Posted on 09/11/2008 12:33:09 AM PDT by hadit2here
One Trick Pony
Watching the stultifying circus of the political arena lately, it has only been reinforced in my mind that politicians are probably the most useless class of people extant. Paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have him as a member, I've long held that I wouldn't vote for anyone who wanted the elected position for which they are running. I have been proved, time and again, to be perfectly correct in this observation. I'm sure Groucho would agree.
How many times have we heard someone say that a certain politician just didn't have that "fire in his belly", so they wouldn't vote for him? I maintain that if someone has such a burning desire for a public office, that alone should disqualify them. Since when has what was supposed to be a public service been turned into a lifelong career? No, that's rhetorical. You don't have to answer.
The term "politician" has become the equivalent label for "corrupt, bribe-seeking, power hungry, dishonest, immoral, unethical dreg of uncouth society". (I was going to say "new equivalent" but perusing the writings of our Founding Fathers, I see that today's political animal hasn't changed that much from the ones in their day.) Public perception in general seems to agree with this definition, as snake oil and used car salesmen have a higher integrity ratings in today's society than most any office holder. Just ask any of your friends and acquaintances. (Unless of course, those friends are public office holders. Then, again, even they would probably in all honesty agree with that observation if, in fact, they could muster up any semblance of honesty themselves.)
The absolutely amazing thing that strikes me during all this is that all of the office holders or seekers seem to proudly flaunt their immorality and lack of ethics-- what normal people would recognize as character flaws. Corruption has become so bad that it has become main stream and common place, even accepted. It's like a running joke, although I don't think anyone should be laughing. I mean, even real thieves, robbers and rapists don't go around proudly proclaiming their true nature.
Politicians who have never held any job other than elective office proudly hold this fact up as "qualifying" them to be elected again, for the umpteenth time. The problem is, their constituencies have actually bought into it, and DO elect them, over and over again. It's like they're saying, "I've been a corrupt, bribe taking crook for so many years that you need to elect me again because I'm YOUR crook."
Having suffered through a myriad of local, state and national election seasons and watching all the clowns parading around lying through their teeth, I'm more convinced than ever that there should be one new amendment added to the national Constitution and all state constitutions and charters: no one can hold any elected office for more than one term. Any office or combination of them. You serve one elected term in any position and you are then ineligible to be elected anywhere, ever again. From President to local dog catcher. One shot and then you're outa here.
I can hear all the objections to this idea, but the only actual drawback I can see is that it would shift all the corruption, bribe taking and cronyism down into the entrenched bureaucracy. But then I look at that and figure just how much worse could it get? We already have the most corrupt elective offices and bureaucrats, maybe electing some short timers to the political offices would give them some incentive in cleaning up the bureaucracy instead of becoming an embedded part of it.
Hey, it couldn't be much worse than what we have now.
I have found that even worse than the run-of-the-mill politician is someone who is running for political office because of some single issue that holds a searing brand on their soul and they want to attain a position of power so they can "right" the wrong that has been done to them. One example would be the mother whose child was killed by a drunk driver, and now she is running for the legislature to "pass a law" to keep it from happening to other mothers and their children.
No matter how well intentioned someone like this is, they are the very definition of a "One Trick Pony". Their whole psyche is absolutely consumed with the need to "fix" what they, and usually they alone, perceive as a world shattering problem. Most everyone has run into one of these One Trick Ponies and their obsession. Most people who have any rationality or common sense at all find that they feel uncomfortable around these crusaders and really don't want to get involved in their obsession. Good idea! So why would anyone want to vote one of these maniacs into any kind of position of power where they could inflict their obsession upon large numbers of people through laws or regulations?
The thing is that while they may even be the most well intentioned, honest person you may meet, their whole world revolves around their perception of a major "wrong". While the problem that they want to fix may even be agreed by some others as important, more than likely all of their reason, logic, common sense and rationality is cast aside whenever their "problem" is brought up. And it always is brought up, because they are so completely obsessed with it that they cannot carry on a conversation about any other idea without it being related to their "crusade". So everyone they ever interact with soon learns about their burning crusade to fix whatever problem it is that has burdened their heart so heavily.
So what happens when the crusader accomplishes their "fix" by passing the law they so badly needed to asuage their hurt? Usually they never will overcome the filter of that obsession, but if it does become minimized in their life, they will then have to fill the void created by that absence and will immediately seize upon something which they perceive to be a new "problem", which will then become the driving force in their life. Or, barring that, they will then wander aimlessly, looking for their new problem.
Watching all the of the current hand waving, hand wringing and breast beating by the circus that is known as the media, celebrating ad nauseum "the first black candidate for President", it has become obvious to me that the Democrat selection for the office of President is another form of a OTP. He shares this malady with numerous others: Oprah, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and many other high profile "persons of color".
All of them have a searing obsession with skin color. Their whole outlook is distorted by their view that they're a victim because of the color of their skin. They feel that anything adverse that occurs is purely related to their skin color. Nothing they themselves do could be the cause, only the whole world's reaction to their skin color could be the reason. Everything negative that has ever happened to them goes to prove that they are the victim.
And no matter how high their station in life or how cushy their life has been, because of their skin color they feel that they have been discriminated against, or held back. Everything in their world view is based upon skin color, in one way or another. Even all the good things that have happened to them or that they have accomplished are viewed as happening in spite of their skin color, but still based upon it. Even with good things and the most wonderful fortunes of life, they are still the "victim" in their mind's eye.
If someone with their same skin color has a long history of criminality, law breaking and general thugishness, it's only because they have been discriminated against by all the rest of the society that doesn't share their skin color. Even the finest, most noble and altruistic human being who doesn't share their skin color is considered to be only a fair weather friend, to be used until they can seize on some overt or perceived exhibition of that person's bias based on skin color and then they're thrown under the bus.
It seems that everything that has been brought up about the "black" Democrat candidate that wasn't absolutely glowing or fawning over him has been labeled as "racist": allegations of corrupt mentors or crooked associates, questions about his lack of substance as a state Senator, anything that would or could be taken in a negative light in any way. Or even any perceived slight. All based upon his skin color. I'm totally amazed that just the simple fact that there is even a candidate allowed to run against him for the office hasn't been denounced as completely racist.
Even more than his desire for power and control, the world view of the "black" Democrat candidate, and his compliant media, is seen through skin colored glasses. Every action, every word, every thought is filtered through the sieve of skin color. Everything in this person's life will be based upon skin color. Every office position, every cabinet position or lowly secretarial position will be filled based upon skin color. Everyone in their circle of acquaintances is determined by skin color.
What is the definition of someone who bases all of their decisions and actions on the color of someone's skin, instead of their capability, experience, knowledge or intrinsic worth? Hint: it starts with "R".
Is this the type of person who should be holding any position of power, let alone one of the most powerful offices in the world? If, by some God-forsaken circumstance, this OTP gets elected to the position for which he aspires, everything will revolve around skin color, in one form or another. Again, what's that definition found under 'R'?
Watch carefully the One Trick Pony. Be very careful that you don't allow him to shame you or coerce you or trick you into putting him into any position of power.
"Every politician should live next door to a pimp, so he can have someone to look up to."
--FReeper Alouette
Politicians are the same all over: they promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
-- Nikita Khrushchev (1960)
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.