Trending
Reminders of
human disaster
To the Editor:
I'm really mad again -- this time because I've just read a book, "Saving Aziz," which tells the story of an Afghan interpreter for the military and his rescue from the Taliban and arrival in the US. What makes me mad is that, in recounting the story of the evacuation of Afghanistan, it reminds me of what a colossal and unnecessary human disaster that event was. It occurred because of several catastrophic errors in judgment - the surrender of Bagram airbase, the decision to put the administration of the event in the hands of the State Department, and, most importantly, Biden's disregard of the advice of his military leaders.
It is impossible to predict where Biden will ultimately rank among the Presidents, but thinking about the evacuation from Afghanistan, the opening of the southern border, his involvement with the mischief of his son Hunter, as well as his disdain for the press, it is not impossible to judge his administration as one of misjudgments, corruption and arrogance.
How did he get to be in charge? To begin with, Obama selected him as his Vice-president to provide insurance against his own impeachment. (He had no respect for Joe's abilities.) Then, when all the other Democrat candidates in 2020 failed to generate any national support, the Democrats were left with Joe, a former VP, as the only person with some high-level political experience, and probably "next-in-line", as party politics goes. On top of that, Joe benefitted from the votes of everybody who wanted nothing to do with Trump, regardless of what Joe's abilities- or lack thereof - might be. (Don't get me wrong: this is not a pro-Trump letter; the sooner he is gone and forgotten, the better.)
I was going to argue at this point that all this is a result of party politics, but that's not accurate: this results from the domination of politics by two parties. Why did we go into 2020 with just a choice between two deeply flawed candidates, and why should we possibly be faced with just a choice between these two again next year? It's because we are used to the idea of two parties and two choices, with our ingrained association with one party or the other. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The way to fix this is to increase the support for third-party candidates, to the point that they become viable national candidates on the ballot and not just the fringe hopefuls of the past. How does the man in the street help to make this happen? First, the voter should register as independent; the more that this happens, the more it will cause polls to show something like Dem 33%, Rep 33% and Independents 33%, and if that happens, other people may be encouraged to enter the race and more moneymen may be encouraged to support those people. If you as a voter cannot commit to registering as an Independent, you should try this exercise: for each candidate currently in the picture, think of him or her as being a member of the other party. Does this change your likelihood to support that candidate? If so, your judgment is being improperly swayed by a tradition to party loyalty.
Secondly, the voter should never contribute to specifically Republican or Democrat organizations or causes, as that increases the power of the entrenched parties.
A robust attempt to follow the above suggestions could lead to a break-up of two-part dominance. All it takes is for enough people to say, enough! I'm for freedom of choice in elections and I want more of it from now on.
John Brittain
Lewistown