Saturday, April 28, 2012

The Whole Thing Is a Sham

Let me preface this with a statement: Being an awful human being, I've had more than one alcoholic beverage as I'm writing this.  So if this article blows or has major spelling/gramatical mistakes, then please forgive me at least just this once.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, oddly enough over a few drinks, and I remarked about how passionate she is about her politics.  She's a true blue Democrat.  I just couldn't help but marvel at how snowed she is.  And then I thought, "man, everyone is completely snowed."

Here's a true statment: if I thought the majority of people would vote for me, I'd tell them whatever the hell they want to hear.  And I mean that whole heartedly.  Hell, if I was elected, and then my district suddenly changed in allignment, I'd totally change with that allignment.

"Jack, you are exactly the problem!  You're a flip-flopper!"  No.  I'm just a guy who still believes in representative democracy.  GASP!  That still exists?  Well not really, because anyone who accuralely tries to represent the people, even if that means going against their beliefs, is automatically branded a "flip-flopper."

How ridiculous is that?  I mean, in a representative democracy can ANYONE be branded a flip flopper?  Here's what I think: I don't want a representative to vote his or her conscience.  I want them to vote how I want them to vote.

The whole damn thing is a sham.  It's all a big game in which people have made politics a career.  They don't really care about anything that you care about.  All they care about is that you'll vote for them.

-------------- This last part was written after I had sobered up --------------

Hopwfully I'm not the only one that gets this
Star Wars reference.

So the sham is that American politicians have turned politics away from thought, consideration, compromise, and disinterested objective discussion.  They've turned it into an arena of feelings.  They want you to want them to vote their conscience, because that's the "right" thing to do.  Gone are the days where logical thought had anything to do with politics.

I mean think about it: how logical are feelings?  Are our feelings always logical?  I would argue that our feelings aren't always logical.  There are people who, just by looking at them, make me feel like I want to punch them in the face.  I can't help it, afterall I can't really help how my brain reacts to certain stimuli, but just because I experience that feeling doesn't magically make it logical and valid.

A big problem in American society right now is that there's this contagion going around that makes people believe that all feelings are always valid.  It's a common thing women say when when their man has pissed them off in some trivial way, and the man tries to show her how illogical and flippant she's being.  The woman gets pissed off because the man is trying to "invalidate her feelings."

Yes!  We're invalidating your feelings because they're based largely on brain chemistry and hormones (not being misogynist, that's just science ladies).

But politicians today don't want to do that, because they know that feelings are hard to overcome.  So they inflame your sensibilities, they get you riled up, they play on your feelings.  They know that feelings are the way to make someone passionate, and so long as you're passionate about your politics you'll vote for whomever indulges your passions.

It's a sham.  They've got you voting for your feelings because they know that they'll keep getting re-elected.  Playing on the feelings of the people means that they will keep the people neatly and ever growingly divided.  That's what Republicans and Democrats truly want: a divided America.  When definitive lines are drawn, it's much easier to focus your re-election campaign.

Would that there were more people like myself who don't vote their feelings, then we'd see both of the corrupted parties crumble.


KP said...

Local, off cycle elections may see an even shiftier group of politicians. There are small turnouts and so many districts are gerrymandered that locals only have to pander to a small crazy group of motivated people. Two candidates in a gerrymandered district results in even wilder promises in an effort to out do the other fringe. That results in a representatives doing fringe shit.

It all makes the pendulum swing a little harder and national politics a little angrier and congress less effective.

Jersey McJones said...


You hit upon something that has bothered me since the Republican "Devolution" days of the 1990's:

Why the hell would anyone think that local government is somehow more accountable to the American public than state or federal government, let alone a private sector run amok?

The smaller the election the less the percentage of voters, almost always.

Hence, it is obvious that it can be rigged bad.

Yes, we need more localized government, but a purely "local" people cannot make that happen.


Silverfiddle said...

I am also tire of people screaming about flip-flops.

Jersey: The flip side to you devolution observation is that we are not a one size fits all nation.

DC is way too overbearing. We need to lop off about 50%, severely restrict them to the enumerated powers and turn the rest over to the states and the people.

My local and state government is way more accountable to me. I and millions of others know this by personal experience. It is much easier for me to go to city hall, or up to Denver than it is to get to DC and then by some miracle actually be able to talk face to face with an elected representative.