It’s Not About The ‘Best Candidate'

Aug 11, 2024

It’s easy to get sucked into the partisan whirlwind the political parties create during an election cycle. To listen to the pundits and the politicians, every election is the most important election in our lifetimes. While some elections are more consequential than others, the act of “making history” with our votes, by who we elect – the people we vote for – is to miss the point of our obligation to the Republic.

As good stewards of our Republic, we are tasked, via our citizenship, with providing proper oversight to our government so that it satisfies the terms of its compact with the people. We are supposed to do this – through the ballot box and redress of government – by holding those we elect to the limitations of government as mandated by the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the whole of The Charters of Freedom.

Lately, we – the voters – have been stunningly delinquent in allowing the mainstream media, the coastal elites, and the elected class – and this is true on both sides of the aisle – to manipulate us into viewing elections as over-glorified junior high school popularity contests. Which candidate is accepted by the cool kids? Which candidates are moldy? Which politician uses the right (read: correct) catchphrases? Which candidate is “brat”? Which party is “on the right side of history”? All of these questions are subjective to those who establish the definitions and, therefore, hollow questions and qualifications of little importance.

Popularity Contest

This manipulation comes predominantly through the vehicle that is the mainstream media and, specifically, the disingenuous use of “push polling,” which is almost always used in place of comprehensive scientific polling.

Push polling was, in great part, conceived by Walter Lippmann. I go into detail about the Barnays/Lippmann influence in an article titled What We Need To Understand As We Prepare For Election Season:

“Walter Lippmann, who was attracted to socialism and Fabianism before he converted to progressivism, was another pioneering political consultant and campaign strategist who significantly contributed to the development of deceptive political marketing tactics. His work in the 1960s and 1970s helped shape the modern political landscape and established many of the practices that are still used today.
“Lippmann is credited with popularizing the use of negative campaign tactics, which involve attacking an opponent's character or record rather than promoting one's own qualifications. This approach can be highly effective in swaying public opinion and has become a staple of modern political campaigns.
“He was instrumental in the development of attack ads, which are television commercials that focus on discrediting an opponent. These ads often use misleading or false information to create a negative impression of the opponent in the minds of the voters.
“Lippmann is also associated with the invention of the ‘push poll,’ a deceptive polling technique designed to influence voter behavior rather than gather accurate information. Push polls typically involve asking misleading or false questions to sway respondents' opinions about a candidate or issue.”

Today’s mainstream media almost always disguises push polling as legitimate scientific polling with the intent of swaying public opinion. This is why there is such a wide-ranging disparity in poll results.

Through this process of manipulation, this distortion of reality, the mainstream media transforms what should be the accurate taking of the public’s political pulse into a substanceless popularity contest in which those affected are unwittingly coerced into supporting the preferred candidates of the media.

No One Ever Checks All The Boxes

An old grade school friend opined that she wishes we had better choices in candidates this election cycle. While many may agree with her, that sentiment is irrelevant and decidedly so.

Elections are never – ever – about voting for the “best candidate,” because the “best” candidate doesn’t exist. There is only the better candidate.

In a majority two-party system, the outcomes of political contests are effectively determined by divining which candidate – or candidates – are better or worse than others on both general and specific issues. At this point in our Republic’s history, third-party candidates only have enough support to serve as spoilers in close elections. The 1992 campaign of Ross Perot as an independent is a perfect example. In that election cycle, Perot garnered 18.91% of the popular vote, elevating Bill Clinton to the Oval Office over incumbent George H.W. Bush.

And because it is always about the better candidate and not about the best candidate, the political decision-making process of the American electorate – if the electorate seeks to be wise in the stewardship of our Republic – must center on policies and platforms not personalities.

When the voting public allows the mainstream media and the political campaigns to make an election about personalities – when we are manipulated into seeing only the personalities of the candidates – the importance of a candidate’s policies, past performance, and qualifications for office are cast into the shadows. The election is turned into a popularity contest in which the questions of who the “mean girls” support, which candidate uses the anointed catchphrases, and which party is “on the right side of history” – again, all points based on the subjectivity of the ones defining the terms – become the rubrics.

