Quote:
|
There are some things that are the same about any candidate who has a possibility of getting elected, and although they are the least talked-about issues, they are probably some of the most important, as far as shaping our future in the long run, not just cosmetic differences in four-year chunks.
|
Like what?
For example, it's a given that any viable candidate must declare themselves to be a Christian. But there's a huge difference between someone who pays lip service to their "faith" during the campaign, and someone who tries to overturn Roe v. Wade and get intelligent design added to the school curriculum. The candidates in this example are not really the same at all, and the results are hardly cosmetic.
In the most generic of senses, I suppose you could say that anyone electable would have to be willing to indebt themselves to a certain number of lobby groups, but even then, there is such a wide variety to choose from that it is not only possible but likely that the long-term outcomes will be dramatically different.
Seriously, I'd like to know what you consider to be inevitable in the long-run, given our current methods of electing candidates?