The 2008 presidential election is less than three weeks away, and Sen. Barack Obama is slightly ahead in most national polls.
The fervor that has accompanied this election since the party primary phase has been unlike that of any election I have witnessed, dating back to the Bill Clinton-George H.W. Bush-Ross Perot contest of 1992. It seems there isn't a soul left in the U.S. who hasn't offered his or her 2 cents under the false pretense of understanding a given national political issue, such as the roller-coaster economy and the Iraq war.
My problem with this is the ignorance and shortsightedness of the average voter. Actually, scratch the "average" part.
I'm addressing the ignorance of all voters.
It's not that everyone ignores issues or is incapable of fully understanding them; I'm sure there are millions who have a firm grasp of economic concepts and the hassles of military spending. The discrepancy is found in the materialistic nature of our society.
I'm not suggesting that we wallow in negative headlines and stew about in our financial dilemma, but a failing economy should not lead us to pass up a stellar film drama featuring two of Hollywood's best actors to seek comfort from a talking dog.
Obviously, I'm referencing the ever-relevant fact that "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" topped all other movies at the box office last weekend, including "Body of Lies," featuring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. Rory Bruer, Sony Pictures' head of distribution, attributed the success of this weak sauce movie to the country's economic climate.
There's no avoiding the truth. As Americans, we can't see past our noses, which is why we supposedly seek comfort from a glitzy, mindless movie. If this is how we choose the films we watch, how the hell can we claim ourselves as qualified to tell others how to vote?
A recent FoxNews.com post asked its audience, "If you could ask Obama one thing, what would it be?" The answers weren't exactly friendly (Yes, I am aware that they don't exactly like Obama over there).
One informed person said he would ask what Obama meant by "share the wealth." Then he went on a rant about how hard workers shouldn't have to donate their hard-earned American dollars to some "goof off" who keeps getting fired, which is what he fears will happen if Obama gets the chance to enact his plan.
While this may seem to be an easily acceptable generalization to many people, it's equally as easy for others to realize that a lack of work ethic is not the reason many families fall on hard times. To the latter group, "sharing the wealth" may not be such an outlandish proposition.
This kind of scenario directly addresses the nature of the democratic beast we call our country.
The downside to democracy is that one group always loses. A polarized electorate - say, one divided by 6 percent in national polls - exacerbates the pain of the losing group, which is unfortunate when the country in question is home to about 305 million people.
I think we need to realize that, no matter which candidate is elected, the next president is going to be an American working for Americans. He will address the economy as efficiently as possible. It's a given that some of us will have to adjust our daily lives as a result of either candidate's policy, but that's how compromise works. National elections have always been a huge, democratic forum for compromise, and this year will be no exception.
Tighten your belts, shut your mouths and vote the way you want, but don't threaten to leave the country if the "other guy" gets voted into the Oval Office.
Adam Wynn is the Alligator Opinions Editor and a journalism senior.
