Just over two weeks ago, Fox News paraded the Republican presidential hopefuls in Cleveland, Ohio in a preliminary debate fueled by drama and intrigue. Of course, most viewers tuned in for the antics of the infamous Donald Trump and others to find out who the other 16 candidates even were.
The moderators, Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Brett Baier asked several well-prepared questions that contributed to insightful commentary between the politicians, but I felt these moments were few and far between. For the most part, the questions seemed divisive and presented merely to encourage drama and draw out entertaining responses. It felt much more like an episode of a new reality TV program titled “America’s Next Top Politician.” For sure, we saw plenty of drama and good TV ratings, but what was lacking was the candidates’ ability to prove that they could perform the most necessary task of all—to bring a socially unsettled and divided country back together. While watching Trump, Chris Christie and Rand Paul verbally attack one another is certainly entertaining television, it fails to coincide with the maturity that should be exhibited by the leader of our country.
Lately, the political stage has transparently lacked authenticity with disjointed ideas and the constant refashioning and remaking of history in order to place a candidate in a particular light.
The bleak state of affairs has led to the mass fabrication of the “better story.” Each of the candidates will be tougher than the rest, have economic plans that will put our economy back on track in a way that no one else can and will just generally make the world a much better place than anyone else can. Of course, this is all utter nonsense. What alarms me most is what this “better story,” which is by no means new to politics, is lacking.
The “better story” oddly and even boldly ignores a vital element—how will the Republican candidates unite the country in these uncertain times? What will the Republican candidates do to improve race relations? What policies will they implement to help ease the tensions between Americans of different religions, sexual orientation, gender or country of origin? These are questions that have not been answered. Democracy cannot be successful unless we have a leader that the majority can trust and support. At this point in the campaign process, it does not seem that this is something that is going to happen in the 2016 elections.
The confused polling and the fact that a character as brash and unpolished as Donald Trump can garner so much support is an indicator of the rising uncertainty of the American people. The complexities of the problems that our nation’s leaders are supposed to fix play into social divisions regarding race, immigration, religion and sexual orientation, to name a few. These issues make up a desolate landscape from which we must select a suitable and popular candidate for the presidential seat.
I watched the two-hour primetime debate in order to gain some clarity and came up empty-handed. Instead of answering questions in a straightforward manner, many took the debate stage diverting questions to God. This heavy-handed theocracy is what many GOP candidates pushed, and from my vantage point, it is less than sincere and banks on the fact that so many Americans feel desperate every night while watching the evening news. There is a feeling among some that the world is in peril and the government is to blame because it tries to be supreme when God should be.
Voting God, or rather, an Ivy-league educated political snake’s version of God, into political office goes against the separation of church and state. Also, concerning the quickly changing demographics in the United States, the percentage of people identifying as Christian dropped nearly eight percent between 2007 and 2014 according to a study by the Pew Research Center. It’s difficult to watch politicians advocate for ideas that openly ignore the 30 percent of Americans who don’t associate with the Christian faith.
The candidates have to choose between the sides of intolerance and tolerance, and the GOP candidates easily chose intolerance, thus willingly ostracizing the groups of people they are supposed to represent.
People are restless and unsatisfied with the perceived lack of change in our country. To encourage this change, a break from the stagnancy of the political climate, voters look from one extreme to the next. Politicians this year lack moderation—they lack willingness to compromise and inclusion of all the types of people in our diverse and complex society.
Our president’s job should not be polarization, but ultimately, this is what the men and women vying for the presidential seat have made their sole duty as of late. By taking extreme social and economic stances, these candidates have gained a passionate constituency at the cost of equally passionate opposing factions.
I’m tired of politicians hiding behind religion, fabrications and personas. America’s obsession with reality TV and our cultural dependency on illusion have become too intrusive and detrimental to how our democracy works.
