Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Politics is Always Good Versus Evil

I don't like politics at all. It disgusts me. It wrecks everything it touches. And one of the Founding Fathers called it a "divine science," which I guess it was in those days. But not anymore.

I enjoy "political science" and economics (although neither is a science) but for a lot of people, their candidate is good and the opposing candidate is evil. Politics is always like that. Always has been and always will be.

There are a lot of people out there who think Trump really is Hitler and his followers are a bunch of dim-witted closet Nazis. And others think Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying old dyke/zombie temporarily kept alive by prescription medication.

Fortunately the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when instituted the separation of powers. They studied their history and knew it well.

Traditionally Americans have given the Presidency to one party and Congress to the other. Good thing, too. The Founding Fathers did not want "efficient" government. They intentionally crippled it.

If Trump gets elected he can only do so much good (and it won't be all the much) and if Clinton gets in she can only do so much damage.

I've mentioned before I know an 84-year-old man (who was a B-29 pilot in Korea) who spent his life as a political consultant. He told me he's only met one honest politician in his life; the rest had money, sex and drug problems. I found what he said to be true. Think of both Clintons, LBJ, JFK.

I suppose I should be cynical but I'm not. It's not in my nature.

But I don't like politicians - any of them. They always lie. All of them. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Money, sex and drug problems. For all practical purposes, that applies to all of them.

One of the biggest flaws in humans is that narcissistic splitting of people and ideas into all-good and all-bad. If we didn't have the ability to do that, things would be better for everyone. And politics would exist in a form we'd barely recognize.

It might even be "divine" again.


Roman Lance said...

"The Founding Fathers did not want "efficient" government."

I've been telling my family for years that we should desire an inefficient government. We want to see these politicians fighting and sceeching at one another and passing few, if any, laws during their tenure in office.

I would consider it a good use of tax money to pay these people to do nothing while in office. Ideally I would like to see these politicians ignored and their opinions regarded by the general population as the ravings of the lunatic fringe.

To that end, I discourage engaging in the public acclimation called "voting" and other activities of acknowledgement that only feeds the ego's of these power hungry dilettante's who think they are qualified to hold political power.

I want to see Trump win, but in the end I know that even "electing" him to office will only keep the liberal and destructive ideology the governments derive their just powers form the consent of the governed in force.

Christ is King and the failure to acknowledge that by our government has brought us to our current state of government affairs and it's attendant excesses.

One Fat Oz Guy said...

I think you meant to type "But I don't like politicians" in your 9th paragraph.

Glen Filthie said...

Ol' Jim is telling the stupid kids that Hillary is eating children.


Uncle Bob, we seriously gotta talk about some of those turd brains on your blog roll...


al said...

I suspect that politics is still a 'divine science'

But instead of 'divine' = exalted, i suspect it's more 'divine' = reserved solely for higher powers (who might have the patience to deal with it)

As for efficiency, you should really want both efficiency and inefficiency. Inefficiency in the legislature, so they don't spend their time making more laws than is absolutely essential (ie very few of them)

But with bureaucrats, they cost money, so it behoves them to be as efficient as possible, lest they waste the taxpayer's money.

Twarog said...

"If Trump gets elected he can only do so much good (and it won't be all the much) and if Clinton gets in she can only do so much damage."

Between her health issues and her corruption problem, Mrs. Clinton would have been a one-term President, at best, and probably wouldn't have been able to get anything done anyway because she'd be mired in criminal investigations from day one, like her husband during his second term.

Mr. Trump has better health, but he's no spring chicken either, so who knows if he'll be up for a second term himself. Still, if all he does is take the gloves off of INS and the Border Patrol and let them do their jobs aggressively, that alone will have a big impact on quality-of-life in the US. The immigration problem is the low-hanging fruit of American politics- it exacerbates all of our other problems (unemployment, education, trade, etc.), but as political issues go, it's relatively easy to solve. After that, we have to tackle the really hard stuff, and I'm not sure we're up for it as a country.

Unknown said...

I doubt Trump runs for a second term. But if he fulfills his promises his successor should done just fine.