Is there Any Way to Win?

[Khethil]

Is it just me or....

... are systems whereby we elect national leaders set up in such a way that we'll never get a good person elected? I've thought about this from time to time, and I'd like to try and enunciate it.

Below is a blog-sort that I wrote quite a while ago (actually, I think it was round abouts 2004). I'd like to submit to you fine people for comments, criticisms, agreeing or disagreeing. Please note: I wrote this a long time ago during a time when I was very much embittered. I hope you'll see through some of the inflamatory language and help give feedback on the logic of the notion itself. Thank you


A Losing Proposition

I have, for many years, wondered why every president seems unstable, stupid or downright evil. I've wondered what's wrong with our people... who elected these fools and why do we keep doing it? Well, I think I've found the answer, although it wasn't on purpose. As a matter of fact, I found it long after I'd given up looking; when I learned how our system works and realized that it's a very simple equation: The Rats win the Rat-race: The system the US employs to choose its President is flawed. Indeed the very values we extol the most, have no hope of surviving to the Presidency because of it. As long as we use our present system, we'll never have a good leader, and here's why.

Ambitious: For one, you must want it so badly that it becomes nearly your life's work. What kind of person wants authority, power and influence this badly? Haven't you noticed that its the folks who don't seek these things that are the wisest and most revered? A person who craves power and exudes ambition is a person who is also unstable; satiating themselves with that Gives-Me-Value component which makes them feel good. They are among the most insecure people you'll ever see outside a mental institution - and thus the person you can trust the least becomes the one you end up trusting with your life.

You must be willing to lie for it: There is no honest person who can withstand the amount of public scrutiny a candidate must, without the inevitable skeletons coming out of the closed - the only way to withstand this is to lie or otherwise conceal them. Further, no individual who's knowledgeable about the complexities of life is completely sure about all things (e.g., what is right, what is wrong). If any candidate is honest in their forthcomings, they inevitably piss great numbers of people off and they won't get elected. In order to be elected, you must carefully script your words so that you can positively effect your audience. Honest, straightforward talk doesn't accomplish this. What kind of person is a liar? Now, I lie... I think we all do at some time. The difference is that you expect your neighbor to lie from time to time about who's dog poop that is, not the president when they give their campaign promises, assure you they won't go to war needlessly or didn't have sex with their secretary (which, by the way is no one's ******* business). Imagine an honest person coming to a press conference to profess, "Yes... I lie sometimes". Guess who's *not* getting the votes. Honesty isn't rewarded - the American public, through this process, is lied to and doesn't care. You must cater to people you don't like, tell lies (both white and otherwise) - those who don't deceive successfully don't get elected.

You must be Self Serving: Most giving, kind, naturally-altruistic individuals wouldn't even *run* for public office. Of those that do, they find quickly that generosity doesn't get you campaign funds, generosity doesn't sufficiently humiliate your opponent's character - generosity doesn't get you elected. What kind of leader does one make, who's *so* selfish that he/she is able to get through all this? He or she is one who is willing to subordinate all for his/her own benefit. That, my friends, is a dangerous leader. And with the way our system is, that's the only kind of leader we'll ever, ever have.

You have to be Package-able: Ask anyone, and they'll tell you that to be a smart voter you must look *beyond* the packaging into the person. This is one of the reasons why personal prying into candidates' lives is so widely accepted: we want to know about the person, all their dirty little secrets (and many of us honestly want to make a good choice). Unfortunately, that's not what we do. We swallow their bull****, look past all the dodged questions and magically "forget" when they break yet another campaign promise. We just want to feel good - play the old High School popularity contest. Take Arnold Schwartzenegger; a movie star (of particularly mindless, yet entertaining, repute) who said almost nothing, and yet still dislodged the Governor's Seat in California. This is a text-book example of how little the American People look at the individuals entrusted with public funds, our futures, our lives. Like our breakfast cereal, we don't really care what the *substance* is, as long as the packaging looks good.

I'm ashamed at our behavior, our lack of vision and foresight. I ache for the time that I can see an Intelligent, thoughtful individual come to lead me and my people.

Thank you

[Didymos Thomas]

Of course good people can get elected. They take office all of the time. The higher the position, the more difficult to reach for a good person, but none the less, good people reach high office all of the time. Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Mike Gravel.

Do we tend to elect egotistical, lying scoundrels? You bet. But sometimes the electorate makes a decent choice.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Of course good people can get elected. They take office all of the time. The higher the position, the more difficult to reach for a good person, but none the less, good people reach high office all of the time. Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Mike Gravel.

Yes... yes... very good point. There has been good in some; just doesn't feel like it, to be sure.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do we tend to elect egotistical, lying scoundrels? You bet. But sometimes the electorate makes a decent choice.

Ah, pass me over a teaspoon of that positive political outlook, will ya?

