What was learned - election 2022

Now that the midterm elections are behind us, what did we learn, if anything, from what took place throughout the county on November 6th and four weeks later in Georgia.  It is certainly no mystery that the country is so strongly divided that the likelihood of much being accomplished for the good of the country is, at best, unlikely.  Perhaps one of the most alarming outcomes of the elections were that it has become ever so apparent that people are voting for the party, not the person.  A prospective voter sees a capitol R or capitol D and that is the determining basis for a decision.  How sad and how potentially disastrous.  This was never so glaring as in Georgia in the race between Herschel Walker and Rafael Warnock.

Senator Warnock was the Democratic incumbent and Walker was the Republican candidate who, incidentally, was endorsed and supported by former President Trump.  Throughout the campaign and the ensuing runoff, Walker made one absurd statement after another.  One example was when he stated that the problem with the climate was that China’s bad air was replacing American’s good air.  Not sure what this means, nor do I believe Mr. Walker knows what he meant.  Additionally, he has lied, repeatedly, about being a graduate of the University of Georgia, being a law enforcement officer, being the number one student in his high school graduation class, and on and on.  Of course, his mentor, former President Trump, could very easily be crowned the “King of Lies”.

Not only has Walker made unsupported claims and foolish statements, but he has also been found to misrepresent what he says he believes.  An example of this. which has been documented over and over, has to do with abortion.  While he claims to be against it and has stated so in his campaign, he also demanded that two different women that he impregnated, have abortions and paid for them to be done.  Further, he claims to be a peaceful person, but an ex-wife and his son have stated that he has been abusive to them and held a knife to his ex-wife’s throat. 

There is more that could be included about the lack of appropriateness for Walker being a nominee for anything short of the football Hall of Fame.  There is no question, he was a heck of football player in college and in the pros, but his claim to fame begins and ends on the field.  The brief overview of the situation in Georgia was provided as an indication of how a totally inept and unprepared individual could come so close to winning a statewide election.  Over 48% of those who voted in Georgia voted for Walker which equates to over 1.7 million votes.  One can only surmise that the basis for this decision was the capitol R beside his name.  Granted there were those who were adamantly against the Biden administration and anything Democratic, but would Walker have been an adequate answer to these concerns?  He would probably have been a given Republican vote on any actions in the senate, but there is no evidence that suggests that he has the capacity to engage in critical thinking or decision-making. I am aware that such attributes are not prerequisites to being elected to office, but when the ineptness is so glaring, how can you turn a blind eye. 

As a country we have become so polarized that the concept of compromise has, basically, become a dying phenomenon.  It has been ever so rare that any legislation has had bipartisan support and when it has it is only a handful from the minority party.  The purpose of the legislative bodies, the house and the Senate, is to engage in activity that is beneficial for the country and the citizens therein.  As stated in the constitution’s, preamble—to promote the general welfare of the people.  This seems to have been lost. The capitol R and the capitol D seem to reign supreme.  You must wonder if an Orangutan ran with the capitol R or D beside its name, would it get elected.  Could happen! 

While the decision by the Senator from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, created a bit of havoc and chaos for the Democrats in the Senate, I understand her point.  I do believe that her decision was, primarily, a political decision rather than a philosophical one; however, she did state that the two parties had become too partisan.    It can certainly be argued that there is something to be gained from being an independent and not being aligned with a specific political party.  Theoretically, as an independent you can consider the issues on their merit and face value and view them from the perspective of the best interest for the general welfare rather than for the best interest for a particular party.  It is understood that any significant movement toward independency would undermine the current two-party system; yet that might not be a bad thing.  At the Federal level the parties have become so, uncompromisingly, entrenched that stagnation and stalemates characterize the legislative climate.

 

Will we ever get to a point when elected individuals vote for what is best for the general good?  Will the role of lobbyists ever be brought under control and some meaningful oversight Will politicians come to act as independent thinkers and not be beholden to the lobbyists who donated the largest political contribution?  Will there ever be campaign finance reform that means something?  Will we return to the era of compromise and genuine collegiality?  The answers to these questions remain unanswered and well might for years to come.  Although the answers may be difficult to achieve, it does not mean that we should not continue to “fight the good fight”.