Bernard Shaw had remarked that most people are too lazy to think. That explains why elections
everywhere throw up candidates who are familiar in more senses than one. and the familiar are usually mediocre too. The election rounds in the US are running along predictable lines. It is a race netween tweedledum and Tweedledee and the Americans may better be reconciled to the inevitable.
One hears in the socalled free society called the United States of America opportunities are plentiful. yes, they are if there are sponsors around and patronage. So the best candidate need not necessarily be the winning candidate.
What are the parameters by which candidates are chosen? Their mass contact, their accessibility, their public persona, their supporters’ base, and their views on national policies. In the melting pot that is US there are conflicting needs and contrary reponses. For instance outsourcing has become an issue now. Voters naturally will be excited about the stamnce the candidates adopt. A death elsewhere is a statistic. a death in the family is a direct hit.Likewise, the ones who have lost jobs , or to use a contemporary examle, bangalured, will react violently if the candidate is ambivalent on the issue.The Indian-americans who have vested interests of their own will look at the issue differently. the hispanic population may not take kindly to tough curbs onemigration or a high wall across the Mexico border.The automobile industry is in doldrums. Detroit and the surroundings may react . All this to buttress the fact that there is paradigm shift in voter preferences.
So in one sense, the race there is a reflection of the poll race here. From major policy planks, the choice now rests on preferences born on race, colour, creed, language etc. reminds one of the electins in my home country India where elections are won or fought on local issues, caste equations and the like though every candidate takes a vote in the name of the constitution and our constitution is secular in character.
Politics and philosophy do not go together according to political pundits. But I assert that philosophy is living truth and the living truth of polical life everywhere is that mammon rules and mammon takes many shapes and colours. My fear is tis: if the candidate wins throough the route of compromise, can he ever be free to do what he has to do for the welfare of the majority, and not merely lobbies who pitchforked him to victory?
Leave Your Comments