HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Faulking Around - Sep 17, 2004 - Printable Version
- "Beating the Bushes" or "Do I Feel a Draft?"
by Mark Faulk
Although I've been rendered almost speechless by the mere fact that George W. Bush still has a lead in the polls (a fading lead, but a lead nonetheless), despite record deficits, a faltering economy, rising poverty, a hugely unpopular war, and skyrocketing medical costs, I have, however, been coming up with tons of wacky article titles. In addition to the two I used for this mini-tirade, I've also got "Bushisms Gone Wild", "America, A Whole Other Country", and "Weapons of Mass Deception". And then there's my personal favorite, "The United States of Israel". Funny stuff, huh? (By the way, don't steal those, I might get off of my butt and actually write something to go with a couple of them. You never know.). Here's the problem: I think I'm losing my sense of humor. As one of the posters in our guestbook pointed out, this election is no laughing matter, and there are so many things that need to be said about the state of our country and the way that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice have run it into the ground, that I honestly don't know where to begin. So instead, I've been stressing myself out lying awake nights, wondering if my son, who is twenty, and my four nephews, whose ages range from sixteen to twenty-six, will be jerked from their relatively normal lifestyles and thrust into the turmoil of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria/Iran/North Korea/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia (and on and on). Wondering if, assuming they survive the wars, there will be any jobs left for them when they return. Wondering if, after raising my three children and paying off our share of the national debt, my wife and I will have anything left to retire on. And wondering about a thousand other things, none of them positive, or funny. And finally, wondering if I'm ruining my health by lying awake wondering about the thousand and three things that I lie awake and wonder about. It makes you wonder.
I have one overriding goal in my life, and one goal only, and it's not to line the pockets of the rich corporations with even more money, nor is it to spread democracy to every third world country that opposes us (or has more than a few quarts of oil to their name). Call me a dreamer, or even quixotic, but this is my goal: I want to leave the world in better shape than it was when I found it, or when it found me, depending on how you look at it. When I die, or maybe even before, if they're feeling sentimental, I want my kids to say "My Dad might not have changed the entire world (which was my mission at the naive age of eighteen), but he did what he could to make our little corner of it a better place to live."
Up until the current administration took up residence in the White House, I felt pretty good about myself. (By the way, in case you were wondering what the White House looks like, according to our president, "It's white", just like those who inhabit it.) It's not that I took any real credit for the relative stability of our country before we planted another Bush in the Oval Office, but I felt as if I was doing my part: running a small business that kept a few inner city inhabitants out of the unemployment line (most of whom, incidentally, aren't white, unlike the White House and it's inhabitants), raising three kids who turned out much better than I probably deserve (thanks to their mother and by the grace of God)), and doing the odd bit of charity work in my spare time. I was ready to give up my sixties "freak flag", and join the middle class. You know, backyard barbecues, thirty plus hours of TV a week, evenings playing Yatzhee with friends, and the occasional trip to Mexico (all-inclusive, of course).
That was before "he" came along, and brought all those other "he's" with him. Now, here is the world I'm about to hand over to future generations: we are at war (a war with no end in sight, and one that is looking more and more like that other war I grew up with), more wars loom on the not-too-distant horizon, our government is morally (and moving headlong in the direction of, fiscally) bankrupt, and the rest of the world hates us (sorry, I can't think of a clever way to put that). The rich are getting richer (and the poor are getting poorer), while the rest of us fret about whether we are going to be able to pay our bills this month, much less put our kids through college, or set aside anything for retirement. Our stock market is in a shambles, mired in scandal after scandal, we're abandoning the elderly, and our national security can be summed up in one word: "insecure". And education? Well, let's just say "our children isn't learning", and leave it at that.
This is not a pretty picture, in my opinion. There's a question that politicians like to pose to potential voters when running for office: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It was first used by Ronald Reagan to great advantage when he was running against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and has been tossed around like a worn-out football ever since. Be careful, this is a trick question. If you answer "yes", then you are expected to vote the incumbent back into office, and if your answer is "no", then you're required to "throw the scoundrels out". The faulking truth is, that narrow view of the world is a dangerous one. It requires that only 50% plus one (or, in the case of the 2000 presidential election, 50% minus 543,895), of the voters are content with their personal situations. In fact, since only 52% of those eligible to vote actually did vote in the 2000 election, a candidate would only need 26% of the voting age population to be content with the status quo. Throw in the votes siphoned off by third party candidates, and it's an even lower number. Think about that for a minute: if Bush can keep just one-quarter of those who actually vote happy, then he will win this election. As for the other 75%, who cares?
That's why, in light of the events of this millennium, I'm proposing a slightly altered version of that question for voters to ask themselves before they hit that touchscreen, punch out that chad, or place their X on the ballot on November 2nd. I'm proposing that everyone ask themselves this question: "Is your country better off than it was four years ago?" If, after you've spouted off all the rhetoric that you've memorized from the militia of manic depressive talk show hosts, you can step into the voter's booth and honestly say to yourself, "My country is better off than it was four years ago", then George W. Bush is your man. By all means, pull the trigger. If, on the other hand, the answer is "no", then you have a duty to do the right thing, both for the future of America, and for your children's future. You have a duty to "throw the scoundrels out".
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).