Today, the levels of distrust and alienation between we Americans and our elected officials are frighteningly high and getting worse. If we are ever going to restore the relationship between government and citizen, we need to open doors, not close them. We need to invite Americans to participate, fully and meaningfully, in the process of electoral politics, not hand them a Mandate From On High telling them what candidates they are allowed to support.
There is a lot of talk lately about being inclusive. The folks who most often use that word are actually referring to an agenda that excludes issues they don’t want to talk about.
If they really wanted to be inclusive, they would be endorsing the people of America, inviting them to be the decision-makers in this year?s elections and giving them every opportunity to hear from and interact with all the candidates without interference from the self-appointed experts.
But instead, the political elite is once again telling the citizens that they should be quiet and accept its wisdom. The political experts are also telling the citizens to support their choices financially because while citizens? opinions are not welcome, citizens? wallets are.
It’s time to change these rules. It’s time to let the people who care enough about the future of America to get involved in the electoral process actually be the decision-makers in that process.
Because the active involvement of Americans is good for our nation.
It forces candidates to earn the votes of the citizens. It promotes the consideration of multiple ideas through dynamic discussion. It encourages involvement, helping to heal the disconnect between our people and our government. It lets more people see running for office themselves as a possibility.
In America, in the days leading up to a major sporting event, whether it be the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, or the Kentucky Derby, we hear the predictions of the experts, who tell us repeatedly who the winner will, and even should, be. ?
But what if the experts not only had the ability to predict the outcome, but could also control the game based on their predictions.? What if, for example, once they decided that Team A would, and should, win the game, they could keep Team B from getting practice time on the field or training equipment for the team members?
The screams of protest would be deafening.
Yet that is exactly what is happening in the primary election process in Pennsylvania this year.
Party experts are predicting the individuals who they think will, and even should, win each election. And they are working to ensure that any candidate not on their preferred list will be denied the opportunity to engage in a fair and open competition. If the party experts had their way, the game would be canceled, and the statements of the experts would be accepted as the outcome.
We would never tolerate such behavior in any sport in America. We should certainly not tolerate it when we choose those who will represent us in the halls of government.
In sports, we insist on fair competition because we have learned that the experts are not always as wise as they would like us to think they are.? How much more important that we insist on the same standard when we are determining the leadership of America!
Particularly at this moment in our history.