I recently wrote, maybe influenced by a minor bout of ennui, that I didn't feel that there was much difference between typical political candidates. I wrote that once individuals, specifically presidents, were in office, that most of paths they take on most issues are remarkably similar. I suppose the corollary of this would be that it doesn't matter an incredible amount, with respect to most day to day issues, who wins this November election.
A clever reader pointed out that elections were important because even if changes were small and incremental, that this helps to shift laws and norms over the long-term. While I conceded that point, and can think of many examples to support it, I am not sure I am willing to go all the way to the other end of the spectrum, which is that elections are so critically important for both the long-run and the short-run that a party one doesn't favor being in power is catastrophic.
For that viewpoint, check out the comment section of any online article from a major newspaper or Professor Neil Buchanan on Dorf. I think it is fair to give a brief warning that you won't like the analysis in his article if you plan on voting (R) this fall, but it is easy enough to find examples from the other end of the spectrum. Like here for example...
No comments:
Post a Comment