By Jacob Peller, Staff Writer
Published in print Nov.12 ,2014
After months of trudging through the murky bile, we at last leave the darkness and blinking and step into the light.
No, this isn’t a Shawshank Redemption reference, those sewer pipes were even cleaner than the subject we will be discussing today: politics.
As I’m sure you’re aware, voting happened this past week and with it we finally saw the end of the political ads that sucked every last bit of faith in humanity I had left.
I will not criticize who won versus who should have won, because in the end we are talking about two sides of the same sad, broken system that we call government.
Let’s face it. We can complain all we want, but it won’t change a damn thing.
That, however, is an article for another day.
I may be a simple college student with what can only be described as the bare minimum of understanding when it comes to politics, but it doesn’t take a genius to see how pointlessly stupid the political smear ads have been over the last few months.
In fact, I don’t think there was a shred of intelligence involved when they were created.
Call me crazy, but the ideal political ad would be one that shows the positive ideas that a candidate can bring to our government, without painting their opposition to be “Hitler-esque baby eaters,” or to purposefully vilify certain groups for the purpose of winning over the, let’s be honest, old and white demographic.
So if we were to apply these to today’s political ads, we’d have to remove everything, literally everything from the ad.
I cannot be the only person who after hearing another ad, like, “my opponent didn’t attend the ISIS briefings, that makes them a terrorist,” or “my opponent took money from the schools, which means they want to make us into a mindless workforce,” has gotten fed up and stopped trusting anything that is being said in these ads.
Far be it for me to criticize, but I do feel like the ads would be a lot more different if we, say, had the ability to vote for neither candidate.
Think about it: we are given a slip of paper that says we have to pick one or the other; it doesn’t matter if the choice is between dumb and dumber, we would still end up with an idiot in a position of power.
That’s what the ads draw on, the knowledge that you’ll have to choose one or the other.
“So go ahead and sling as much mud at the other side,” they say, in the hopes that they look dirtier than you when the time to vote comes.
But imagine this, you go to your local voting booth and punch-in your ballot. On the screen are your usual choices, which in this case are Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis.
But, this time, there is a third option underneath is a third option: neither.
If we could say that the options before us are unacceptable, then we should demand new options.
This would give us, the people, the power to truly choose.
If a candidate knew that they could essentially be voided as a choice, they would stop slinging crap at the other party, knowing full well that every ad makes them look as bad as the party they’re slandering.
It’s a moot point, from me at least. I would love to think that my ideas would be put into effect immediately, but that would make me a politician…I have no desire to ever take such a dark and depressing path.
The good news is that we are slowly becoming a more progressive society as old thoughts die out and young ones take their place.
But I feel that change, like what I previously described, will never truly come about since Americans have never changed much in our system of government when it comes how we advance our party and belittle the others.
At least for the time being, we don’t have to hear another ad about how satanic the other side is…well, not until the next election ramps up.