On the Newshour last night, Brooks and Capehart were asked about the Graham Platner conundrum in Maine, and all I could envision is a scenario similar to when Donald Trump put his name in the ring in 2015.
Back then, people started talking about how Trump was “refreshing’ and “not a stereotypical politician” and that they were willing to give him a listen and maybe even vote for him—because there was some logjam that needed to be broken; someone needed to come along who could “shake things up…”
I found myself resonating with what David Brooks said about the pool of people available to run for important office. His was more a lament that we couldn’t do better than Trump or, perhaps, Platner. Baggage galore in both instances, questionable temperaments, checkered pasts that are following them into the present.
Does Platner deserve a shot at redemption? Mainers will have to decide.
This all got me to thinking that our role in all this, our responsibility, is not to be taken lightly. We need to do our homework on these candidates, listen closely, take seriously our responsibility as voters, and not just settle for or rubber stamp people on the chance that they’ll work out, that we went to the polls and did our duty, and now we can wash our hands of whatever comes next. History has repeatedly told us that it doesn’t work that way.
As much as “evolution” may be a four-letter word for The Base, the electorate in this country would be better served if everyone who votes also works on nurturing their own intuitive hunches, their own spidey sense– some unavoidable feeling in the gut– that causes them to hesitate before leaping, to further evaluate and question before jumping on a bandwagon and electing the next ill-suited and disappointing candidate. Or, in Trump’s case, the next devious circus clown with creepy make-up.
3 Cents' 