Who doesn’t like to have choices? Except for the indecisive.
There are millions in all areas of life: candy bars, hairdos, beliefs, personalities, cars, jobs, professions, tv sets, desires, music, places to travel and the means to do it, pets, toilet paper, kitchen décor, flavors of coffee, and on and on. It’s the variety that helps us find the best fit in our lives.
Choices are the tangible, or intangible, ways to express your freedom, or personality, or belief systems.
So, why not allow more presidential candidates into the next debate?
Everyone has seen the first two debates, and it was almost like listening to a bickering couple. Does “familiarity breed contempt”?
Both Hillary and Donald, mention the issues, but never how to accomplish them. Meanwhile, they hit each other with the mud-slinging e-mail scandals and tax return issues. Yes, it’s naïve to believe that anything could change in such a cynical environment.
But there may be a solution.
There are two other candidates: Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson. With both of them involved there’s a better chance of keeping the debates focused on the issues. Stein and Johnson are obscure enough to not cause worry to Hillary or Donald. Because of that there is no reason to dig up dirt on them. If there is no dirt available, these two will talk about issues rather than defend themselves on national television. And that has a chance of keeping Clinton and Trump more focused.
We’ve heard a lot of lies, and the politicalspeak is nauseating. What did Orwell say? “In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”
Having more choices in the political world can make us better informed to not buy the forked-tongued sales pitches of lifetime politicians.
Stein and Johnson want to get their party platforms out to the public. If they reach more people, they will get more folks thinking that the two at the top of the polls might not be worth voting for.
History's Observer 
Discussion
No comments yet.