The Truly Wise Juxtapose The Policies & Platforms

If our Republic is to survive, the American electorate must reject the disingenuous enticement to be emotional about the election process and start digging deeper into the policies and platforms of any given candidate, and this should be done at every level of government.

On the national stage, at least in the 2024 General Election cycle, this deeper examination should not only include a candidate’s general political philosophy (does the candidate believe in free speech or censorship, the free market or Marxism, centralized or decentralized government) but also include substantive information exposing a candidate’s position on border sovereignty, national security, world peace, the economy, and the well-being of the middle class, among other issues important to the American people.

The beauty of the 2024 General Election is that the two candidates – Donald Trump and Kamala Harris – have performance records on these issues because they have both been employed at the highest level for the position in which they are vying. Donald Trump has been President of the United States and, by her own admission, Kamala Harris has been integral in every decision – the “last person in the room” – during the Biden administration…and their records are clear.

Immigration

Donald Trump has advocated for stricter immigration policies, given the open borders catastrophe that currently exists on the US southern border. He is an advocate of completing a border wall along the US-Mexico border and limiting the number of refugees and asylum seekers. He is not anti-DACA, as many propagandists are asserting.

Kamala Harris, conversely, is an open borders advocate who champions comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty for even those who have been here illegally for decades, including a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants and immediate protections for Dreamers.

Border Security

Trump has emphasized the importance of securing the US border, especially in the age of terrorism and an emboldened China, Iran, and Russia. He advocates for increased funding for border patrol and technology, as well as completing the construction of the border wall.

While Harris supports increased funding for border security, she believes in a more nuanced approach that focuses almost exclusively on technology, opposes a physical wall, and supports the continuation of her current administration’s plan that has seen over ten million undocumented immigrants enter the country, some of who are on the terror watch list.

Inflation

Trump has been a strong supporter of policies that prioritize economic growth and job creation, which he believes will help control inflation. He has criticized the Federal Reserve for its gross mismanagement of the economy and for its inept manipulation of interest rates. He has called for permanent tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate the economy.

Harris’s economic policies focus on the woke tenets of reducing income inequality and increasing special-interest economic opportunities in the renewable energy sector. She has called for investments in education, infrastructure, and healthcare to stimulate economic growth and control inflation, maintaining her current administration’s policies.

Taxation

Trump supports additional tax cuts for businesses and individuals, arguing that this will lead to increased economic growth and job creation, as it did during his first term and under the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. He signed the Tax Cuts& Jobs Act in 2017, which reduced taxes for most Americans, thus leaving individuals with more income to fuel the economy.

Harris has advocated for tax policies that increase taxes on the wealthy, middle class, and corporations, much like what the states of California, Illinois, and New York have done – actions that precipitated a mass exodus from those states. She is an advocate for expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. Under the Biden administration, even those who earn under $400,000 annually have experienced tax increases, backdoor as they may have been.

Crime & Policing

Trump has emphasized a tough-on-crime approach, supporting increased funding for law enforcement and advocating for stricter sentencing for certain offenses. He is a staunch “backer of the blue,” and that sentiment is reciprocated by every rank-and-file law enforcement organization in the nation.

Harris was exposed as being a supporter of the Defund the Police movement and even advocated for raising bail for the Minneapolis rioters during the George Floyd riots, along with her current running mate, Tim Walz. Her record of imprisoning marijuana offenders in California during her time as Attorney General, and refusing to allow access to evidence that would exonerate a death row inmate – as well as her authorization to hold prisoners past their release dates to affect free labor for the State of California, defines her stance on crime policy.

Foreign Policy

Trump has cultivated – and continues to support – an “America First” foreign policy, prioritizing US interests and reducing involvement in World Economic Forum-championed international organizations and agreements. He has been critical of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran and has sought to renegotiate trade deals and military alliances to the benefit of the United States. He is a staunch supporter of Israel.

Harris has advocated for a more World Economic Forum-centric collaborative and multilateral approach to foreign policy, emphasizing a renewed commitment to globalism and the New World Order over American sovereignty. She is a virulent pro-Hamas supporter and panders to that voter demographic here in the United States to the point that her policy on the matter affected her choice for running mate.

