What It Says on the Tin

People don’t know from policy.  Policy is complicated and subtle and most people prefer simple and plain.  They are too busy trying to survive from day-to-day to have time for considerations of proper tax or farm policy.  It is more than they can deal with, and that’s why they elect representatives, anyway.  Isn’t it?

And so, when election time comes up, most folks are not interested in specific policies and platforms.  They may have a couple that they prefer in a vague sort of way, but they are very unlikely to dig deep into anything in order to sift through the subtleties involved in parsing the vagaries of any candidate’s position on any particular issue.  It is much easier for them to cast their votes based on other factors, typically mostly by tribal identification, that is, by which political tribe the candidate hails from.

However, the bigger the election, the more a large swath of the electorate is persuadable by other factors.  And, I would argue, the larger the election, the more likely another factor comes into play.  More than even likability, it is what I would call authenticity.

People do not, as a matter of principle, trust politicians.  The stereotype of a politician is of someone whose convictions are ever-changing, who is wily and pernicious and prone to obfuscation and mendacity.  They are shapeshifters and not to be trusted.  Therefore, anyone who seems to be authentically themselves comes across as someone special, someone who can be trusted, someone for whom you can vote because they are not hiding who they really are.

And this is President-Select Dingle Dingleberry’s one strength.  He is always himself, as awful and depressing as that miserable, hate-filled shell of humanity is.  

Now, you may say, “But what about the lies?  He is a bottomless fountain of atrocious lies?”  And I will answer, “Yes.  Yes he is.  He is a liar.  Everybody knows that.  And, in that way, he is authentic.  He is authentically a liar.  Yes, he is a sociopath, but he is authentically a sociopath.  He is an incompetent boob, but that’s who he really is.  A Russian asset?  Sure he is, but he doesn’t hide that.  He’s not bright enough to, which is more proof of his authenticity.”

One of the problems that both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris faced when running against him was that they were both perceived as being inauthentic.  (That and their lamentable decisions to have female reproductive systems.)  Why had their positions on certain issues changed over time?  Why had they the effrontery to show any signs of growth or development?

And, in both cases, rather than saying, “My thinking has evolved as I’ve further considered the evidence and thought the subject through, and why aren’t you asking candidate Dingleberry about why he was pro-choice in the ‘90s but virulently anti-choice today?” They both tried changing the subject.  Which made them both appear to behiding something and therefore lexx authentic.

We nefer saw the real Hillary Clinton and really saw the real Kamala Harris.  And both of them seem to be people well worth knowing.  If only it weren’t for those pesky ovaries and fallopian tubes.

Naming and Shaming

I keep seeing that President-elect Dingleberry has “named” this one or that one for this post or that post.  But he hasn’t.  He’s nominated them, which is a different thing.  And most, if not all, of these nominations have been farcical.  And no, I don’t see the Senate—even a Republican-majority Senate—giving up its constitutional duty for advice and consent just because Dingleberry asks them to.  He’s useless to them now.  Anytime he goes to campaign for a candidate, that candidate loses.  They know this.  I also don’t think that confirming a parody cabinet is going to help them in the long run, either.

Although the next two years stand to be pretty grim—mid-term elections tend to go badly for the party in power, and the Democrats are going to have a lot to run against—hope is not all lost.  Dingleberry is not going to be able to just set aside the Constitution, he is not going to be able to run for a third term—that would take a Constitutional amendment, and those take forever because of the high standards that must be met in Congress before it is sent out for TWO-THIRDS of the states having to approve it—he will not be able to invoke the Insurrection Act since the closest way people on our side will come to inciting insurrection will include a drum circle and a candlelight vigil.  The president has to give the insurrectionist a formal warning to disperse in two months, and even their band of insurrectionists was unable to keep it up for more than an afternoon, so that’s dead in the water.

What we can count on, and his slew of nominations is evidence of what is to come, is a veritable circus of incompetence and mismanagement.  The slim majority the Republicans have in the House is fractious and unmanageable.  The new majority leader in the Senate, John Thune, has had a strained relationship with Dingleberry, and, as a fellow rich person, probably isn’t used to taking orders, especially from a demented halfwit like Dingleberry.

All is not lost.

We are cursed to live in interesting times, but I keep thinking of this:  Many years ago, in a desperate time in our lives, my wife, child, and I were in Los Angeles and driving on, I think, the Five.  Remembering Steve Martin’s fine film, “LA Story,” I kept saying that I was looking for the talking sign.  And what do you know, we found one.  It was outside a church and was easily visible from the freeway.  It read, “The harder you fall, the higher you bounce.”  Wise words indeed.