In the summer of 2012, sitting a booth in the lunchroom of the basement of GE Aviation’s Building 800, I found myself subject to advertisement after advertisement of political candidates and issues.
This is a common occurrence; a result of living in Ohio during a major election cycle that I and my 11 million fellow Ohioans have become accustomed to. The swing state has chosen the correct presidential candidate for every election since 1960 (Kondik, 2011). In its 213 years of statehood, Ohio has failed to vote the president-to-be into office only twice, once in 1960 when it chose _ over John F. Kennedy, and in when it chose _ over Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The fact that it’s the 7th most populous state in the Union, a swing state, and bellwether when it comes to elections, makes for an election cycle that not only dominates the ads in the region, but also drives up the price to advertise as well.
Advertisements typically are thirty second segments filled with candid shots of American regalia with a voice over for why that candidate is the right candidate. They are typically funded by either super PACs (Political Action Committees) that have the backing of private donors and close affiliation but legally no ties to a political candidate (Federal Election Commission, n.d.), or the candidate’s campaign, which legally binds the candidate to appear and endorse the message at the end of the ad.
2012 was first presidential election I could vote in, and I was to do my due diligence as a citizen of the United States. I paid close attention to the candidates, the debates, their positions and the 24/7 media reports that followed them. The only thing that I didn’t give much attention to was their advertisements.
There was one political ad that stuck out to me though. It featured one man, sitting in a chair speaking to the camera and ran for well over a minute.
The message is one of ideological divide, something that gets lost in the sea of “he said, she said” media coverage. In the entire 93 second advertisement, Peterffy did not once mention either candidate, making his ad as relevant (and in some ways more so) today than it was in 2012 when it first ran.
Thomas Peterffy is a business mogul that emigrated here from Hungary in the 1950’s and founded a company that enabled electronic trading used on stock market trading floors.
After watching his ad I was much moved and frequently pulled it up on my personal computer.
Peterffy is a man who has no personal gain in impacting the election. His job does not depend on being elected, or supporting someone who was running for election. His position and interest seems driven solely by desiring the best outcome for this country. After four years of following the political process, this is something that I have known to be incredibly rare. News anchors drive an agenda. Politicians are at war with the other party to the point that defeating the opposite party appears to be more important than compromise for the betterment of the country.
Peterffy is the kind of statesman I would like to see in office. That’s the kind of statesman I would like to be (in office).
I don’t agree with Donald Trump, I don’t expect many to. In fact, I expect the Democratic Party to sweep the presidential election come November. But I fundamentally don’t agree with Democratic Party’s approach to running the republic. A country cannot be successful if a small minority of the population financially supports (commercial businesses) and pays for the salaries and handouts of the vast majority (government jobs and social programs).
The United States has been successful for hundreds of years because of the requirement to succeed. Ambitious, risk-taking entrepreneurs crossed the Atlantic and had to work hard to survive here. That is the culture we have had for many generations, and I feat with this push to socialism and reliance on the state we are losing something that has been so key to the success of our nation.
Business leaders (who follow the law) should receive admiration. They should not be told “you didn’t build that”, or resented for their success. Our country should acknowledge them as leaders and contributors to society, role models for the next generation. I frankly don’t understand the push for socialism and how anyone can think it is a good idea. As Peterffy said in his video, under socialism, the rich will be poorer, but the poor will also be poorer. If you are interested in increasing the quality of life for Americans, you’re not going to do it by increasing taxes, growing reliance on the government, and redistributing wealth to those that didn’t work for it.
Regulations like encourage citizens to be underutilized, to purposefully work fewer hours of work so that their salaries qualify for federal housing support, and to be satisfied with eating, drinking and relaxing on the dime of another American. I don’t blame the American people of being accepting of this money, I blame the political parties, particularly the Democrats for deliberately creating an environment where people depend on the government.
I’m not voting for Donald Trump, but I fundamentally disagree with the Democratic party and their drive to increase dependence on the government and its role in our lives. If you care about the future of the nation, I encourage you to consider what it means to live in a socialist country, and how that will impact the behavior of your peers to succeed.
As is obligatory in a political statement during the election cycle, I’m Taylor White, and I approve this message.