Graduating from the Electoral College: Intermission

Updated: Apr 12

Interlude: Well, If We Have No Choice



How did it come to be that every choice, in every election, is a choice between two or more Politicians trying to get reelected (even if they’re not Lifelong Politicians, why do they still sell us the Politicians Lie, in order to collect our votes)? Why do candidates feel the need to win at all costs? What happened to the representatives that could give it to us straight; and why does everything feel so warped in Politics? To walk this line of reasoning to its bend, we should first try and establish in what ways the Politicians Crooked Grin isn’t eternal (that it stretched wider than the Representative’s Candid Smile), and how the Self-Serving came to replace the Servers of Societal Good (through the transformation of the representative into a pragmatic existence [if the vote is what makes or breaks a politician, then the politician can only go as far as his base allows].


Before the Politician’s Drive entirely consumed our officials, how did the voter speak to the Representative? How did they win Elections without perpetually pandering to voters? The proof lies in the vote, and how it wasn’t yet reaped from the voters (unlike today, where thin hands gnab to secure one more vote from the voter’s wallet). Before our election was reduced to being all about the vote, there was an implication that informed the election of each representative, and what that election meant for the voters relationship with them. That the they knew they were only there to represent political life, and that the politics they were subject to, didn’t needlessly reach outside of the Political World (while some Domestic Issues are frankly raised as Political ones, such as Infidelity in a supposedly Christian State, or Beliefs in the Church’s Worldly Supremacy in a supposedly Secular State, these would always have their uses to the Election at hand {That Lincoln’s Law Degree may have helped him to better question the Legality of Slavery, that Taft’s softer more indulgent mind-set might have helped him to be a counterbalance to Teddy’s Needling Activism}. That the political participant knew the intended depth of politics (or how shallowly it intended to tread), and more importantly, that the voter was able to rely on the Intended Representation of those being Elected, to affect their stay in office (When they play the role of Government Official, there was not as clear a divide of a Public Political Face used for Campaign, and a Private Political Mind used for Legislation, it was harder to show a Politicians Public Leanings, without revealing their private conclusions about what they were doing [Since Gambling and its Cultural Themes like ‘a poker face’ hadn’t yet metabolized in the once simple towns of America]). So the best move for a Politicians, was just to be a good statesman (or war hero, if they’re Grant or Jackson), and to let that goodness show the best they can.


The problem of the politician arises when our methods of demonstrating the Representatives as they are Political Representations in an Ethically Bound Legislative Body (someone on a platform, speaking their truth into law, so to speak) shifts away from strictly being about the representing they will manage to get done in their office (even in today's elections, voters could validate their assumptions about previously elected candidates by combing through their voting history and then cross-analyzing that with personal beliefs, to see how they match up compared to the other candidates, but more than likely these voting histories will only really be a part of the election when they’re politicized and distributed en masse: by a News Entity, or as a Part of the Party’s Campaign, or as ammunition in the local astro-turf war), mostly because the means of portraying how the Politician could serve the office (the promises and implications of their Candidacy), have become more sophisticated than the office itself (If something like Voting Histories or Legislative Bill Contributions {both a little fussy as an ideological indicator, since Politicians are already in the habit of checking the glances the public takes at these} gets emphasized in a race too early, then whatever potential importance that ‘factual evidence’ had begins to get used up starting when it is made issue {importance which could dissipate quickly if it isn’t particularly egregious, and the defendant has a sensible enough response to the accusations}, and when brought up in later iterations of debate (when it is repeated), the defending party will feign weariness at the rediscussion of such a thing as their voting history (will make it know that this is a repetition, and imply heavily that this particular repetition clogs up the election process), and will then implement a rather tricky quip to try and thwart their opponents ability to discuss, in all this what becomes important in an election [which Politics in the culture becomes], is not the relevance of these ideologies to something as paltry as, say a political office, but finding a quip that is capable of demolishing another high-polling quip [which will certainly be used, until it polls poorly]. This gives a weird tail-wriggling situation,

Where:

Representatives Campaign to get in Office

Politicians get in Office so they can Campaign

My argument isn’t meant to just bemoan the system and politicians abandoning more traditional reasons for doing what they do, more than that, I wish to point out that the only thing that Politicians actively generate [through their existence and what's not] is their campaign [and what that means to the Election]. You could say that Politicians should also be Law-Makers, but the essences of our Laws are mostly written by a shadowy intelligentsia that never see the light of an election. You could say they are supposed to be compromisers and diplomats, but those actions seem to be more a duty of their advisors and their friend’s sound ‘advice’. You could say they are our Representatives, but who they actually represent changes as the Election draws nearer. The only marker of a politician’s success, is their ability to get elected (its their only real value: to lobbyists, to other elected officials, to their own party, to those who risk their vote to elect them) and that issue cries louder for them than any Ethical or Contractual concern.

