I wonder if there’s a famous political slogan about how the whole issue is the economy, and that’s all that should be focused on.

by on

It’s making me uneasy how much “social issues”–lousy term, by the way–keep coming up in this campaign. I had hoped that would stop after Santorum got out, but it hasn’t.

In my opinion, this is exactly the formula for an economic disaster: voters so busy worrying about this stuff that they forget the major economic problems the country’s facing. Even if we finally do recover from the recession, as we appear to be, it will be only to revert to the major economic problem of summer, 2008: high gas prices and stagflation. While I feel they are important, I nonetheless believe that a problem like a major stagflation epidemic dwarfs issues like government-subsidized birth control or whether gays can marry.

Although at least those actually are issues. What’s worst of all is how much attention is devoted to what Mitt Romney did 45 years ago in high-school, or what Obama had for breakfast as a kid in Indonesia.

2 Comments

  1. The important issues such as the economy are not mentioned because no one has a clue about how to fix it. I don’t think it can be fixed by those in office. It’s a matter of time, and public confidence that will get us rolling again.

    I think the little things do matter. Yeah, we talk about Mitt and his past because we can only judge him by his character. We have no clue what he will do if he is elected. We have to build a history, put puzzle pieces together, in order to understand the politicians before us. Oh yes, I do think the little things matter.

    Reply

    1. You are right, the little things do matter. But frankly, I have even less of a clue about them than about the economy. I mean, yeah, Mitt Romney was a jerk in high-school. But, it’s hard for me to know how much that relates to what he’s like now. Maybe he’s still the same bully inside, or maybe he’s learned some things over the years and really does regret it. No one can really know but him.

      But what I *do* know for sure is that he is a rich guy who intends to implement economic policies favorable to the rich, and who belongs to a party that favors abolishing all sorts of safety mechanisms designed to help the poor, and cutting taxes on the wealthy. Whether he does this because he’s just a jerk, or because he believes the whole “trickle down/rising tide lifts all boats” thing I don’t know, but I do know it’s what he’ll do.

      I guess what I’m saying is I’d like to hear more talk about that sort of thing in the press.

      Reply

What's your stake in this, cowboy?