Politics in America

I think the original grand design was something along the lines of: All people can’t possibly understand all the complex issues involved in government decisions. They can’t be asked to vote on every little issue, especially ones that they don’t care about. Worse, they’d vote while being uninformed, and really screw things up. To this end, we “hire” people, whose job it is to stay current on the issues, and vote on policies and laws. Our only voting responsibility is to hire these people. We try to choose someone who agrees with us, as closely as possible, and vote for that person.

Somewhere, it all went horribly, horribly wrong. Let me give you this brief timeline:

1789: Constitution Ratified.
1790-1997: Everything is fine.
1998: The concept of a “blog” introduced.
1998-2001: Downhill slide.
2001-Present: Every jackhole on the internet thinks they are well informed, and have opinions on every subject that everyone else is obviously interested in hearing. Or they insist on polluting the internet with stories of what their cat ate, what time they showered, their “mood,” or stories of how horrible their teenage female suburban existence is. Sometimes they do both.

It seems everyone wants to just vote on everything. Here’s a hint: The politicians aren’t interested. After 200-some years of fighting the constitution to get their way, they have pretty much figured it out. Let me detail the way to get your way as a politician:

Step 1: If you can somehow twist the problem into a religious debate, do so. If the other party doesn’t like your idea, question their religious devotion.

Step 2: If you can’t twist it into a religious debate, or they’re still not buying it, question their patriotism. Nothing says “pass my law” like a “what are you, a terrorist?” comment, or a catchy phrase like, “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”

Step 3: Failing steps 1 and 2, you have 2 options, and they are not mutually exclusive:

Step 3, Option A: Appeal to their intellect. By appeal, I mean question. Whenever someone questions your idea, ask for their detailed explanation of an obscure person/place/thing/theory on the spot. If they can’t answer immediately, say that they are wrong or don’t know, and thus your answer is obviously right. See: current evolution vs. intelligent design debate.

Step 3, Option B: Claim that your idea is right over and over. Tell all your party members to repeat your idea as fact. This way, the general public doesn’t have to think — with so many people saying your idea is right, they really don’t have to. That many people can’t be wrong, right? Then tell the public to mobilize, letting their representative know what they think. The representatives will then see that their represented peoples want your idea, and will vote accordingly. See: social security debate.

Step 4: Use only as a last resort. Sit down and talk objectively about the pros and cons of your solution, and come to a comprimise both parties can agree on. If no comprimise can be reached, try another idea. This hasn’t been seen regularly since late 1999. It was almost completely destroyed around September 2001. The crippled remains were firebombed in January 2004.

Note that modifications of Step 4 are being used, something I’ll call Step 3.9 since it seems to come before Step 4 now: Try half-heartedly to come to a solution, and when the opposing party cannot agree in a way that is acceptable to you, change the rules of the governing body (constitution, federal law, replacing judges, congressional rules of conduct) so that their petty little opinion doesn’t get in your way.

I’m glad my incredibly well-informed self could inform you. This site is my contribution to the “going to hell” of the world.