Guest
11-07-2008, 08:21 PM
It seems there is a lot of confusion about the differences among Democrats, Republicans and Independents – key thing being how we all view candidates for an elective office.
Democrats seem to view candidates as special people who have a unique calling. Candidates are treated like a combination of rock star and evangelist. They can do or say no wrong and must be defended at all cost. Democrats seem to be more concerned about “the cause” winning than whether the candidate or the cause is really the best person or thing for the job or purpose. The Party leadership knows best and shall not be questioned.
Republicans seem concerned with specific principles and ideals (subgroup) – the candidates themselves are secondary. Republicans try to follow the Party line, similar in the way Democrats operate. However, Republicans have greater allegiance to the subgroup (conservative, centerist, moderate, etc.) than to the Party's designated candidate. If the Party's candidate doesn't champion the subgroup's goals, then the candidate is not vigorously (if at all) supported. Thus, Republicans are far more fragmented.
Independents do not have a candidate in an election, since Independents are not organized. While there may be "Independent" candidates, they are not part of an organized effort sponsored by all Independents. Independents view elections as job interviews in which the Party candidates are the applicants. As with any job interview involving more than one applicant, resumes and backgrounds get verified as best as possible, and the applicants get “interviewed” as to their goals, potential performance, et cetera. Independents see themselves as part of a selection panel, and while their personal selection may not get the job, by making the applicant “work” to get the job, a majority of the panel should make the better choice. Independents see their role as critical, because both Parties feel they won't really convert votes from the other Party's membership, and in a balanced election the Independents are the “selection panel” members who will tip the scales.
Independents did not have a sponsored candidate to champion or campaign on his behalf, so they lacked the emotional bond to either candidate. Independents each made a choice based on their personal “job interview” criteria, but were not overjoyed or heartbroken by the final vote tally. Independents truly believe in the democratic process itself and its probability to result in the better applicant selection.
So, the election is over, the transition of administrations now commences, and the country continues as the Founding Fathers have planned.
As an Independent, I'm satisfied with the process being completed as designed. While my personal selection did not get the job, the hiring panel process worked.
Now it's time to monitor the on-the-job performance of the selectee – a job that Independents will probably do without the Party bias and blinders. Independents expect that the selectee's Party faithful will probably take exception to critical review of the selectee's performance. That's just the nature of things, especially when objectivity is replaced with subjective bias.
It's great being an Independent!
Democrats seem to view candidates as special people who have a unique calling. Candidates are treated like a combination of rock star and evangelist. They can do or say no wrong and must be defended at all cost. Democrats seem to be more concerned about “the cause” winning than whether the candidate or the cause is really the best person or thing for the job or purpose. The Party leadership knows best and shall not be questioned.
Republicans seem concerned with specific principles and ideals (subgroup) – the candidates themselves are secondary. Republicans try to follow the Party line, similar in the way Democrats operate. However, Republicans have greater allegiance to the subgroup (conservative, centerist, moderate, etc.) than to the Party's designated candidate. If the Party's candidate doesn't champion the subgroup's goals, then the candidate is not vigorously (if at all) supported. Thus, Republicans are far more fragmented.
Independents do not have a candidate in an election, since Independents are not organized. While there may be "Independent" candidates, they are not part of an organized effort sponsored by all Independents. Independents view elections as job interviews in which the Party candidates are the applicants. As with any job interview involving more than one applicant, resumes and backgrounds get verified as best as possible, and the applicants get “interviewed” as to their goals, potential performance, et cetera. Independents see themselves as part of a selection panel, and while their personal selection may not get the job, by making the applicant “work” to get the job, a majority of the panel should make the better choice. Independents see their role as critical, because both Parties feel they won't really convert votes from the other Party's membership, and in a balanced election the Independents are the “selection panel” members who will tip the scales.
Independents did not have a sponsored candidate to champion or campaign on his behalf, so they lacked the emotional bond to either candidate. Independents each made a choice based on their personal “job interview” criteria, but were not overjoyed or heartbroken by the final vote tally. Independents truly believe in the democratic process itself and its probability to result in the better applicant selection.
So, the election is over, the transition of administrations now commences, and the country continues as the Founding Fathers have planned.
As an Independent, I'm satisfied with the process being completed as designed. While my personal selection did not get the job, the hiring panel process worked.
Now it's time to monitor the on-the-job performance of the selectee – a job that Independents will probably do without the Party bias and blinders. Independents expect that the selectee's Party faithful will probably take exception to critical review of the selectee's performance. That's just the nature of things, especially when objectivity is replaced with subjective bias.
It's great being an Independent!