Guns & Second Amendment

Trump is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and is generally supportive of Second Amendment rights. He has opposed overreaching gun control measures. In the matter of mass shootings, he argues that evidence proves mental health issues, rather than gun ownership, are the primary cause.

Harris has campaigned on instituting a mandatory government gun buy-back program. She staunchly supports gun control measures, including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and closing loopholes in current gun laws, while advocating for more federal control over gun laws usurping state laws and regulations.

Healthcare

Trump has been critical of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and has advocated for its repeal. He has supported health savings accounts and allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines to increase competition and lower costs. During his administration, he negotiated for lower costs on vital prescription drugs for seniors and the general citizenry. He is pro-life with specific exceptions where the life of the Mother is in danger. He supported Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s position on Roe v. Wade that the issue of abortion be left to the states, per the 10th Amendment.

Harris is a hardcore advocate for a Medicare-for-All system, which would provide universal healthcare coverage for all Americans while flooding the already overburdened healthcare system across the country. She has also called for the federal government to pass legislation that would mandate lower prescription drug prices, regardless of the free market. She is pro-late-term abortion.

National Security

Trump advocates for the Reagan Doctrine of “peace through strength.” He has emphasized the importance of a strong military and increased defense spending. He has also prioritized cybersecurity and called for increased investment in this area. Realizing the importance of being prepared for a conflict originating in space, he created a new military department to address this need.

Harris has emphasized the importance of a “strong” military but from a perspective that sees diversity, equity, and inclusion as strengths, thus dispensing with the required meritocracy that allows a military to function efficiently and potently. While she supported investments in cybersecurity and counterterrorism efforts, she believes that the greatest threat to our nation—and one the Pentagon must lead the way on—is climate change.

Energy

Trump has supported the development of domestic energy resources, including coal, oil, natural gas, and alternative energy sources. He holds to an “all of the above” energy policy and American energy independence, which he achieved during his administration. He has promoted deregulation and has been critical of the Paris Climate Agreement, from which he withdrew the US. During his administration, the US was a net energy exporter.

Harris is a Green New Deal supporter and supports her current administration’s goal for 50 percent of all new car sales in the United States to be electric vehicles by 2030. She has criticized the Trump administration's deregulation of the energy sector and has supported rejoining the Pro-World Economic Forum Paris Climate Agreement.

So, when one dispenses with the personality contest and examines the policies – past, present, and what would be in the future – the choice in November becomes clearer and clearer, that is, if you want our free Republic to survive.

That Said…

That said, there is a large segment of our society here in the United States – and I suppose this goes for the free world, as well – that remained duped by the mainstream media and the political campaigns; by the disingenuous use of push polling to manipulate election outcomes. There is still a dangerously significant number of voters who believe they are searching for the best candidate when they should be divining the better candidate. And they are trapped in the manufactured popularity contest mindset.

Because of that, those of us who are on to the media/politico game; those of us who have awakened from the manipulation, must burden ourselves with the task of enlightening those who are still under the spell of the mainstream media and political opportunists.

Sadly, many of us have come under the illusion that tweeting and re-tweeting, liking, forwarding, and reposting on social media is actually achieving something. But fueling the echo chamber does very little to educate those who truly need education on the critical matters currently facing our Republic.

So, we need to add additional steps to our social media and communicative efforts. We have to exist where those who need to consume our information consume their information, and that means including more Left-leaning groups and platforms in our social media, tweeting and re-tweeting, liking, forwarding, and reposting.

It also requires us to have respectful and fact-based – calm – communications with those who may not be awake to the realities of what our Republic will face if the 2024 General Election determines our nation should continue down the road to Marxism.

Both of these desperately needed actions require us to exist outside our “convenience zones.” They will require a bit more effort and a bit more time, but they will create a tangible result, and that is more than the echo chamber produces at the moment.

Therefore, the questions you must ask yourself are these. Is our Republic worth saving? And, if so, are you willing to do what it takes to save it?