Here is a conundrum for you: who should be in charge of doing what we say should not be done?
A conundrum is a confusing or difficult situation. A conundrum is the United States Congress. A conundrum is the lineup of people who say they want to be President. A conundrum is the way we narrow the field of presidential candidates, pretending to get the best one: for instance, go to the Iowa State Fair and toss corn kernels into a jar. A conundrum is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. A conundrum is suggesting that the three Republican candidates with absolutely no experience in government are the favorites for being in charge of government. A conundrum would be to suggest that the worst Sheriff in the Universe--Joe Arpaio--would make the best CEO for Hewlett-Packard or IBM.
Whether it is true or not, or whether it is just true that people are thoroughly disgusted with the politicians they continue to re-elect, people say they hate government and trust big corporations that make a lot of money selling things to unhappy voters, including a bill of goods. Is it not a conundrum that people prefer the economic arrangement that is eroding their economic well-being?
Maybe people do not hate government, although they say so, and maybe they despise politicians, although they admire the people who want to hold political office. Maybe most people think a rational and universal health care system is bad idea, and that health care should be available only so far as you can afford it. Maybe burning oil and coal is a really good idea because it is still cheaper than solar or wind power, even if the climate is up-chucking. Maybe the oil companies and strip miners know best, even if "stuff happens" and sludge runs downhill and oil floats, because they do make a lot of money, you know, and money is a measure of real intelligence, isn't it? Maybe corporations are people, and people are easily bought and paid for.
It is evident that significant numbers of people are so thoroughly disgusted with the political process, and so uneasy with their own prospects, that they are inclined to set fire to the whole political structure, even if it is not insured, and elect . . . oh, say . . . Donald Trump, who is a wealthy jerk, or Carly Fiorina, who has made a mess of every job she ever had, or anyone else who has never governed anything. Or maybe Ben Carson, who says that if anyone ever tried to gun him down, he would run toward the gun.
John Boehner cannot control his own constituency in the House of Representatives, and his presumed successor has just said that he cannot get elected to the job because the troops are rebelling and want Genghis Khan, instead.
Part of the conundrum we are in is that we do not know how to think about what it is that outrages us. What, exactly, is it that people want? No government? Really? A lawless wild west with sixguns and shotguns and shitstorms? No Social Security? No wars? Wars everywhere? Charity hospitals? Security fences at the border? Security fences around the back yard? Better schools? Schools for those who can afford to build them inside their gated communities? A huge military? Chemical-free barnyards? Chemical-free medicine? Free medicine? Free love?
In the wild west, people said they wanted a sheriff. And a mayor. And some rules about hanging your sidearm with the sheriff before you went to the saloon. We don't even want that.
Does it really matter who the next Speaker of the House is, or who the next President is, if we do not know what we want a House for, or what we want a President for?
Maybe it is too grand to say we are faced with a conundrum. Maybe we need to stop, think, and talk about what is going on, and what we do, and do not want.
A conundrum is a confusing or difficult situation. A conundrum is the United States Congress. A conundrum is the lineup of people who say they want to be President. A conundrum is the way we narrow the field of presidential candidates, pretending to get the best one: for instance, go to the Iowa State Fair and toss corn kernels into a jar. A conundrum is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. A conundrum is suggesting that the three Republican candidates with absolutely no experience in government are the favorites for being in charge of government. A conundrum would be to suggest that the worst Sheriff in the Universe--Joe Arpaio--would make the best CEO for Hewlett-Packard or IBM.
Whether it is true or not, or whether it is just true that people are thoroughly disgusted with the politicians they continue to re-elect, people say they hate government and trust big corporations that make a lot of money selling things to unhappy voters, including a bill of goods. Is it not a conundrum that people prefer the economic arrangement that is eroding their economic well-being?
Maybe people do not hate government, although they say so, and maybe they despise politicians, although they admire the people who want to hold political office. Maybe most people think a rational and universal health care system is bad idea, and that health care should be available only so far as you can afford it. Maybe burning oil and coal is a really good idea because it is still cheaper than solar or wind power, even if the climate is up-chucking. Maybe the oil companies and strip miners know best, even if "stuff happens" and sludge runs downhill and oil floats, because they do make a lot of money, you know, and money is a measure of real intelligence, isn't it? Maybe corporations are people, and people are easily bought and paid for.
It is evident that significant numbers of people are so thoroughly disgusted with the political process, and so uneasy with their own prospects, that they are inclined to set fire to the whole political structure, even if it is not insured, and elect . . . oh, say . . . Donald Trump, who is a wealthy jerk, or Carly Fiorina, who has made a mess of every job she ever had, or anyone else who has never governed anything. Or maybe Ben Carson, who says that if anyone ever tried to gun him down, he would run toward the gun.
John Boehner cannot control his own constituency in the House of Representatives, and his presumed successor has just said that he cannot get elected to the job because the troops are rebelling and want Genghis Khan, instead.
Part of the conundrum we are in is that we do not know how to think about what it is that outrages us. What, exactly, is it that people want? No government? Really? A lawless wild west with sixguns and shotguns and shitstorms? No Social Security? No wars? Wars everywhere? Charity hospitals? Security fences at the border? Security fences around the back yard? Better schools? Schools for those who can afford to build them inside their gated communities? A huge military? Chemical-free barnyards? Chemical-free medicine? Free medicine? Free love?
In the wild west, people said they wanted a sheriff. And a mayor. And some rules about hanging your sidearm with the sheriff before you went to the saloon. We don't even want that.
Does it really matter who the next Speaker of the House is, or who the next President is, if we do not know what we want a House for, or what we want a President for?
Maybe it is too grand to say we are faced with a conundrum. Maybe we need to stop, think, and talk about what is going on, and what we do, and do not want.
Comments
Post a Comment