In any elections one of its most interesting ideas is to put the candidates on spotlight and scald them with discussions, which topics illicit division. The intensity and division that these topics bring would force them to make a stand and defend it. Issues in pregnancy, population control, prostitution off shoring, same-sex unions, religion and the like are deadly topics in every debate. These issues never fade away in terms and years. They are very reliable.
It’s not that we’ve transformed ourselves into a modern spectator in an old Greek Arena. We don’t aspire to see further “political” death, not instantly at least. We just aspire to test them, to know if their views on simple yet testy issues are same as ours. To know that at the end of the day, these are the people whom we can trust and can relate to throwing the political and economical jargons aside. To know that these candidates are the right people for us who would lobby for or against our interests.
So as a candidate, they shouldn’t be surprised if they face questions about pregnancy and same-sex unions. Often times they have their own views that coincide with modernity versus their traditional stands of their parties. This is where the challenge comes in. It’s not as much as WHAT THEY WOULD answer, it’s how they would defend their answers and how they would justify why they think it is right. This could be done by gathering facts, in depth reflection on what’s going on at this point, reconciling the candidates’ own personal beliefs and considering the welfare of the greater good, which could incidentally help them win the electoral battle.
I’ve watched bits and pieces of the Biden and Palin debate for the Vice Presidential positions in the United States. Biden is for the democrats and Palin is for the republicans. Truly at some point their views will clash especially on sensitive matters. We would expect that Biden would have a more liberal and a more modern point of view versus his contemporary who is a representative of a more traditional conservative party.
In one portion of the debate, they were discussing the crucial topic of same-sex union. BIDEN was able to attack the same-sex union issue straightforwardly by stating his stand and the concerns that would arise for that issue. Since both ticket know that same-sex unions are very present, talk shows and series are more than enough cultural revelation on the challenges these people face. Biden was able to specify the kind of support his would-be administration, under the legality and constitution, would ensure if elected. Even though he doesn’t support gay marriage, he was able to shed light and specific benefits to homosexual couples without sounding too promising, blasé or unrealistic. He attacked it based on law and basic human rights. He mentioned every single issue that homosexuals are facing like visitation rights, property rights that would answer in all fairness under the basic creed of human law. However PALIN’s defense on the issue was weak compared to Biden’s convincing and firm words. Palin’s way of answering, since she has a more traditional stand point, is more “sigurista,” treading in shallow waters. We would understand and listen to her more even if she doesn’t approve civil rights had she only defended it ruthlessly. We would also listen to her more even if she agrees with Biden had she specified more on her views and stand on the issue. But the thing is she didn’t. Palin wasn’t able to give point by point discussion on how she would support gays under the constitution. She just says she will support the rights of gays, but will not support the idea of gay marriage. Her tone is wavering and she didn’t’ give any specific affirmation, negation or light just in case it haunts her if elected. If you’ve seen her interview with Katie Couric, she had an impression on me as a darling that would avoid conflicts as much as possible, not really as a tough leader who could steer people.
Naturally in a very sensitive topic like this, you could not please everybody. Not everyone has the same interest or there is no need for an election. In same sex union, some condemn gays, some view it based on constitutions, and some are gays looking for a candidate that would support their needs. If anyone is paying attention to the facts, anyone would know that the gay population is bigger than ever. Also more people have become liberal and open to the fact, YET a large chunk still finds same-sex union iffy.
We are humans who house our own opinions even if it’s only in private. It would the candidate’s challenge and goal to consider those opinions and deliver her own based on what he/she thinks is right.
Would he be a leader of tough principles?
Would he be a leader loyal to the stance of his party and his supporters?
Would he be a leader that considers the belief and welfare of majority as his priority? Or would he be a leader who is bold to make vast changes and turnaround in the presence of adversaries?
Whatever strategy and image the candidate picks, or whatever stand he defends, HE SHOULD ACCEPT THE FACT THAT NOT ALL PEOPLE will like it. That’s what being a leader should all about. Leading involves a lot of steering individuals. That is a basic rule in entering elections and competitions of belief, principles and actions. They are not there merely to entertain and destroy one another fighting for their own causes. But they are there to present themselves and their beliefs in the most crucial and challenging way they know how. Elections are just a step to more challenges and if they can’t step up to that it will still show. In elections it would reflect how he or she delivers, defend, act and view the results that would truly decide that what he or she is fighting for is really worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment