|
|
Monday, February 09, 2004
|
|
BULLSHIT POLITICAL ISSUES
Earlier I wrote about how politicians like to campaign on ridiculous issues that really can't make much of a difference to the average voters life and how the average voter laps it up because the truth is scary and it's very hard to enjoy the Super Bowl Half time show petrified. It works out for everybody in the end. All of the political parties are guilty of this and the voters are guiltiest of all because they allow it to continue.
Imagine if both President Bush and Senator Kerry were given sodium pentathol just before a debate and were asked about say, Social Security. Both would acknowledge that the system as it is currently set up is the ultimate ponzi scheme and is a disaster waiting to happen. They would both openly admit that the only way they could come close to stabilizing the system is to raise the retirement age, jack up payroll taxes and cut benefits. Means testing might actually be seriously considered. And then everyone in the country would go fucking bananas. Nobody actually wants to work longer and pay more for something they feel that they're entitled to and they'll cut the nuts off of the first empty suit that suggests that they should. Accordingly most elections are vapid exercises in debating who loves their mom and the flag more. While this is especially true in the United States, it's by no means exclusive to it. There's only been one major candidate who ever came close to having a "you want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!" moment. That was Ross Perot. And Ross Perot did this because he is a lunatic.
So, most elections are about trivial bullshit. Don't get me wrong, I like trivial bullshit. I'm thrilled that presidential candiadites are actually talking about Janet Jackson's naked milkbags without giggling. I'm really big on the absurd. That's probably why I don't get laid much. Go figure.
This should be a serious campaign with divergant ideas expressed in a rational debate. These are serious times. Since George Bush was elected, 3,000 Americans were killed for no other reason than they went to work that day. Deficits are skyrocketing. This could be the first election in my lifetime where the true function of government in a democratic society is debated in a thoughtful way. And it won't be. That would be crazy for the political class to do. The one thing that would be revealed is that Republicans and Democrats are pretty equally full of shit. A serious debate would annhilate the two party system.
Right now the campaign seems to be centered on where each candidate was between 1968 and 1972. This is only a momentary distraction. Things will get much dumber soon.
Instead this election will be about two things; Iraq and gay marriage. People think I'm crazy for suggesting this, but just wait. By mid-summer the only things people will be talking about is homo nuptuials and whether Saddam Hussien should be shot before or after his trial. The candidates will mention things like national security and the budget deficit but only in the most superficial way. Instead reams of newsprint and hours of television time will be devoted to whether Billy should have two Daddies.
I can understand why Team Bush would want to go with these issues. They'll win the argument. The Democrats are nuts to want to debate either issue given their positions. Say what you will about the Republican stand on these issues, but there's nothing ambiguous about them. Bush didn't like Saddam, so he invaded his country. Kerry is going to have to stand up and say, "Well, I voted for the war but I was against it. I still would've launched the invasion but only if France let me although I'll never give anyone a veto on American security." I've seen acid casualties make more coherent arguments.
Kerry's position on gay marriage is even funnier. What is the Senator's view on that?
"I'm against gay marriage."
Well, I thought your party was gay friendly. Why not let 'em get hitched?
"That's easy. I support civil unions."
And that's different from gay marriage how?
"For starters, the word 'marriage' isn't in the phrase 'civil unions.'"
So if you don't use the word "marriage", you're for gay marriage?
"I suppose, but it can't be called marriage. Marriage is a special institution between a man and a woman. Even my first and second wives agree on that."
Bush doesn't dig gay marriage. Not one bit. He doesn't like it so much that he'll amend the consititution to ban it (overlooking the fact that the president has no place in the ammendment process.) The odds of such an ammendment passing are about the same as Bush interrupting his State of the Union address next year to belt out the chorus of "It's Raining Men", but it does make for a good sound bite. He might even get to use his dad's neat "read my lips" line.
But the Republicans do have a consistent line. And recent polling seems to indicate that most people agree with it.
I hope everybody's ready for 10 months of Janet's cans, Saddam TV and lots of guys dressed like Cher tongue kissing. You get the democracy you ask for, folks. My American readers shouldn't feel bad though. Canada is expeted to hold a federal election in the next couple of months. And we won't even get to discuss stupid issues. The only bone of contention is whether the governing Liberal Party should get a giant majority or an Earth shattering, Stalin in the '30's, monster, ass-kicker of a majority.
And John Kerry comes accross like Britney Spears on television compared to Canadian politicians.
|
|
|
| |
