字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2012/02/24 05:20:23瀏覽225｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
| One of the problems occurring among the politicians is when they elocute with their fists clenched that they are ideal in fulfilling their political goals, they always intentionally neglect the idea that people might have already seen through their thoughts taking the audiences as idiots. That happens frequently in my native country, and I can illustrate with several ironically interesting examples.
One, now around 90, of our former presidents announced during his presidential tenure that he would go to the mountain villages to be a priest and help the disadvantaged aboriginals, which seemed to us that he would never mind the politics any more, when he retired. However, he later betrayed his somewhat rightist original―or maybe secondary― party, conducted the formation of an extreme leftist party and kept on showing his grouchily patronizing and cynical criticism on the succeeding presidents' policies. In this January, while the presidential and congressional election campaigns were going crazily on throughout our country, he showed up, voluntarily or not, and spoke up loudly to stand for another party's president candidate at the culmination of her biggest politics launching ceremony. This candidate later failed in the election, and the party she chaired won a number of congressional seats less than expected as well. I kind of think that if our 90-year-old former president had kept his promise to be a priest in the mountain villages, helped the disadvantaged aboriginals, and had not patronized his successors critically, his speech would not have exacerbated her campaign so much. Most voters tend to be convinced of what politicians do, not what they say; some even care about whether they keep promises or not. However, even if our former president had not showed up to support this candidate, I still don't think she could ever succeed this presidential election. She was another example that believed the audiences were idiotic enough not to see through what was behind her speech, or more exactly as I think, she had no sense that the voters would rather look into the actions she had been taking than listen to the speech she kept saying about some scandals she had got involved with. The fact verifying my thinking about her ignorance was quite easy to cite. Recently, she issued a report of self-criticism on the presidential campaign, in which she blamed her loss onto the sovereign advantages of the opponent candidate, the intervention of foreign governments, and the inversion of voters' confidence in her. Well, that was an another illustration of "Actions speak louder than words," for this self-criticism revealed that she could do nothing and was not responsible for her loss even though she vowed to win next campaign. On a lighter note, the extreme leftist party, which was conducted by our 90-year-old former president and didn't have any voice in the congress before, won three seats in this election. It looked like part of the voters, who had strong faith for leftism, were touched by his enthusiasm and voted for his party in the congressional election. That's kind of an irony, for she let her counterpart party's conductor make a speech in her ceremony, hoping to benefit her campaign only to lose 3, maybe 4, seats in the congress for her party, and this was, of course, not included as one of the reasons for her loss in the self-criticism. |
|
| ( 心情隨筆｜雜記 ) |
