Sultan Knish
Love is in the air. There are plush teddy bears in the Capitol Hill gift
shop and romantic songs playing on Air Force One. Listening tours are
planned and every begging email asking for another five, ten or forty
bucks to stop the Republican onslaught is addressed personally to you.
To you.
Love
makes the world go round, or so singers have crooned for the last
hundred years. And what other emotion could it be but that which makes
the iron wheels of the state turn.
With everything at stake, voters keep picking the candidates they think
love them the most. The exit polls keep showing that voters choose
unqualified radicals like Barack Obama or Bill de Blasio because they're
"likable", "share their values" and "care about them."
Experience came in dead last in the New York election, both literally in
Lhota's case, and in the exit polls, which showed voters ranking
experience somewhere between a dead zebra and a mugger on the C train.
34 percent wanted someone who shared their values. 30 percent wanted
change. And an unspecified number of right-wing lunatics wanted
experience.
Voting is starting to look a lot like dating. A big chunk of the
electorate doesn't just want someone to manage a government. They want
someone who will make them feel special, share their values and love
them back.
Government is becoming more personal, even as it's becoming more
impersonal. Newly hatched ducks development an attachment to their wire
mothers. Children neglected by their parents fixate on their nannies.
And what of a generation of broken families?
What else is there for all the Julias to do but turn to the man whom
Indian chiefs used to call the Great White Father in Washington. And
what is there for all the Chads to do but look for love from the
bureaucratic wire mother of the Nanny State?
The great ambition of the social reformers was to replace the
unscientific and selfish family with the progressive programs of the
state. And their dream has been realized.
Within a few generations of government growth, a nation once noted for
its strong nuclear family has replaced it with a cradle-to-grave state
that abstractly pats all the Julias and Chads on the head, telling them
they can be anything they want and then sending them the bill for its
services.
Is it any wonder that Chad and Julia just want a government that loves
them and are a bit fuzzy about the differences between a politician,
their father and their significant other?
Past generations wanted to be inspired by leaders, but the definitions
of inspiration and leadership have changed. In the past it meant urging
others to rise to new challenges. Today it means making Chad and Julia
feel good about themselves by telling them that they have great
potential so that they feel like someone out there understands and cares
about them without having to actually do anything.
The reelection of Bush Sr. was sunk in part because the World War II
veteran was unable to field a question about how the National Debt had
affected him personally. The question was senseless, but Bill Clinton
understood that the questioner, who seemed to have stepped in from the
Sally Jesse Raphael Show, wanted to be reassured that he cared. And so
the Clinton Presidency was born.
The National Debt is bigger than ever and politicians have gotten better
than ever at reassuring the people that they care about the national
debt, they feel the national debt's pain, share its values and want it
to grow up to be the best national debt that it can be in a country
where every national debt has equal opportunities to achieve regardless
of race, sex, sexual orientation or national bankruptcy.
Conservatives struggling to convince the rest of the country that Obama
is the worst thing since sliced bread that had been left out for three
years in the sun face the same problem as anyone trying to convince a
friend that the charming sociopath that they're dating is bad for them.
They can assemble an artillery of facts, hurling them one by one,
waiting for the BOOM, but only hearing faint thumps, and then resort to
frustrated outrages of common sense only to get nowhere.
After all that, all it takes is a single "I care about you, share your
values and promise never to take away your health plan again... period"
teleprompter call to convince them that it truly is true love.
And even if the voters who only want to care about a politician who
cares about them first eventually realize that they've been had, that
while Obama was pretending to care about their anger at Wall Street, he
was also pretending to care at least as much about the concerns of Wall
Street executives, and so on for every one of their values, they'll just
wait for the next charmer to come along.
Those who have been deprived of love will go on looking for it in all
the wrong government places. And the Julias and Chads who associate
government with love will press every politicians to tell them how the
National Debt makes them feel and show them that they really truly care
about them. That process will helpfully winnow most decent and competent
leaders leaving behind sociopaths, car salesmen, community organizers,
con men and anyone who can fake a relationship on a dime.
Emotion is more malleable than reason. And a relationship calls forth
the most self-rationalizing emotional states that can exist in the human
mind.
A politician who promises something tangible to voters and fails to
deliver can be held accountable, but one who offers the intangible
assurance that he cares and understands will persist until the love
spell is broken and the emotional relationship is exposed as a sham
beyond the ability of his victims to rationalize.
And that's not politics. It's deprogramming.
There is no question that most of us are in a relationship with
government. It's a non-consensual relationship and an abusive one, but
those are the kind most likely to lead to a bout of Stockholm Syndrome.
Hostages fall in love with their hostage-takers, captives fall in love
with their captors and Democratic voters fall in love with their elected
officials.
With the traditional family in bad shape, romanticizing the even more
dysfunctional relationship with the state transforms an abusive
relationship into a caring one. Voters search for politicians who can
humanize the detached impersonal power of the bureaucracy and make them
feel like they aren't living in a George Orwell or Frank Kafka novel.
Likability counts more than ethics, experience, competence and actual knowledge because
government, like everything else, has become subjective.
There are no more clear truths. What is the definition of "sex"? What is
the definition of "If you like your health plan, you can keep your
health plan period?"
Every crime has an explanation and every lie is turned on its head. And
when you're living in spin city, the only thing you can believe in is
love because personal relationships feel more real than millions of
words of federal regulations or piles and piles of government forms.
Karl Rove understood that Republicans suffer from a "Caring Gap". It may
be stupid, but in each race, George W. Bush managed to be a caring
candidate going up against a stiff and out of touch Democrat. And then
Obama was lucky enough to get John McCain and Mitt Romney, two men whose
credentials and manners perfectly suited the old America, but who
wouldn't be able to explain how the National Debt made them feel nearly
as well as Obama or Bill Clinton could.
A sizable portion of the country doesn't just want someone good or
someone who has the right ideas, they want someone to love them, to care
about them and to make their relationship with government feel
meaningful so that they can believe that it is love, rather than dirty
money, favor-trading, vote-swapping, fanatical devotion to 19th century
ideologies and humanitarianism that makes the fax machines, the hard
drive platters , cars and cabinet meetings of government go round and
round.
No comments:
Post a Comment