When 22 years is not enough...

When 22 years is not enough….

There is an undercurrent in the political realm that is beginning to challenge the (CW) conventional wisdom of retaining incumbent elected officials. Never doubt the good intentions of those who seek to hold political office. Without people willing to take a stand and challenge an incumbent, we all get more of the same. That is the problem we face when we go to the ballot box and cast a vote. In the back of our minds, we all want stability and balance. In biology it is called homeostasis: the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, esp. as maintained by physiological processes.

It is a fact voters become conditioned to project good feelings on their elected officials. It only makes sense that they, the elected officials, above anyone else have my best interest at heart. So we have come to accept this as a normal pattern in our elective process.

Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).

There is however an unforeseen risk in this behavior and it is born out in the progressive movement that is threatening the very freedom we Americans hold so dear.  We have been lulled to sleep by our own success and only recently, have the effects begun to hit home, with those of us that work and share that American Dream. The alarms are going off all around, but we are frozen in our inability to adequately respond. So I will end this essay with a question. Will two more years in office for an incumbent make it better or worse? That is for you to decide in the Primary on May 20th.