Herbie Mann Comin' Home

Monday, December 6, 2010

Guess Who



In the spirit of never-say-anything-about-a-person-unless-you-say-something-good, no names shall be mentioned.

Think of, say, a third-rate political unknown plucked from an obscure backwater and given a national sounding board. Originally, this is done to add youth and vigor and a sense of gender-balance to a political ticket led by an aging man with a history of a worrisome health issue.

After being exposed for the hack she is -- shamed out in the open for her utter mediocrity and slipshod understanding of matters -- all that's left of her virtue is anger and sourness, choler and bile. She's got skill in rallying and in producing froth among those who also want to be angry.

After her loss, circled by friendly advisors, she backs off, 'writes' a book, and proceeds righteously to revenge herself on the sensible world, re-packaging her campaign message as an onslaught on the constructive programs of the victors.

Now no longer supported in candidacy, but paid flat-out by the most self-serving, retrograde power tacticians, she makes incitement the first rule of citizenship. Drawing an inspirational page from her athletic days, any idea involves itself in a contest, and contests are, after all, a kind of warfare without guns, a winner-take-all, a chest-bumping, crotch-grabbing, opponent-drubbing, soul-gutting assault-and-battery.

And with breath-taking irony, it's that kind of America she considers foundational, democratic.

This is 'campaign politics' at its worst -- indeed, not even in 'campaign season'.

This is not 'government'; this is the antithesis of government.

I'm sure The Founding Fathers understood 'the rabble', and it's for their fear of the kind of thing this woman and her corporate funders do, that we have our Byzantine form of 'checks and balances' within National power, Federal system, staggered election terms, bicameral legislature, Electoral College, and so on.

So misled people don't swivel control into the hands of demagogues.

Lucrezia Borgia poisoned men. This woman poisons the system.


.

4 comments:

  1. Don't sugar coat it, TF. But you're absolutely correct. Truth is, both sides of the political fence, if you will, are still bound by barbed wire. Both are filled with corrupt, arrogant, power hungry, self-serving scoundrels who are fed by what I called a number of years ago the "corprotocracy" that hand picks the person who will sit in Oval Office and further enrich the goals of those mega-rich masters.

    And in my opinion, nearly all of them are criminals. Republican? Democrat? Not 10cents worth of difference in the two.

    So? We're all doomed. Period. Doesn't matter who we "vote" for. Elections are simply a dog and pony show, with the exception, perhaps, of local and some state elections. Beyond that: It's fixed.

    BUT. To this unnamed person you write about, there is some redeeming value: She has offered the American public reason to be engaged. Saturday Night Live and other entertainment venues provide the public with the mind-numbing drivel that keeps them from REALLY being engaged, and being engaged intellectually.

    After all, if the American public understood her (and others) as you do, then the corprotocracy might not wield as much power, and the masses would be in control.

    Perish the thought!

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rick,

    Thanks for all this -- it keeps me honest! Here's my problem. The whole idea of 'engagement' has now become suspect to me.

    Yes, for sure, rich interests steer much of what goes on -- not only in national politics and in state legislatures, but now in state initiatives and so on.

    I think there is a legitimate and healthy disagreement, more than a dime's worth of philosophical direction between the major parties.

    The GOP holds true to a belief that freedom needs a strong commercial foundation. They're not wrong. Aiding businesses -- big or small -- does promote our economy and helps us generally.

    The Dems strongly commit their focus to a somewhat 'social democratic' view, where a 'safety net' is defined more generously and where those who can't do well in a simply commercial world simply need to have resources diverted to them on, well, at least humanitarian grounds.

    If the weak are nourished, they may eventually become strong, and rather than a liability, they become an asset.

    The respective policies the parties put out reflect that. But self-interested lobbies are potent and gain access to bend things as much their way as possible.

    We've seen this work. It's clumsy, and the average Joe (let's say 'us') isn't at the forefront of their discussions.

    What troubles me about the 'unnamed woman' is the 'populist appeal' -- pretending really to be in the corner of the average Joe -- but cynically being financed to the hilt by the most retrograde forces -- those you disparage in what you've said.

    Citizen anger never works well from the streets -- and in our current time, from the blared media sound bites.

    We're being served wrongly by talk. Rather than seeking accommodation and working through reason and conscience, the tactics of a shout-down.

    I've had long discussions with many people, and find the best ones are with those not sharing my views.

    America has to see itself as a community, one nation.

    Not 'red state/blue state'. That kind of contention is wrong politics.

    Trulyfool

    ReplyDelete
  3. But who are you talking about? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. orfeenix,

    A hint: not my mother.

    TFool

    ReplyDelete