So what do the Politician’s do for us, if they’re too busy to do their jobs

And for that, we need to know what it means to have a peoples’ voice, and cries for Liberty

When someone can finally hear them


(Background Music Playing): And the Lives We Don’t



In fear of missing the election by even a single percent (it isn’t yet clear why politicians would want to run close elections), the Politicians hold them early, and call the second unofficial election a poll (and they’re constantly fretting about how they’re polling will help them come election time, and how being elected will help them poll, and such blissful nonsense). The next question then is this; if Politicians change their behavior because of how their behavior polls (is implied to have an impact to their electability), and the Politicians change what sort of Representative they’ll be for these polls, then what is the difference between the Polls and the Actual Election? While polls aren’t surefire ways of determining election, they’re suspected use in determining the places of the race (Clinton is ahead in the Polls, Biden is ahead in the Polls), shouldn’t be ignored if the voter wants their voting to matter (more reliable votes have more sway with politicians, who always look to touch base with those who already plan on voting), and crucially, polling may determine more of the Election Run (what promises are made, and when they are made [and the election is always running in the background]), than the final outcome of an accounted for election (where the final vote is a cashing in on the numerous checks a Politician’s mouth has signed, and can’t respectfully ask them to write too many checks at the voting booth).

There are a couple of main-line problems with this way of running our politics. The most obvious is that polling’s power cheapens the Official Legalized Vote, and sets up more disparities in the voter (when they have more time, and or money). It could also be said that polls create issues needlessly (say about a politicians hair or hands), that aren’t usually their responsibilities to take care of (and what that means for the laws they enact) Another trick of this system is the general lack of accountability. To ask a politician (in this case a very corrupt one), why they played the political game in the way they did, will result in a particularly confused testimony (that his corruption is done, but not by them, because it is their understanding somehow, that everyone else is corrupt), where the particular politician under scrutiny is unable to give a full account of their particular political success (almost like they’re under an oath not to reveal it). They’re lack of awareness harkens to a terminology of the fledgling America, and her fortunes. Like their misfortune at Capital Hill is a sort of Devil’s Providence, and that the dregs will always wash to the bottom.

So how can we trust these unreliable politicians to tell the voter what they want to hear, that they have listened in on the Pulse of America, and are now going to resuscitate it, without doubting their intentions (everything they say, and even that which they don’t) for creating such a relationship with the voter in their own image [for their own ends]? How can we use the poll to establish values that cross party lines, and enforce a promise that everyone wants the candidate to keep (maybe at least try to have less corruption, regardless of affiliation, for example), when they are represented in such Red & Blue terms [the question of if a good conservative is corrupt or not doesn’t enter the mind of a staunch conservative, and is already answered for the radically liberal, and vice versa)? What is there in the conservative world that allows for the continuation of liberal thought (where do the political lines blur into a Authentic American flavored broth), and is this process salvageable from political divisions that cut deeply, something that can never be separated (namely, the liberal and the conservative)?


If something like a liberal thought is fundamentally never employed [never in the state of being made real], or loses its credibility as a truly liberal thought when eventually established; and the conservative employment of these tired old work horses of once liberal thoughts, lay no ultimate claim to anything {the land [the vote is continued], its development [the party plays while it can], and its fruits [the direction is never the result of one platforms intentions, and cleverer yet, never the platform’s fault]}, then what is it that binds America (of course I mean bound here to the mortal realm, and not something silly like it's in each of our dreams, or its already crammed into historic tomes that were printed with dust on them). How can we be so sure that America still exists after years of lazified divisiveness (that Tom too can live the lifestyle of a Political Dissident doing his Civic Duty), and not only that it does exist as some political entity resulting from its past momentum which no individual could overthrow, but that it persists as something worth saving, as something to be ‘Progressively Improved’, or made ‘Great Again’ (depending on your Politicks of course)? But to try and reach at these ‘American’ Principles, in all their glorious Unity {Life, Liberties, and Business}, makes them all the more frustrating when again the eyes are drawn to the Duality of our Political Environment {Public vs Private, Informed vs. Enforced, Government vs Economy}


And when I wanted to know one thing, I found it very annoying, that it was said both ways

And when I wanted to know something,I found it interesting, that there was another way to say it

When questioning our State

Why do we live in this perpetual state of irony, that can neither accomplish the Radically Dissenting Act [Create a world purely out of our thought], nor admit Responsibility for the Repeated Occurence of Thought’s Failure as Life [Accept the world after it is made real from those thoughts]? What purpose does it serve to detach so wholly from our mission [to guide liberal thought into its realization], to serve the coup d’etat while in the states employ, and wait for Socialism come, or the Past to come back. Why do we say that the brush fire started on the fence’s worse side, whenever we are asked why we are on fire?

And when looking for answers

Who is it that sees the victims’ hands trembling in an accusation, and glibly shakes it, pointing them further down the street to catch their killer? Who is it with bloodied hands, blames a rage, a frenzy, a loss of control; and suddenly holding the knife, drops it? Who is it we can put the hurt on, and who will be redeemed.


The Deposed King of Comedy Presents:



When I was young, my Grandpa gave me some good advice

He says, he says

“(Grand) Son,

There’s gonna come a time in your life where people come around asking what it all meant

There gonna ask you what it is that you’ve done

And why you did it

And when you’re facing that trial

On that Judgement Day

And those people are asking their questions

And those people are looking for answers

You must remember to not say anything

Don’t reveal anything prematurely

Don’t give them a reason

Cause its your reason that they’ll use

Just tell them you don’t know

You never knew

Or better yet, tell them nothing

...

Tell them it was a joke

It all was just some great big joke

That got out of hand”


Happy April Fools Everybody

And let the Festivus begin


-Politikos


By Jakob Perez


0 comments

Recent Posts

See All