative.

I like what John F. Kennedy said; “I look forward to a great future for America – a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.”

We need candidates who are committed to this, who are willing to pursue and capable of constructing a vision to take us there.

In the end, the candidates rise to the expectations of the voters. It is a cop-out for me, for any voter, to accept this election year is lost – that modern campaigns are not capable of producing strong leaders. We get what we vote for. If we cast votes for those who finger-point and run on fear, we shouldn’t expect much from them when they assume office.

I do expect much and I know America is capable of even more.

The tenor of this campaign can change, but will only do so if we Americans demand something different.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.