Creativity is destiny

I am like a political cicada.  My interest in all things electoral emerges periodically, then recedes. For awhile I am passionate about my views, I make predictions, I learn all I can about the candidates and the issues, and then, I lose interest. 

My loss of interest is partly biological  At times I awake from social hibernation, I look around me with blinking eyes, am disquieted by what I sensed, and feel the urgent necessity to take interest in the world around me; I suspect that some of this interest is manufactured out of temporary boredom with my own life and preoccupations

However, the more immersed I become in the political spectacle, the more tedious, repetitive, and inaccessible the political action and verbiage become.  By comparison, my own life seems more interesting.  At least it is unambiguous and I have some control over it.  Of course, interest in politics might be more abiding if my presidential preferences were occasionally reflected by the winning candidates and election outcomes. That never happens. 

In all the elections I have seen, my favorite candidate has never even made it to nominee. It is an ignominious record of selection futility. And of course, I believe that the best candidate has never even run for president.  So when elections come, I always in the booth between the levers of two evils, trying to identify the lesser.

This kind of participation grows tiresome in time.  It's like trying to support one of two teams in the Super Bowl when you are indifferent to both.  Fortunately , I have liked moreteams that made it to the Super Bowl than  presidential candidates who made it to the general election 

Some would say my election ennui could be transformed to excitement if I got more involved.  But I think this would only make it worse.  It's like telling someone who likes their wine too much to switch to hard liquor. My problem is so chronic that it makes me wonder if democratic presidential elections are so great a political improvement over monarchy. 

Will mankind in 3000 look back and determine democracy was a political improvement overall?  When taking all authoritarian and democratic leaders into account, will electing leaders by popular sovereignty prove to have been more reliable than the divine right of kings?  Future historians may be able to provide an answer; I can't presume to know.

One thing I do know is that with monarchy, you don't believe you have a real choice, that someone you really like or trust or believe in will be in power, or that you are even deciding between two disparate individuals.  The king or queen are who they are--they are rich,  pampered, lucky--and you accept them or ignore them.  In our system, you're stuck with two strangers with two faces except that they are actually two different faces on the same coin.

This charade of choosing a president in our system is exemplified by the risible uproar over Senator McCain's senior moment about how many houses he owns. Chances are he has never even lived in all of his homes.  Like the rich man in Satyricon who cannot be bothered to look at financial records that are six months old, McCain has heavier matters on his mind than his precise wealth. And so, for that matter, should the Democratic leaders, who are also far more prosperous than their rank-and-file electorate.  Senator Obama is a multimillionaire, who resides in a multimillion dollar home and vacationed in The Bahamas and Hawaii in the last five months.  Do the Democrats expect us to vote for their candidate because a man with millions is a priori more sensitive to the problems of the poor and middle class and more inclined to solve them than his opponent who is worth tens of millions? 

The same presumptuousness infects the Democratic Party as a whole.  Democrats tout themselves as better equipped to fix the economy. However, with the exception of The New Deal and the Great Society, when have the Democrats created jobs?  Even when jobs were created, were they jobs that most Americans would want, or were they the kind which are government-made and disappear as soon as budget cuts are required?  

Republicans believe in a system that works for very few people. Their only virtue is their honesty about it.  The Democrats, meanwhile, pretend that they can and will help the many people for whom the system rarely if ever works  But when they are elected, they usually fail to redeem their promises...and blame the Republicans for their irresoluteness.  With Republicans, you know where you stand--at the bathroom sink in the morning, splashing water in your face. 

A Republican led government wakes you up and gets you to work with fear in your heart because you know you're on your own.  The Democrats, meanwhile, are smooth-talking insurance salesmen who make you smile and reassure you that everything will be all right if you only sign on the dotted line.  Democrats sell you a phony policy that never pays out due to exemptions, riders and the fine print you failed to read.  They are like the good natured fraternity brother at rush who promises to catch your stiff body when you fall backwards at the top of the stairs, only to let you fall.

Ooops.