P – Politics, not as usual, please.

What if politicians could only talk about themselves?

Is anyone out there tired of politics and election rhetoric? Had enough of the abusive name calling and blaming others for everything? Well, I have a new idea that I would like to put forward.

As a teacher, when students are having a conflict, we ask them to only use “I” statements in instead of blame statements. “I did this when that happened.” or “I feel bad when you do that.” instead of “Let me tell you what he did.” or “He’s the one started that.”  If only politicians followed the same rule.

So here’s the new guidelines: For anyone that wants to run for any political office, local, state or national, not only will you need to be qualified based on whatever rules are required for that position, and have the correct amount of signatures, if any, necessary to be on the ballot, but throughout your campaign you are only allowed to talk about yourself and what you bring to the table.

I need to clarify the last part of that idea. Maybe, once I explain it,  one of you readers can word it better than I did and propose it as a law. I am not advocating prospective candidates go on big ego trips, though some probably will.  It would be nice to know all of your great accomplishments and what your plans are should you get elected, but you shouldn’t be allowed to say anything about any of the other candidates. Personally, I really don’t want to hear what’s wrong with the existing office holders or what’s wrong with the present system. If you are a good candidate, then I should know that based on what you propose and my own knowledge of the existing situation what is going on.

It would be nice and even required since there won’t be anyone pointing out your faults, that you present those faults as part of your own speeches.  “These are the mistakes that I’ve made over my tenure on this issue and here is what I’ve learned from those mistakes.”

To go along with these new rules, it would still be appreciated having impartial fact checkers and also non-partisan groups that present what the issues are and show what each of the candidates stand for. Since the negative attacks that fill the airways about each person wouldn’t exist, people could decide on their own which candidate supports their opinion and they should vote for rather than who they should vote against.

Of course, all this assumes that the voters, not only are knowledgeable about the issues but are willing to hear what all the candidates are saying about themselves with a critical mind.

What if that had to be part of the law too?