Democracy?
I just voted at my local polling station. In an elementary school -- probably a good idea to foster the idea of exercising one's rights in front of school kids. A civics lesson if you will ... but the truth of the matter is far from that.
You see, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is NOT in any way a true democracy. The notion of a democracy brings forth the idea of the people (meaning substantially ALL the people) pouring into the polls to exercise their rights to elect representatives to put the people's ideas and needs to the legislative process. As a democracy Massachusetts must fail: (1) the turnout will be low, probably less than 30%, even as low as 20%; and (2) there are no choices to pick from -- substantially, Massachusetts is a one party state.
Looking at the ballot paper, I saw that Ted Kennedy was actually running in this election cycle. Strange, but I cannot recall seeing a single poster, bumper sticker, advertisement on television or radio. Nothing. It is if as though He does not need these things ... if He is on the ballot, he will win. And he probably will -- a concept so disgusting that it defies rational thought. There was a Republican "running" against him, but obviously so stealth that the GOP decided not to bother spending any money on that campaign either.
Markey -- a Democrat congressman -- ran unopposed. So too for the State Auditor, Secretary of State (actually there was a green candidate too, and I voted for her), District Attorney (northern district), and a host of other positions.
Is it apathy? If so that means that there has been a breakdown of a dynamic democratic system so profound that there is no meaningful debate left. Is it pragmatism? That is, does the GOP realize that the people of the Commonwealth are so uninterested/brainwashed/biased/ignorant that there is no point in wasting the money to run candidates? If so, that speaks so poorly for the inhabitants of the Commonwealth that the collective mind is so closed that even when presented with an intelligent and viable candidate, the GOP will still lose -- no matter how cogent are the arguments presented?
This is consistent with the observation that Massachusetts Democrats are overwhelmingly against the notion of doing what it takes to establish a democracy in Iraq. Why would they care about that when they don't even have one in their home state? The Massachusetts tradition is more akin to a Mullahtocracy: we tell you what is good for you and you worship at the feet of our greater understanding. Imam Kerry. Sheik Teddy. It fits, doesn't it? Don't ask us about the rationale behind our decisions, because only We understand the scriptures. Also fits in pretty well with the PC thought police in our universities -- they like the idea of a one-party one thought state too.
So I wrote in "Spongebob" for every "elected" position that was unopposed. Not very creative, a bit immature and ultimately depressing. And to think about our troops fighting and dying around the world to preserve ... what?
You see, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is NOT in any way a true democracy. The notion of a democracy brings forth the idea of the people (meaning substantially ALL the people) pouring into the polls to exercise their rights to elect representatives to put the people's ideas and needs to the legislative process. As a democracy Massachusetts must fail: (1) the turnout will be low, probably less than 30%, even as low as 20%; and (2) there are no choices to pick from -- substantially, Massachusetts is a one party state.
Looking at the ballot paper, I saw that Ted Kennedy was actually running in this election cycle. Strange, but I cannot recall seeing a single poster, bumper sticker, advertisement on television or radio. Nothing. It is if as though He does not need these things ... if He is on the ballot, he will win. And he probably will -- a concept so disgusting that it defies rational thought. There was a Republican "running" against him, but obviously so stealth that the GOP decided not to bother spending any money on that campaign either.
Markey -- a Democrat congressman -- ran unopposed. So too for the State Auditor, Secretary of State (actually there was a green candidate too, and I voted for her), District Attorney (northern district), and a host of other positions.
Is it apathy? If so that means that there has been a breakdown of a dynamic democratic system so profound that there is no meaningful debate left. Is it pragmatism? That is, does the GOP realize that the people of the Commonwealth are so uninterested/brainwashed/biased/ignorant that there is no point in wasting the money to run candidates? If so, that speaks so poorly for the inhabitants of the Commonwealth that the collective mind is so closed that even when presented with an intelligent and viable candidate, the GOP will still lose -- no matter how cogent are the arguments presented?
This is consistent with the observation that Massachusetts Democrats are overwhelmingly against the notion of doing what it takes to establish a democracy in Iraq. Why would they care about that when they don't even have one in their home state? The Massachusetts tradition is more akin to a Mullahtocracy: we tell you what is good for you and you worship at the feet of our greater understanding. Imam Kerry. Sheik Teddy. It fits, doesn't it? Don't ask us about the rationale behind our decisions, because only We understand the scriptures. Also fits in pretty well with the PC thought police in our universities -- they like the idea of a one-party one thought state too.
So I wrote in "Spongebob" for every "elected" position that was unopposed. Not very creative, a bit immature and ultimately depressing. And to think about our troops fighting and dying around the world to preserve ... what?
posted by Zaphod at Tuesday, November 07, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home