Sam Houston, a multifaceted personality in the world of journalism, wears many hats as a syndicated columnist, newspaper executive, author, playwright, actor, and entertainment producer/promoter. His rich tapestry of experiences provides him a unique perspective on the political climate and societal issues that we face today.
By the time this column hits the newsstands, the election will have come to a close, marking the end of a tumultuous and polarizing campaign season. The victorious candidates will be preoccupied with assembling their teams and preparing to assume office, while the defeated ones will inevitably voice their dissatisfaction, signaling a departure from the days when gracious concession speeches were a norm. It seems as though the spirit of camaraderie and acceptance has been replaced by a starkly competitive nature, perhaps indicating a deeper issue within our democratic processes.
Like many, I will breathe a sigh of relief once the election is finalized. The relentless barrage of political advertisements will cease, allowing for a brief respite from a cycle that, more often than not, fosters animosity rather than understanding. Many of these ads fail to provide substantive insight into candidates’ visions, opting instead to vilify opponents and instill fear among the electorate. I recently watched an advertisement, eagerly anticipating information about a candidate’s beliefs and policies, only to find it centered on disparaging the competition. The focus was not on promoting a positive agenda but rather on mobilizing voters through negativity. Both major parties are equally accountable for this counterproductive strategy, diminishing the potential for informed decision-making among voters.
For years, I have voiced my concern regarding the excessive duration and costs associated with the election process. It is mind-boggling that a presidential election cycle stretches nearly two years, taking up vital resources and attention. Surely, the billions spent could be better utilized to address pressing societal issues such as feeding the hungry, providing shelter to veterans, or tackling the national debt. Recent estimates indicate that this election cycle alone may have seen expenditures reach a staggering $16 billion nationwide. Does this endless campaigning yield a more knowledgeable electorate, or does it simply induce confusion and frustration among voters?
When examining the donations made during these elections, the figures are staggering. Certain individuals and corporations have contributed sums reaching up to $100 million. One cannot help but wonder what these donors seek in return for their immense financial investments. It seems logical to deduce that the payoff must extend far beyond a simple meal with the candidate or an evening in the historical Lincoln bedroom.
Reflecting on recent national elections, it is evident the margins between the two primary parties have been remarkably slim. My estimate is that fewer than 5% of Americans truly influence electoral outcomes, as the vast majority remain firmly entrenched in their party affiliations. No amount of campaigning or factual evidence appears capable of swaying these steadfast voters. This situation breeds frustration and encourages politicians to vilify their rivals, leading to a climate where the opposing party is treated with contempt and hostility. The division is palpable, as evidenced by the stark polarization in a nation that is essentially balanced between two viewpoints. Instead of seeking collaboration for the greater good, the minority party often resorts to stonewalling and obstructing proposals that would benefit all, hoping to deny the majority any credit for progress. Meanwhile, the majority often acts as if they possess an overwhelming mandate, disregarding their narrow hold on power. Bipartisanship has indeed become a relic of a bygone era, as what ultimately serves the American populace — every single one of us, not just select special interest groups — seems increasingly irrelevant.
It is imperative that we unite to navigate these turbulent waters. Our metaphorical eagle cannot soar if one wing refuses to work in harmony with the other. Without a collaborative effort, we risk spiraling into chaos and political despair. It is time to abandon the culture of hatred, blame, and animosity. Let’s focus on collaboratively solving the pressing issues our nation faces and cultivate a spirit of cooperation, regardless of who might receive accolades. The clock is ticking.
Thought for the day: “People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of a modern society.” — Vince Lombardi, Super Bowl-winning coach
Until next time … I will keep ridin’ the storm out!
**Interview with Sam Houston: Insights on the Political Climate and Journalism**
**Editor:** Good afternoon, Sam. Thank you for joining us today. Your experience spans various aspects of journalism and media. With the recent election season behind us, how do you assess the current political climate?
**Sam Houston:** Thank you for having me. The political landscape today is incredibly polarized, and this campaign season has highlighted that division more than ever. The candidates, once elected, will face an uphill battle in creating unity within their constituencies. Regrettably, the gracious concession speeches that we once took for granted have become scarce, indicating a troubling shift in how we engage in politics.
**Editor:** You mentioned the overwhelming presence of negative political advertisements and the lack of substantial information provided to voters. How do you think this impacts public perception and voter engagement?
**Sam Houston:** It’s detrimental, to say the least. Negative ads tend to dominate the narrative, often sidelining the actual policies and beliefs of candidates. This cycle of vilification serves only to incite fear and hostility among voters rather than fostering informed discussions. When voters are bombarded with negativity, it leads to confusion and frustration, which ultimately dilutes the essence of our democratic process.
**Editor:** You’ve also raised concerns regarding the financial implications of campaign cycles. With campaign spending reaching astonishing heights, where do you believe these resources could be better allocated?
**Sam Houston:** It’s staggering to think that billions are spent on campaigns—$16 billion in this cycle alone! Those resources could make a significant impact on pressing societal issues like hunger, homelessness, and education. Instead of investing in fear-mongering advertisements, wouldn’t it be more beneficial to invest in initiatives that promote community well-being and understanding?
**Editor:** Given the extensive donations made by individuals and corporations during elections, what do you believe motivates these contributors, and how does it affect our political system?
**Sam Houston:** That’s a critical question. When individuals or corporations contribute millions, it usually indicates a desire for influence. It’s essential to ask what they expect in return. The potential for quid pro quo arrangements can undermine the integrity of our electoral system, skewing it in favor of those with deep pockets rather than the interests of the average voter.
**Editor:** reflecting on our electoral system, how can we work toward a more informed and engaged electorate?
**Sam Houston:** Educating voters is paramount. We need to foster an environment where civic engagement goes beyond just casting a vote. It’s about encouraging dialogue and critical thinking about policies and the implications of our votes. By prioritizing transparency in campaigns and promoting a culture of respectful discourse, we can steer our political environment toward one that values collaboration and informed decision-making.
**Editor:** Thank you, Sam, for sharing your insights. Your perspective sheds light on the complexities of our political landscape and the role journalism plays in shaping public discourse.
**Sam Houston:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss these important issues.
