The entire world is in the middle of a health crisis — a crisis that extends its fingers out into economy, politics, and philosophy. In times such as this, humanity is forced to re-evaluate its priorities and take a second look at what it holds most important. I have mentioned before that the last Great Renaissance was ushered in by the black plague in Europe. While our current predicament may seem unusual and hopeless, the potential for this to turn into something extraordinarily brilliant is high. Our leaders, while in control of many of the most important aspects of our lives, and certainly to be held responsible for a lot of what’s been mishandled, are not really better equipped or prepared for this situation than anyone else. We would like them to be, but they aren’t.
It is also an election year in the United States, and we have in office one of our most controversial leaders to date. He might be a brilliant economist and businessman. He might be a crazy old man with too much free time for tweets and too much covfefe, keeping him up at night and explaining the excessive free time. It really doesn’t matter. He is a mortal man with an aged immune system and no experience with global pandemics. Do we want or need him in office for the next four years? I’m not sure, and I’m not going to answer that question. But if the worst thing you can think of is to vote for Trump this year. Then, to make a statement, “Well, I’d rather vote for Trump than vote for Trump!” Absurd. There are two ways to consider the situation, and two ways to handle the crisis, realistically. We leave the man in office, and hope he and his team can learn from their mistakes and deal with the crisis they’re already in the middle of dealing with (which is going to become largely economic), or we can kick him to the curb and give someone else the daunting task of picking up in the middle of an overwhelming problem. Who knows, it might be best to let fresh minds retool the machine and change direction entirely. In that case, vote for a 34 year old. I’m being serious… kind of.
Option number one, let the current team grow and continue to deal. If the ball continues to drop, can he be impeached for neglect? The masses are already slinging the death toll in the US over his shoulders. Either way, we give experienced men a chance to correct their mistakes and avoid a lot of unnecessary rework. And we have a money man in the drivers’ seat when the economic fallout starts to peel the skin off our backs. It isn’t a terrible idea to refrain from shaking a bomb before it’s disarmed.
Option two, pass the hot potato. It’s hot, and the recipient isn’t wearing gloves. However, real progress almost always comes from dramatic change. The question to consider is should so much change be forced at a time such as this? The more pressing issue is the handling of the pandemic itself. Consider the lives lost. It’s tough not to throw a finger and place blame on the easy target. There is a lot to be upset about, truly. There is more to be upset about if changing hands goes wrong. Yes, our current leader is blindly defending a lot, if not all, of his actions. So yes, it is sensible to assume the current team will not learn from the fumbles and will continue to stagger forward reaching in the darkness into exposed wiring for a light switch. This is a difficult year for the United States, and it will continue to be. A new team with fresh ideas and motivation to change the current trajectory of this crisis (and one that has no reason to defend past mistakes, having none to defend), will inevitably make a positive difference. The issue becomes the long term effect of the pandemic.
We will persist either way. I’m not here to push an agenda or to promote one side over the other, just to discuss the dilemma. However, I see this as an opportunity to overhaul a potentially unstable economy. Debt. Currency backed by the resources it trades, rather than a standard. New digital alternatives to resources (as backing). All things to consider. Bring in a new face, or ride the current wave?
What would you rather do?
Tweet
Politically Romantic 