This week’s “Choose and Defend” takes place during an imaginary presidential election year.
The race for the presidency is crowded with executive-looking candidates who speak in platitudes that have been honed to a sheen over years of practice. They don’t offer any actual solutions, mind you, just platitudes and guarantees that poverty, homelessness, famine, and death will all miraculously vanish once elected, but man do they look presidential while they’re standing at the podium.
Except for one candidate. This guy is earnest, honest, sincere, and has a track record of getting things done. He has actual, feasible plans for every crisis that matters to you and many that don’t. He possesses the genius of Stephen Hawking, the compassion of the Dalai Lama, the financial savvy of Warren Buffett, and the military brilliance of Eisenhower. In your estimation, no better presidential candidate has ever presented him or herself.
The only problem? The candidate suffers from Proteus syndrome, or Elephant Man’s Disease. This last candidate is truly difficult to look at, his disfigurement so great that he drools when he speaks — which, by the way, is difficult to understand through the gurgling.
So, do you vote for the empty suit who talks a good game, or do you vote for the horribly disfigured candidate with substance? Be honest, and defend your answer in the comments section below. And come one, people: Let’s make Laura B. proud.
Categories: choose and defend
Damn you! I suppose if I could get used to the ugly faces of LBJ and Tricky Dicky, I could vote for the Elephant Man. I’m that desperate for a quality candidate. I will also admit that, yes, looks affect my attitude towards people. Are you happy now?
Yeah, I kinda am 😛
Horribly disfigured candidate with substance, hands down. Because if he is truly repulsive to look at, I can simply listen to what he is saying or enjoy the fruits of the progress he is making. Plus, I am legally blind, so when I remove my glasses, all of you are just walking, talking blobs.
The “legally blind” gambit. I didn’t plan on that one….
I would have no problem at all voting for a President Merrick. If he is truly a person who would do what needs to be done to better the country, then he should be elected regardless of his appearance. Unfortunately, that’s not the way it is. Appearance matters. I’ve heard that after the Nixon/Kennedy debate people who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won, while those who watched on TV thought Kennedy had won. Why? Because Nixon looked older, nervous and perspired noticeably.
While some vote only for their party’s candidate, others cast their vote only because of appearance. The first this, the first that, the relative. They want to be a part of that. And that’s sad, and scary.
Voting to win rather than voting for substance is scary indeed.