Thanks DT

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm not very positive about politics. It's my opinion that politics, already a nasty endeavor, has become worse in the past twenty years or so. McGovern's loss to Nixon may have been a fatal blow to decent American politics, and certainly caused a great deal of harm to politics in other nations as well.

I do not like Obama, but when I compare him to other modern politicians, he looks like a step in the right direction. We'll see how things go, eh?

[Pangloss]

Political contests in modern America are now just another form of mass entertainment. People enjoy watching their side tear the other side to bits in debates and on tv shows. People tune in for the SNL debates to laugh at our moronic candidates, but yet also go out and hunt down the jewelry they have on because it's the latest trend in fashion. Now we have an entire satirical movie coming out that is based around the life of a president, and I'm sure it will be a big hit.

The state of politics in this country is a big joke, and everyone just continues to laugh away at it. Keep on laughing America, until one day you suddenly realize it has turned from funny to very scary.

[Khethil]

Thanks guys,

Yea I know I really sound like I've got an axe to grind there; and perhaps I do. But I honestly believe that those points have validity - that the way things are set up (and the nature of our people) almost preclude anyone decent being elected. Beware those who crave power, beware those talking out both sides of their mouth, beware those who're beyond ostentatious: Boom! Guess what kind of person we've got.

Anyway yea - and good perspective Pang: I'm thinking about your last sentance,

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Keep on laughing America, until one day you suddenly realize it has turned from funny to very scary.

Yesterday, the wife and I saw the last in a History Channel series on the Presidents. She actually picked the series - being the sweetie she is and recording that kind of stuff for me - and I was disappointed to see the title. But WOW, what a good series! It encapsulates each President's term and steps us through from Washington to George W. The point is, I actually felt some pride in a lot of our history (sometimes I fear I've become far too jaded). Then...

Last night we had some friends over; negativity ruled again I'm afraid, as we talked politics. The theme of the night was all of us - jokingly - deciding just how we were to go about moving to the backwoods of Canada or Australia. What I'm getting at is this: We're a people slow to move, tending towards selfishness and lassitude; and it takes a lot to get us caring about something passed our own little issues. Then I think about your statement, "... just keep laughing, one day... " and you're right; spot on.

I finally realized that we, as a nation, have no collective conscience (or the morality we extol) when I saw that despite the gross, abject and wanton murder we were committing in Iraq, the perpetrator of this (who used the pain of 911 to re-direct to his own agenda) was re-elected. And in that moment, with "all my devotion, betrayed", I started thinking about the "why" and came up with the initial post here.

So yes, I love my people very much. My dismay regarding our collective lassitude combined and non-nonchalant reaction to past betrayals does occasionally get calmed, it's just not very often.

Sorry for the rant and thanks again for the input.

[Pangloss]

In regards to foreign policy, I personally do not think it makes any difference who gets elected. The foreign policy advisors are all part of the neo-conservative camp, who believe in furthering the empire at every opportunity, and who were taught that Machiavelli is God. (Might = Right)

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

This philosophy dominates both the Dem. and Rep. camps. Congressmen can claim it was all Bush's fault, but they still voted to attack Iraq without provocation, and most of them have voted in support of the war since.

[Didymos Thomas]

The young do not remember.

Foreign policy has been dominated by hawks for thirty years or so. But ask yourselves why. The reason is that those in power have, for the most part, been hawks. These hawks give the good jobs to fellow hawks. Even Nixon was forced to end the war in Vietnam because of popular opinion. Popular opinion had been shaped by dove foreign policy advisers.

Politics has always been entertainment. Satire is as ancient as politics itself. I have a hard time buying this notion that somehow satire will drive the erosion of decent politics. Satire isn't just funny, it's also critical. So, yeah, let's laugh until we puke, and then remember the witty criticisms of the smile producing satire next time we vote.

[Resha Caner]

Are you familiar with Tocqueville? His theory was that democracy promotes mediocrity, and I am inclined to agree. If you study many of the "great moments" of American history, they were wrought by the more tyranically inclined of our Presidents.

Tocqueville attempts to show that autocratic government achieves more, and can be credited with the greatest of human moments. He also tries to show that it brings out the worst in human nature. His question then: are we willing to suffer horrible tyranny in order to achieve greater things? He concludes, no. Democracy is still the answer. Even if we sink to mediocrity, more people are better off in the long run.

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it's a fascinating study of how democracy works.

[nameless]

Our corrupt leaders mirror our own corrupt hearts.
Each individual is part of the whole. 'Self' evolution will naturally bring evolution of our 'reflections' in Washington.
That is where the real work lies, not in complaining about our corrupt 'mirrors', but in doing the 'work' ourselves that will bring an honorable, compassionate, charitable, intelligent, empathic 'change' in our reflections!
"Be the change that you want to see!"