I was browsing my Facebook news feed when a friend linked an article where one of the presidential candidates (and it will be transparent to most who this is, but this post is not about him so I'm omitting his name) indicated he would put a filter on all new U.S. computers to block pornography. My first instinct was to respond with this:
How much taxpayer money will be spent on a filter that can never possibly work? How much taxpayer money will be spent on laws and litigation for people who bypass the filter? How much will the value of old computers go up because they are "filter-free?"
People have values that they want to sell during an election, that's fine. But if you're serious about it, have a REAL plan, right?
I didn't post that because I didn't really want to fight about it, mostly because there are probably really transparent answers to all those questions: 1. the filters exist already in some form; 2. the filter is optional, but included automatically so parents can protect children; 3. see #2, it's a non-issue.
But the part that would remain unanswered, or maybe I just wouldn't be satisfied with the answer, is the last questions: if you're serious, have a REAL plan, right? (Which may only be technically called a question because it does in fact end in a question mark, though really it is probably only a statement.) That's kind of what this post is about.
People running for office, incumbents or otherwise (though perhaps this problem is more likely to occur in fiction rather than reality), seemingly often have plans to do X, Y or Z. Often these comments referring to this plan seem to indicate that the plan is going to be mind-blowingly awesome, linked to iterations of "when I'm president," the plan will go into effect, and everyone will win.
My problem with this is, why is the plan conditional upon winning office? One thought is that, as awesome as the plan is to the candidate, in reality the plan is only awesome for one party or those who lean left or lean right, and that the other party will find the plan horrible and dedicate time and resources into defeating the plan. This makes sense on its face, with the example of the pornography filter: there are a lot of folks, many of which fall on the left side of the aisle, that don't want their internet content regulated by the government. The plan is great for some, but awful for others.
But what if the candidate truly believes the plan IS great for everyone, regardless of political ties and impending opposition? If you're American enough to believe that you love the country so much that you are the one most qualified to lead it, doesn't it follow that any plan that would benefit America is a plan that shouldn't wait, that shouldn't be conditional upon your winning office?
If you have a real plan to block pornography on the internet, why not try to implement it now, regardless of whether you get credit for the idea? If you have a plan to fix social security, if you have a plan to boost the economy, if you have a plan to improve education, why should it wait?
I think I understand the idea that, once you're in power, you have the ability to do these great things; without that power, these things may not come to fruition. At the same time, if a candidate, through his power as the party leader and/or the potential president, could use that status as candidate to sway other politicians to start implementing the plan... I mean, doesn't being the party front runner and potential election winner carry enough weight to get the ball rolling? If you roll out an awesome plan and it starts to get implemented even before you're in office, isn't that a signal to the electorate that you can in fact deliver on these great plans once you get even more power?
Don't we as Americans deserve your effort to those ends, anyway?
I would love it, love it if a candidate said "I want to fix the pornography problem in America (sidenote: I know that presumes that there is a pornography problem in America, so that's obviously an ideology thing, but keep reading because that's not the important part, just the example). I don't know how to do that at the moment. The ideas we have aren't there yet--I can't just install a button that blocks pornography on every PC. It's a complicated problem from a technical and legal standpoint. But I'm dedicated to getting it done, and my colleagues and I continue to brainstorm and research how to reach this end. If we figure it out before I am elected president, we won't hesitate to do what we can to implement it now."
Maybe candidates do say things like that, on perhaps more important issues that everyone already understands is complicated technically and legally. Or maybe they avoid statements that will be pointed to as failure if they don't get it done. Personally, I'd be impressed with the sentiment and the honesty.
Maybe candidates do say things like that, on perhaps more important issues that everyone already understands is complicated technically and legally. Or maybe they avoid statements that will be pointed to as failure if they don't get it done. Personally, I'd be impressed with the sentiment and the honesty.
I've rambled on long enough, am out of time, and can't salvage this anyway. Did I forget to say this wasn't recommended? Sorry, but maybe you should have known better?
No comments:
Post a Comment