Just last night a thought fragment occurred to me. Do you know how some people were talking about the responsibility Trump voters would bear for electing a loose canon? This wasn't about policy preference, but about his instability.... and how someone who supported him would be responsible for knowingly electing him.
The thought fragment was this: It looks increasingly likely that Clinton will win in spite of the fact that her victory means giving the a-okay to corruption, not as an unfortunate side effect of her character, but as the driving force of her administration. In what way should such people, who knowingly elect her, be held responsible for 4-8 years of pervasive rot (above and beyond normal Washington corruption)?
In what way should such people, who knowingly elect her, be held responsible for 4-8 years of pervasive rot (above and beyond normal Washington corruption)?
That's the beauty of electing Democrats. No one is responsible. We'll surely find an Emmanuel Goldstein somewhere.
Of course. I don't have any illusions of actual people in authority being held responsible. I'm thinking more about garden variety centrists who will dutifully choose Clinton as if it were the "responsible" thing.
I'm wondering, I guess, about the nature of responsibility in a democratic system. We are so accustomed to the thought "I must choose A or B" that we don't question the wisdom of choosing in the first place. And by choosing we set up the dynamic for the next four years which is assigning blame and ducking it.
The system seems to be this. There is an acceptable and an unacceptable choice given to voters who are told they should vote because this is what makes them a good citizen. Voting is our glory. If the acceptable candidate wins everything is fine even if it isn't. If the unacceptable candidate wins then things aren't so good and it provides justification for the next acceptable candidate to do the acceptable things once he or she is elected. It seems as if there is a system of power that transcends who actually wins and loses. It's a system that guides us in our decision making and which isn't affected by elections. Isn't this the actual government? And if it is, what sense does it make to participate in the choosing which is really only a means of moving the process forward? Is it responsible to participate in this system that uses factions and strife to achieve its goals not ours?
I'm thinking more about garden variety centrists who will dutifully choose Clinton as if it were the "responsible" thing.
I don't have an answer for that. They don't have to answer to you or me, anyway. They may have to answer to their children.
For what it's worth, Hillary will be the one left holding the bag. She gets to be Herbert Hoover.
Is it responsible to participate in this system that uses factions and strife to achieve its goals not ours?
I don't know. I've scaled my own involvement way back -- I'm no longer involved in local politics at all, because it's become essentially impossible to move the needle in our district and I have other priorities at the moment. Maybe things will look different in a few years, but the hour is short.
5 comments:
Just last night a thought fragment occurred to me. Do you know how some people were talking about the responsibility Trump voters would bear for electing a loose canon? This wasn't about policy preference, but about his instability.... and how someone who supported him would be responsible for knowingly electing him.
The thought fragment was this: It looks increasingly likely that Clinton will win in spite of the fact that her victory means giving the a-okay to corruption, not as an unfortunate side effect of her character, but as the driving force of her administration. In what way should such people, who knowingly elect her, be held responsible for 4-8 years of pervasive rot (above and beyond normal Washington corruption)?
In what way should such people, who knowingly elect her, be held responsible for 4-8 years of pervasive rot (above and beyond normal Washington corruption)?
That's the beauty of electing Democrats. No one is responsible. We'll surely find an Emmanuel Goldstein somewhere.
The beauty of it is that it will still be Bush's fault, under the "Look what you made me do" defense.
Of course. I don't have any illusions of actual people in authority being held responsible. I'm thinking more about garden variety centrists who will dutifully choose Clinton as if it were the "responsible" thing.
I'm wondering, I guess, about the nature of responsibility in a democratic system. We are so accustomed to the thought "I must choose A or B" that we don't question the wisdom of choosing in the first place. And by choosing we set up the dynamic for the next four years which is assigning blame and ducking it.
The system seems to be this. There is an acceptable and an unacceptable choice given to voters who are told they should vote because this is what makes them a good citizen. Voting is our glory. If the acceptable candidate wins everything is fine even if it isn't. If the unacceptable candidate wins then things aren't so good and it provides justification for the next acceptable candidate to do the acceptable things once he or she is elected. It seems as if there is a system of power that transcends who actually wins and loses. It's a system that guides us in our decision making and which isn't affected by elections. Isn't this the actual government? And if it is, what sense does it make to participate in the choosing which is really only a means of moving the process forward? Is it responsible to participate in this system that uses factions and strife to achieve its goals not ours?
I'm thinking more about garden variety centrists who will dutifully choose Clinton as if it were the "responsible" thing.
I don't have an answer for that. They don't have to answer to you or me, anyway. They may have to answer to their children.
For what it's worth, Hillary will be the one left holding the bag. She gets to be Herbert Hoover.
Is it responsible to participate in this system that uses factions and strife to achieve its goals not ours?
I don't know. I've scaled my own involvement way back -- I'm no longer involved in local politics at all, because it's become essentially impossible to move the needle in our district and I have other priorities at the moment. Maybe things will look different in a few years, but the hour is short.
Post a Comment