...So Did Ya' Get The Memo?

Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, decided to paint the political landscape purple when he recently announced that he would be supporting Senator Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

Finally, someone – not only the former Secretary of State, but also a Republican – took the leap into the light side of the force by selecting a candidate who actually addresses issues of his choice, rather than simply the party of his choice. What’s eye catching about the story is not so much that Colin Powell is a public political figure who has updated the media on his positions with the election, but that he unhinged himself from the chains of his political orientation to support the Democratic candidate.

Once seen as a possible presidential candidate himself, the retired U.S. General expressed his opinions of Obama on NBC's "Meet the Press,” stating that he views the Senator as a “transformational figure” and someone who is apart of a “new generation coming onto the American stage.” He also commented on the negative effects that the McCain campaign has contributed to the Republican candidate through their attempts to tie Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.

Since leaving the Bush administration, the former General has, for the most part, steered away from politics. However, the possibility of his endorsement had been rumored for several months. Although Powell donated the maximum to John McCain's campaign in the summer of 2007, he stated in February on CNN that he was weighing an endorsement of a Democratic or Independent candidate.

Going back to the polarization of candidates and their respective parties through our electoral system, Powell’s political backing cancels out the presupposition that the system has set up for members of a party to vote only for their party’s ticket, regardless of issues surrounding the candidate and regardless of one’s opinion of the candidate’s rhetoric.
By taking a more personal stance with his choice rather than a political one (no pun intended), Powell stepped outside of the parameters that have been mapped out by our two-party institution.

Although “party flopping” has been a taboo of American politics, there is a point to be made about core values that seem to stay consistent for people while other interests change with the weather. We do in fact possess the freedom to choose to change our minds on other issues and therefore alter our party affiliation if the issues become significant enough to cause one to realign. If a person supports certain aspects of both and cant seem to settle completely with one or the other, that person is more likely to be referred to as a “party whore” than a diversified constituent interested in a multitude of issues with respective positions on those issues. I have found myself at this very crossroad on many occasions and I highly doubt that I am the one special person among hundreds of millions of other U.S. citizens who feels this way.

It is actually quite ironic to think that American consumerism and capitalism epitomize choices and endless options, and yet they are paired with a political system completely opposite to it in nature. This “you’re either with us or you’re against us” false dilemma mentality will continue to pull people and parties further away from each other, blinding Americans from what we really need to focus on as a world power trying to gain our good reputation back – unity.

Powell’s position definitely shines a light on the ability to re-cultivate the landscape to nurture a political arena with potentially more options.

Options are what Americans know. So, along with the corporate employee who would rather take the elevator down 100 floors to the Starbucks around the corner to order a grande, non-fat, no water, 180 degrees, chai tea latte, than have a cup of coffee from the office kitchen that’s 10 feet away, why can’t we create the same market of options involving politics?