Get Out the Blue Light, the Man Wants a Blue Suit

The title of this blog is the old joke about the haberdasher.

Trouble is it's not a joke when it comes to what our so-called public servants say. The more accurate job description currently associated with this subterfuge is politician. It's all too real and relevant.

Those in office and/or running for office will say almost anything to get or save their jobs. They pretend in their speeches that they are really interested in the needs of their constituents. Trouble is they want to appeal to all constituents, be all things to all people. What we don't get is what they really stand for, if anything. The old saying, "Let the chips fall" is just that, an old saying. If there is a new saying it would be something like, "What do I need to say to be sure the chips fall on my side of the table with this particular audience?".

These are the people who tell everyone they're with what they want to hear; "Love the one you're with". Seems like prostitution to me. It's been all too clear that the campaign managers are the pimps in this system They dress the candidates up to be appealing, position them in the right places(the street corners of politics), otherwise known as town hall meetings, to which only vetted folks are invited,where they are most likely to be noticed by the Johns they want to entice; what they think of us voters.

Another question: Is this OK because it(prostitution) is often called a victimless crime? Does the admonition "Caveat Emptor" transfer the burden of dealing with this to the constituent, the voter, the naive John?

It's tempting to think that this is the view only of today's GOP. After all look at their response, or non-response, to Katrina. The prevailing view of the GOP is that individuals are expected to take care of themselves, not look to the government for help. In the mind of the true, might I say extreme, Conservative, this is the view, regardless of the extent of the problem (as in beyond the reasonable ability of most individuals to handle). In an earlier posting, Boot Straps and Safety Nets, I addressed this.

You might think this is a stretch, but from my view, always trying to look at things from forty thousand feet, a somewhat campy metaphor for wanting to see the big picture, the forest for the trees, I see a connection, a pattern of philosophical views here. To me the view that those in need should look only to themselves for solutions to their problems is consistent with the view that voters/consumers should look only to themselves for their ability to discriminate as to what to believe their so-called public servants tell them.

But that is an all too easy, and politically slanted, view. I've stated in my profile that I am an Independent in terms of my views of politics. I've written that I support those who are recognized as authorities on important things, not because they are temporarily in a position of authority, or assumed to be, according their own account, reputable, authentic and genuine candidates.

Sadly, truthfully, I can't find much if any difference between what the Republicans and Democrats are willing to say in their campaigns in order to get or keep their jobs.

We hear all the time that little gets done in Congress because of the huge divide between those on the so-called right and those on the so-called left. I am beginning to think that both sides are using that as an excuse and a motivation to voters to keep them in their jobs.

(A brief aside on that score) If our so-called public servants would make available to their constituents the same health care system they have, it would take the health care issue in today's campaigns off the table.

No wonder they want to keep their jobs. The benefits of those jobs far exceed what most of their constituents have available to them. Add to that the obvious reality that only those whose fortunes far exceed what their constituents would ever hope to have, can mount a campaign for election, given the media and advertising costs of today's campaigns.

George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy, to cite only one from each political party, should be required to address a rather simple fact of life; because each has more than enough money than anyone needs to pay for a comfortable and financially stress free life style, it's easy for them to say pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Just two examples from both sides of the aisle. We know there are more, perhaps just not as obvious as these two.

My experience has it that characteristics found in one part of culture are not confined to that narrow segment of culture. The same is true in this case. All one has to do is watch commercials and read ads. What I find is that both the advertisers and the politicians(peas in a pod) address voters/consumers as idiots.

Sure it's true that there are those who buy and vote who don't want to think, but have lived to the years normally associated with adulthood, without leaving childhood, a phase of life characterized by expecting authority figures to take care of them. They want to believe what they are told, just as they were admonished to do as children. Keep it simple for them. Make black and white statements. Either you're for us or against us. Above all avoid nuance, no grays. Don't confuse them with facts. The best way to do this of course is to make opinions appear to be facts. And tell them that black is white, lies are truth, often enough to settle if for these people. As P.T. Barnum said, You can fool some of the people all of the time. If you can pull this off, as Karl Rove has tried to do, you can stay in power, even in a voting, democratic system.

What really worries me are the indications of complicity on the part of the Main Stream Media.
Reading Greenwald's piece at Truthdig and Matt Taibi's piece on Alternet is enlightening.
One would think that the New York Times, often considered to be liberal in their editorial content, is not likely to publish an article which seems to state as facts opinions which are coming out of the administration on the subject of a military need to attack Iran. But in fact they did recently. Now they have Joe Lieberman to quote, who for most people has been thought of as a Democrat, but now in the Senate as an Independent, the only way he could keep his job, openly recommending military action against Iran. The Hawks have their shill from the other side, something they will likely use to make it seem like a consensus. Comparisons are being made to what was written in the MSM in support of, and in advance of, the fiasco in Iraq.

All I can say, as a Voice Crying in the Wilderness, is, Please-- Question Authority!!!

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper