What do you suppose would happen...

I’m wondering what it would take to get us – and all western democracies for that matter – to a place where our elections were about voting for someone instead of against someone else. 

It seems to me that the original intention was that good people who had good ideas would step up and share those ideas with us in the hope that we would see their vision and be inspired to be part of something that would make our world better. And that we, as a society, would consider the ideas on offer and, with our vote, endorse what we each felt was the most promising, the most constructive, the most likely to make us a better community with a brighter future for all of us. Oh, and it might even be done respectfully, not disparaging the ideas or the intent of others, simply illustrating why a particular idea might be the best option under the circumstances.

Instead it appears we have chosen to endorse a system where the primary political tactic is to expound – usually with a great deal more bombast than fact – about all the reasons not to vote for the other guy. “Vote for me because I’m not him or her” – really? Really? Is this how we want to choose our leaders and steer our society?

It’s often been said that we get the government we deserve and, sadly, I think it’s true. Our politicians do this because it works. As individuals it seems we are becoming increasingly focused on our own narrow view of the world motivated not by the greater good but by ‘what’s in it for me’. The outcome is that we punish our leaders for not serving us personally even if they are making sound decisions based on what they believe is best for the city, province or country. Worse still we’ve now arrived at a point where respectful disagreement is nowhere to be seen in our political discourse, instead we invoke the language of hatred and practice very personal character assassination. What the hell has happened to us?

It’s getting rarer and rarer to see really good people go into politics – why would anyone subject themselves to that? And how many of those with the gifts to truly inspire us would be willing to engage in the now ritualized muck raking and misinformation offensives?

Setting my cynicism aside for a moment, I acknowledge that fortunately good people do still enter this fray with good intentions but we also now attract, in numbers, those who possess less integrity but have vast talents in the less savoury, but obviously effective, tools of the modern political trade. They are masters at recognizing and exploiting our antipathy towards leaders who haven’t satisfied our every whim or who have failed to overcome economic or social challenges that are beyond the scope and control of the government they lead. And, they unblushingly promise to fix our every ache and pain despite the fact that they will have no more control or resources to work with than the one they seek to displace. 

One source defines a populist as “seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.” In our world I’m afraid it has more to do with telling unhappy people exactly what they want to hear regardless of real intent or possibility of fulfillment. 

So, now we have a growing collection of leaders to whom we are entrusting our welfare, our future, even our lives who, while exceptionally well equipped to get themselves elected in our distressed and distorted system, are woefully underqualified to do the jobs they are seeking.

What do you suppose would happen if we all started demanding reasoned debate, civilized, respectful, adult behavior, and leadership based on making the best decisions possible with the information and the talents at hand – and cutting people a little slack if they are honestly doing their best? What if we told all politicians that we only want to hear from them what they are going to do? (We’ll take it for granted that they don’t think much of the other guy.) What would happen if we put our society first and refused to surrender to the politics of derision and self-interest?

I wonder.