homegame

Democracy, Deader Than the Red Sox?

USUAL WARNING: SERIOUS ISSUE AHEAD. BORED MAY SKIP WITHOUT PENALTY

I have a dream. It will never come true. I dream of the day when an American politician takes a stand, turns to the electorate, and says, "fuck you if you can't take a joke."

There evidently aren't any mirrors in out nation's homes. Polls show a vasy majority of citizens are infuriated with the current state of affairs in the USA. No poll ever even asks said citizens "so much of that do you think is your fault?" The voters who're supposed to govern the country are never confronted with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead, they're allowed to pretend that elected officials were imposed upon us by our Martian overlords.

As long as that lie is allowed to stand, American politics will remain dysfunctional. This became clear yesterday as I confronted three political situations, all incredibly wrong for society, all the fault not of the polticians involved, but of the voters they were courting. One was trivial, one significant, one crucial. Each callled for laughter, rage, tears, or all of the above.

The trivial. The three Democratic candidates for governor of Massachusetts had a debate last night. (Full disclosure: My son has been a volunteer for candidate Deval Patrick for well over a year, and his old man could use a job.) Afterwards, two different "expert" analysts, Jon Keller and Dan Payne, said Patrick's performance was marred by a tendency to sweat.

Patrick will inevitably be asked about this by inquiring reporters today. I'll feel infinitely better about my upcoming vote if he'll say "What? What possible relationship do my sweat glands have with who'll make the best governor. Anyone who'd cast a vote on that basis is a complete moron, and any journalist who'd cite it is an ever bigger moron who should be fired immediately."

Won't happen. But if it did, Patrick would be a hero speaking truth to inanity.

The significant. As the "liberal" in the race, Patrick was naturally asked if he'd said "no" to the "special interests." You know, like cops, firemen, and teachers. Isn't it funny how those groups are hailed as society's true heroes until they show up at the pay window? Then they're wicked special interests.

Had Patrick wanted to commit a glorious act of political hari-kari, he could have said the following. "Sure I have. I said "no" to most of the voters in the state. I'm against rolling back the state income tax, and they're for it. They're wrong, and need to be told. Every four years, somebody peddles the fairy tale we can cut taxes without cutting services, and that's just a lie. People always would rather believe an easy lie than a difficult truth, but as long as they do, they're going to choose lousy goverment."

Patrick said no such thing, of course. He WANTS to be governor. But should he lose anyway, the candidate will have passed on his chance to strike a real blow for America.

The crucial. The president of the United States confessed to war crimes this week. That's not hyperbole. In revealing he'd authorized the secret CIA prisons everyone knew about, and the torture of terror suspects, George W. Bush was 'fessing up to quite specific violations of US criminal law, to wit, the War Crimes Act of 1996. Look it up, skeptics.

The president's solution to this awkward situation was to propose legislation that would make such acts retroactively legal and create military tribunals to try said terror suspects where the Constitution and most law created since Magna Carta would not apply.

Well, Bush is what he is, and he's not the subject here. What blew this citizen's mind was that "expert" Washington political observers unanimously agreed his speech was a political masterstroke. The president, they declared would force the opposition Democrats to take stands in favor of the rule of law and against two torture only two months before an election!

The unspoken subtext of this commentary is reasonably depressing. In the experts opinion, the majority of Americans are such cruel cowards they'd rather live under tyranny and endorses crimes against humanity than worry for one nanosecond they might get blown up by some Ay-rab, especially if they live in some Godforsaken hamlet were nary a Catholic, let alone Muslim, has set foot in decades.

Far more depressing, to date, no Democrat has contradicted this opinion. They're keeping a low profile on that controversial, "torture, good or bad?" issue. These worthies are such sad egomaniacs they honestly believe their phony-baloney careers are more important to the future of the Republic than upholding the oath of office they all swore on the Bible.

No. Politics is about stuff, and no stuff is more fundamental than "what s0rt of people are we?" A pol who's afraid to say "not the kind that holds secret trials and tortures people, thanks" because they're afraid they might be outvoted is of no use to anyone on any issue. Someone has to point out that it isn't Bush who's choosing evil, it's voters.

Taxes are onerous. The desire to pay as few of 'em as possible is human nature, and the proper level of taxation is an endlessly debateable issue where the best answer varies with circumstances.

Torture and the Constitution, not so much. Those are "for or against now and forever", issues. I know where I stand, and I don't have much interest in voting for any candidate who isn't willing to stand on my side-IN PUBLIC. ALSO LOUDLY.

For the undecided on this issue, let me say one thing. It's one where avoiding mirrors doesn't help. Choose evil, and the consequences will find you no matter what. As our current government apparently never heard, what goes around comes around.

Create a monster to fight a monster, and sooner or later one of the two eats you. Whether it's the one you built or the other guy's won't matter much.

posted by Michael Gee @ 10:09 AM