According to the New York Times, on Sunday, Barack Obama's presidential campaign announced that it had raised more than 150 million dollars in September, a huge amount unheard of by presidential campaign's in the past. Of course this is great news for Obama and all of his supporters, but it brings up the question, what is the "tipping point" for idealism or pragmatism? A very idealistic voter might think, everyone will just vote for who's views they agree with the most, while the most pragmatic one will be sure the elections are completely corrupt. What's the perfect balance?
When applied to Obama's recent good news, we all probobly wish money didn't matter, but we also have to realize that the campaign's are always going to be at least somewhat money driven. It's always good to think optimistically, but you can't always have your head in the clouds either. You have to stay grounded. People are most likely going to sway slightly more in one direction, but it can be dangerous to be completely on one side. For example, if Obama was 100% idealistic, he wouldn't have attempted to earn any money for his campaign, and therefore wouldn't be anywhere near where he is now. On the other hand, if he was completely pragmatic he wouldn't have his motto "change we can believe in", and he wouldn't be nearly as likeable, consequently losing many possible votes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment