Sometimes, when I feel it’s appropriate, I’ll talk politics with the person sitting next to me at the lunch counter. It happens rarely, because politics has become more of a contact sport instead of the mental exercise it’s supposed to be, where you calmly and rationally explain the hows and whys that you chose this particular candidate over another.

But occasionally, when the person next to me having lunch strikes up a conversation about politics and seems to be genuinely interested in hearing what I’ve got to say, I’ll engage them. I’ve learned a lot about how folks look at a topic by these little chit-chats.

And, one of the things I’ve learned is that sometimes they vote for folks that actually end up, in the long run, achieving the exact opposite of their goals because they never looked far enough down the road.

I start with folks that view the world through a religious lens.

One of the things that’s always fascinated me about religious folks, and by that I mean the hard-right-leaning folks that always seem to be members of groups using the words Family, Liberty, Freedom, and Values somewhere in their title, is that they don’t seem to see the incongruities in their choices.

Here’s an example.

Regardless of the fact that former President Trump seems to have no sense of what the vows of marriage are all about, they voted for him because he said he would end a woman’s right to have the choice of what she does with her body, regardless of the reason she became pregnant. You know, rape, incest, drugged — those kinds of horrifying things that happen everyday to women all around America.

They didn’t seem to care that Trump had affair after affair with various women while he was married because, well, he was going to end abortion rights.

Except they really didn’t think this through, because one of the reasons to have an abortion is an affair that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.

Get where I’m going with this?

They voted for a man that had countless affairs, and who more than likely was the cause of several abortions himself because of those affairs.

None of this makes sense when you think about it in the long term.

Here’s another weird voter quirk I’ve noticed.

The folks that label themselves the “law and order” candidates, which makes one believe the other person running must be the “anarchy and chaos” candidate, usually talk about how tough they’ll be on crime and, of course, how much they cherish and respect the law enforcement officers that work very hard to keep us safe. You know the ones. They always seem to have several officers around them when speaking at rallies to prove how much they care about those that serve.

But those same candidates are usually the ones that will block any sensible laws trying to limit assault rifles, or bump stocks that turn regular weapons into machine guns, or any background checks to help weed out the bad folks among us. And, those weapons are the reason that the number of police officers that are shot each year has risen by 60% since 2018.

You would think a candidate that cherishes and values the law enforcement community would back those safety measures, wouldn’t you?

See what I mean? This makes no sense when you think about it for, oh, more than a second.

So what’s up with voters? Why don’t they think long range?

Readers?

Pete Mitchell’s “In America” column appears every other Tuesday. He lives in Geneva. Contact him at peteinamerica@yahoo.com.

QOSHE - IN AMERICA: Voter incongruities - Pete Mitchell Peteinamerica
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

IN AMERICA: Voter incongruities

35 0
30.04.2024

Sometimes, when I feel it’s appropriate, I’ll talk politics with the person sitting next to me at the lunch counter. It happens rarely, because politics has become more of a contact sport instead of the mental exercise it’s supposed to be, where you calmly and rationally explain the hows and whys that you chose this particular candidate over another.

But occasionally, when the person next to me having lunch strikes up a conversation about politics and seems to be genuinely interested in hearing what I’ve got to say, I’ll engage them. I’ve learned a lot about how folks look at a topic by these little chit-chats.

And, one of the things I’ve learned is that sometimes they vote for folks that actually end up, in the long run, achieving the exact opposite of their goals because they never looked far enough down the road.

I start with folks that view the world through........

© Finger Lakes Times


Get it on Google Play