Some of you are going to love this post. Some of you are going to hate it. Either way, if you don’t like the Wispa chocolate bar or have never heard of it, you are silly (more about that soon).
Here’s a fact I’m not proud of: ten years ago, the very last thing on my mind was politics. This was especially the case when it was happening in other countries and distant continents which, I felt, had absolutely nothing to do with me. I’d like to say I knew politics was crucially important but was just busy doing other more fun things, too engrossed in my early twenties to devote time and energy to something which seemed largely nonsensical and dull, but in truth, that wasn’t the case. I may have been doing other more fun things, but looking back, I’m not sure I understood what politics was all about, or ever really made it my duty to find out. My mistake was typically naive, though, so at least that makes me feel a bit better about it: it wasn’t thinking that politics was largely nonsensical, of course — we all know it can be precisely that at times — it was thinking that it didn’t matter and didn’t affect me. Nowadays, I get it, and things feel very different. In fact, the carefree attitude I used to have now seems inverted almost entirely the other way…where before I wasn’t bothered, nowadays I read about politics daily and am very much concerned about all the latest goings-on. What’s happening right now in the USA matters a lot, I think, and saying “it’s happening in another country, it has nothing to do with me,” just isn’t a good argument. Actually, it’s an awful one. If there’s one thing I know now, it’s that everything in politics matters, from the in-your-face to the infinitesimal. You can avoid it, but arming yourself with the facts is far better than being confused and left-out of something which is happening at every single level, to all of us, all the time.
Or something like that. To be honest, I’m still trying to work it out.
I was going to be unbiased here, then I found myself typing this sentence, which immediately mucked that plan right up: I want Barack Obama to win and I do not want Mitt Romney to win. There, I said it, and it feels good. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean: I love chips very much, and I also love chocolate — all kinds, although I do believe that the Wispa is the best. On top of that, I’m a big fan of getting out in nature, then coming home and watching The 40 Year-Old Virgin, which I highly recommend you see. Now time for the conclusion of this demonstration thing: imagine doing something you love and how much passion you have for whatever that is. Done it? If not, please do. And there it is. That’s exactly how much I absolutely, 100%, don’t want Mitt Romney anywhere near a position of power which can affect other nations, economies and citizens state-of-minds. Mitt getting into office might not affect me directly, but if he decides to go on holiday in Iran and gets suddenly very angry, upsetting the Iranians, that’s going to give me many a sleepless night…
Instead, in totally biased political fashion, here are my top 5 reasons why I want the President re-instated (and possibly cloned for use over the course of the next few thousand years, depending on what happens in the next couple):
1: Argue if you like, but I think Obama has done a lot of good for America — particularly the country’s general image overseas. Much as it’s the most over-used statement by any democrat ever, is the USA in a better place now than it was when Obama came into office? Looking at the numbers, the arguable facts, and both sides of the argument, I’d have to say Yes, Yes it is. The deficit is still ridiculously enormous, but what did you expect in 4 years? And don’t tell me that record numbers of citizens are still out of work and this is the President’s fault, or that his failings are making this problem worse. In my opinion, that’s a childish argument, and nobody else would have done any better in the same circumstances.
2: Obama might not be perfect, but at least he’s honest. Allow me to quantify this…I haven’t got the slightest clue if this is really the case. Being honest is quite clearly very different from appearing honest. What I will say, though, is that Obama has and does admit to fault, misjudging things and making mistakes. That’s a rare, powerful trait in a politician, and you can argue with me again, but I’d say from what I’ve seen and read that it’s one that Mitt Romney does not possess.
3: On a purely academic level, I believe it’s better — more sensible, more fair, less dumb, more sane — to have a relatively broad-minded religious leader in power than a Mormon: personally, I think religion can be both wonderful and horrible, but in this case, that really isn’t the point. The point, instead, is this: the Mormon religion is based on a series of principles, beliefs and fundamental understandings — or misunderstandings, if you’re looking in as a confused bystander — which simply cannot be applied to the entire USA in a way which is fair for all involved. Mitt Romney may be a smart man with the ability to see the bigger picture, I don’t know, but the fact remains that if he gets into power, he and his comrades will be looking at the world and making decisions based on biased beliefs which are only held by a minority of Americans. Obama is biased towards religion, of course — he’s biased as hell, no doubt about it — but at least he seems in some way able to separate his personal beliefs from what’s best for the nation. I don’t believe Romney is capable of this, and depending on how things develop, we may be about to find out with very real consequences for all involved.
4: Obama likes to work alone, and this is something which has been proven to be effective when it comes to responsible decision-making. As the President, it’s Obama’s job to listen to advisers, assimilate information and generally surround himself with people who know things he doesn’t, or simply is too busy to Google (or Bing…maybe he prefers Bing?). Hanging out with lots of people and working together sounds really good, doesn’t it? Except it’s been proven that where creativity and problem-solving are concerned, working with lots of people can sometimes be a hindrance. Brainstorming sessions are a prime example of this. Logically, it seems to make sense that discussing ideas with a number of others would achieve the best results. Except that, according to many different studies, that isn’t always the case. In fact, some people argue that working with lots of other people can create a confused environment where personal opinion fails and decisions become perverted, polluted and ultimately prove wrong. That’s why I like Obama. Preferring to consult his advisers first and then work alone in his office late into the night, I think that’s a better way of doing things, and a way which is likely to lead to a promising result.
5: An anagram of Barrack Hussein is SNOBBISM, which sounds a lot like a board-game which I might play with my nan — the main objective of which might be to be the world’s biggest snob, by saying how rubbish certain things are in a snobbish, cynical way favoured here in Great Britain (with nan this would be sure to lead to many arguments, but still, it’d be fun until one of us couldn’t take it any more). Another good anagram of the current US President is SCARABAEI. Despite it sounding very Italian, I can easily imagine myself as a cowboy riding a horse and shouting that as I came back from a successful…whatever I was doing out there on the ranch. SCARABEI! I would say again,louder still, because I loved it so much, CHECK OUT MY COWBOY BOOTS!
And if you think this last reason is rubbish — which is also an anagram of Barack Hussein Obama, as it happens — then consider that an anagram of Willard Mitt Romney is WATERLILY, not to mention IMMORALITY. Shamefully pointless as this last poor-excuse-for-a-good-reason is, do you really want someone with that anagram being the President? Exactly, I thought not.