The loud, cacophonous, clamoring back and forth has only just begun. The candidates of the two main parties will be speaking in opposing terms battling each other on every possible subject exaggerating even the slightest crevice of a difference until it rivals the Grand Canyon. We can expect full-throttle vindictive salvos to be thrown by the Super-PACs even should either candidate choose to stay positive and avoid personal attacks. This coming election has the potential to be the most contentious in recent history if not in all of history. Putting it in the most basic terms possible, we can safely predict that either side has no plans on taking any prisoners and go straight for the jugular of the opponent aiming to render them broken beyond repair if not simply and utterly destroyed. So, what will be the issues most likely to be the main themes of the election and which one will be the singularly most vital question voters will need to address.
The most obvious issues according to the press coverage they are receiving are jobs, taxes, unemployment, the economy, gas prices, and the disparities concerning Warren Buffet versus his secretary. As important as all of these issues may be, they will very likely prove to be secondary when the judgment of history is written some time much later in the century. The underlying theme between the candidates on each of these contentious issues will be the role of government should play in finding the solution. One side will place great importance on the steps the government must take to assure that the people are given the tools to solve any difficulties they are facing while the other candidate will stress getting government out of the way and allowing people to empower themselves without government meddlesome interference. The two sides will argue on which is more advantageous, making the wealthy pay their “fair share” in taxation such that the government will have sufficient funds in order to address and solve the problems the people are facing while on the other hand the argument made claims that allowing the wealthy and everybody else to keep more of their wealth by lowering tax rates so those who are the engines that generate the jobs, such as small businesses, have the additional funds to enable them to invest and employ more people. These themes will be the foundation beneath the discussion on other subjects as well.
Take health-care and health insurance, both of which promise to be a hot potato for both candidates, and again the discourse will revolve around how much responsibility should be granted to the government and how much should remain with the individual. How this particular debate plays out will be of great interest as President Obama can reasonably claim that he molded Obama-care using Romney-care as the prototypical guide. Romney will stress that at least Romney-care was Constitutional as it was a state program while Obama-care is not Constitutional being a Federal program and thus against the limitations placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution. For many in the electorate it will be required of Romney that he convinces them he had a turning point on the idea of government getting so fully involved with health-care thus placing distance between his current position and the position allowing him to sign the Massachusetts Health-Care Insurance Reform Law.
Another subject will be the balance between oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas and green energies which will ensure a sufficient supply for the future while also improving the environment. This will also revolve around the role of government regulations, licensing, involvement and promotion in each of these forms of energy generation. What will be of particular interest on this subject is whether either candidate will have a singular position and remains consistent on their message when talking to the different audiences. Will their position ring with the same message when they are speaking in Texas as when they are talking energy in San Francisco. This is something that both extremes on this issue from the coal and oil workers and the strident environmentalists should be interested and both candidates should be fully vetted and revealed if their message is overly adjustable and tailored for the separate audiences. Energy policies are often a good indicator with which to test the honor and honesty of candidates as the wide gulch between the two extremes between differing audiences provides temptation for candidates to adjust their rhetoric tailoring the message to fit the audience thus proposing contradictory positions at different times.
But what is the seminal issue of this coming Presidential election? When looking at each issue it becomes obvious that even more than has been the historic norm, the role of government in our lives and in all segments of society are going to be the central theme. We are faced with a significant difference between the two candidates. The choice is whether we desire to restore government to the restraints of a limiting Constitution or if we wish to transform the way we interpret our Constitution towards making government proactive by removing the limitations over the role of the Federal government. Will we choose to restructure the United States by dismissing Constitutional constraints or reestablish a restrictive Constitutionally limited governance United States? This is the choice in the starkest of terms with which to demonstrate our choice when we enter the voting booth this November. Either we retain the guards against unlimited government power or transit to a government that can dictate every item in our lives. We will be choosing whether we place the individual over the government or place the government to be preeminent over the individual. Which one do you trust to make all the choices going forward, each individual person with the rights and responsibilities for their own actions or the bureaucratic governance making the choices taking the responsibility for all consequences and doling out rights as they find necessary. Do we desire the responsibility derived from individual liberty or the comfort of simple compliance derived from communal group-think?
Beyond the Cusp
