
As the conventions celebrate the anointed, it's worth exploring how our long slide away from the Founding Fathers' modest notion of presidential responsibility has left us with a dysfunctional politics and a bloated imperial presidency.
My mum said this much: he's your representative; not your dad.
The guy makes a good point.
I don't know if I'd go quite this far though:
Investing our lives with hope, uniting us all behind a higher calling, fixing our "broken" souls – none of this is remotely the president's business.
If the president can give hope to people, and fix their broken souls, I say more power to him. (Of course, it would be much better if they did it themselves).
If the president can give hope to people, and fix their broken souls, I say more power to him. (Of course, it would be much better if they did it themselves).
I'm sure we'd all be thrilled with a president who could do his job and make us feel good about ourselves, but the fact remains that the latter is not in the job description and in no way qualifies a person to run the country. The contention here is that candidates pander to voters who are swayed, not only easily, but primarily by personal characteristics that, as far as a candidate's capacity to lead, are totally irrelevant.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |