Day 13
So I've grown a beard. It took a good two weeks, but it's nice and full now. It came in particularly reddish this time around; I usually re-grow it once every half a year or so. People seem to like it... "hey, cool beard man," they say.
---------------------------------------------------
So I've been following the presidential race down south of the border. It interests me as yet another wacky experiment in combining methods of mass psychological pursuasion with democratic theory. The republicans have absolutely dick all with which to advertize themselves, in terms of credentials over the last 8 years. Everything, I mean absolutely everything, has gone to shits in the country, in large part thanks to the policies of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. They've even managed to spread the bad times to other countries!
So, when you have nothing to run on, what do you do? Attack! If people don't want you in office, your only real option is to convince them they want the other guy in office even less. That, and promise to lower taxes. A two party system so readily invites negative politics, and, of course, the broad dichotomization of all issues.
Lowering taxes seems to the be the universal platform point. The democrats lie, raising taxes anyway. The republicans tell the truth, lower taxes, but spend anyway, using the old alternative to tax-and-spend, the "Don't tax, spend anyway" logic of economic theory. Other than crippling debt, inflation, and relative currency devaluation, it works great.
Of course, there are more ways for a government to save people money. Ask anyone without health insurance.
Nobody is talking about the war anymore. Both parties seem to have concluded that the topic (reflective of its substance) is too volatile to raise in campaign points. I suppose, though, that it is a logical consequence of the system. Individual candidates are so utterly controlled by the process that it's all they can do to keep their jobs. The effort to become elected becomes artificial; it is little more than pandering to the vote and faking outrage at the opposition.
Genuine dichotomies are rare, and as such, a two party system is in most ways illegitimate. Most issues of governance are multi-faceted, as is the 'political spectrum.' When for a fast number of voters there is no appealing candate on the ballot, the democracy is undermined.
Truth be told, there may be no possible way to lend legitimacy to a system with such a powerful executive branch. I don't see how it is democratic to give so much power to one person, even if by general election. I believe in democracy with great confidence, but that confidence is matched in level by fear that the process of democracy is devalued, at its most fundamental level, by a public uninformed of the issues at hand.
---------------------------------------------------
So I've been following the presidential race down south of the border. It interests me as yet another wacky experiment in combining methods of mass psychological pursuasion with democratic theory. The republicans have absolutely dick all with which to advertize themselves, in terms of credentials over the last 8 years. Everything, I mean absolutely everything, has gone to shits in the country, in large part thanks to the policies of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. They've even managed to spread the bad times to other countries!
So, when you have nothing to run on, what do you do? Attack! If people don't want you in office, your only real option is to convince them they want the other guy in office even less. That, and promise to lower taxes. A two party system so readily invites negative politics, and, of course, the broad dichotomization of all issues.
Lowering taxes seems to the be the universal platform point. The democrats lie, raising taxes anyway. The republicans tell the truth, lower taxes, but spend anyway, using the old alternative to tax-and-spend, the "Don't tax, spend anyway" logic of economic theory. Other than crippling debt, inflation, and relative currency devaluation, it works great.
Of course, there are more ways for a government to save people money. Ask anyone without health insurance.
Nobody is talking about the war anymore. Both parties seem to have concluded that the topic (reflective of its substance) is too volatile to raise in campaign points. I suppose, though, that it is a logical consequence of the system. Individual candidates are so utterly controlled by the process that it's all they can do to keep their jobs. The effort to become elected becomes artificial; it is little more than pandering to the vote and faking outrage at the opposition.
Genuine dichotomies are rare, and as such, a two party system is in most ways illegitimate. Most issues of governance are multi-faceted, as is the 'political spectrum.' When for a fast number of voters there is no appealing candate on the ballot, the democracy is undermined.
Truth be told, there may be no possible way to lend legitimacy to a system with such a powerful executive branch. I don't see how it is democratic to give so much power to one person, even if by general election. I believe in democracy with great confidence, but that confidence is matched in level by fear that the process of democracy is devalued, at its most fundamental level, by a public uninformed of the issues at hand.
Comments