Middle Class Part 17: Independent Voices in the Wilderness*

“A man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.”
– Mark Twain

Good apples in the bunch: Last time I wrote about my distaste for the bad apples spoiling the bunch. While I don’t want to overuse the apple tree metaphor, it may be worth just a little bit more space. The world of politics generally and my apple tree specifically, contain plenty of bad apples and relatively few good ones. My mom had asked me on a couple of occasions if I would pick some good ones and bring them to her house so she could make an apple pie. I did so once and found that she didn’t make the pie, despite the fact that I’d climbed to nearly the top step of the ladder, sighting what appeared to be good apples and just before I would pluck some of them I would turn them around to get a look at the other side that was hidden from me at first. Much more than half the time, the apples that appeared to be perfect turned out to be festering with less obvious natural wounds, whether by insects or elemental nature. On rare occasions a good apple from one cursory look turned out to be just as good an apple when given a more complete inspection. Two such apples, still somewhat Quixotically clinging to the tree of politics, are Ralph Nader and Lou Dobbs.

The Zenith of Nader: Anyone with an Internet connection can research the background on Ralph Nader, so I won’t spend a paragraph writing about his biography or his portfolio as it regards consumer activism or politics. Suffice to say, he is someone who is much more qualified to write the things I’m writing. In fact, he has decades of experience doing more than writing about the ills of this country. He has written many books, and his 2004 book named “The Good Fight” is filled with many of the same things I have already written about: CEO salaries, corporate money influencing elections and legislative votes, consumer advocacy against major corporations who syphon money from all economic classes, government waste, an over-funded military, political fraud, foreign trade misgivings, unprosecuted SEC violations, health care abuses from non-profit HMOs, and extreme capitalism, etc. He describes and documents much more than I have in his 275 page book, and that is not the only book he’s written on the topic of the excessive stupidity and complicity of the federal government and its ancillary private sector allies which the government protects. Nader catalogues any number of sickening unlitigated recidivist white collar crimes. I haven’t gotten any of my justification or material from him until this entry. He has been crying out in the wilderness for political change, much like I have, but he has done so with much more of a punch.

Apex of Nader: Nader even ran twice for president in 2000 and 2004 and less formally preceding that. I voted for him in 2004 when his candidacy was considered less authentic, less permissible by the Independent voters, judging by the popular vote. I decided to order two copies of Nader’s book- “The Good Fight,” keeping one for myself and deciding to send one to a relative- to essentially show her that her blindness in favoring the republican party is contrary to reason. Nader, to me, pretty much says all that I have said, and much more, minus the embellishments made to certain species of the animal kingdom and the accompanying exaggerated physical or mental ailments I have used to prove some points. Nader’s book, the contents of which sometimes strike me as too liberal, is fairly humorless, but spot on in attributing blame to the two political parties and the big businesses the parties protect. There are facts, percentages, fractions, dollar amounts, and money trails all over the place. Clearly, the guy knows what he’s talking about. It would be socio-economically irresponsible to deny all of those facts. And towards the end of the book he advocates what disgusted people ought to do. Nader renames the duplicitous republicans and democrats- “republicrats” (signifying that they are conjoined for the purpose of fleecing the American public), for they have developed, possibly accidentally, a method of “protective imitation,” (p. 25) wherein they stand to gain by being like-minded. Never, Nader writes, has there been such a collection of “slovenly puppets masquerading as denizens of the world’s greatest deliberative body.” (p. 205) I think Obi-One Kenobi said something similar to Luke before they entered the confines of the city of Mos Eisley describing it as a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” Mos Eisley-Capital Hill- same, same.

Lou Dobbs: Even better is Dobbs’ book- “War on the Middle Class.” I may have sent my aunt Dobbs’ book had I encountered it first. Dobbs is a good apple who has hosted, off and on for CNN, a news or economics-based talk show for years now. Dobbs writes this on page 18 of his book:

“The middle class finds itself in the enviable position of being the largest segment of society, but unfortunately, it is also the least well served by big business and big government. While the middle class contains the largest number of citizens and voters, it has the least effective representation in Washington.”

He writes that he asked senators and congressmen to name a piece of legislation that was enacted on behalf of the middle class, their responses amounted to:

“ ‘What about the Bush tax cuts? Those helped the middle class.’ In fairness, they did help, indirectly. In reality, however, they were designed to accommodate the very wealthy. And the very wealthy derived more than three times as much benefit from them as did the middle class that, incidentally, pays the largest amount of taxes.”**

I had never seen Dobbs’ show on CNN until very recently and was only vaguely aware of him until last year when I saw his book on the shelf in Barnes and Noble. There has even been some talk that he might consider running for president as an Independent. All kinds of other politicians and political windbags would say things like former Texas congressman Martin Frost: “ ‘All he’d be doing is acting as a spoiler . . . I can’t take it seriously.’ ” (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119966350283971015.html) Good, that is exactly what Independents want you to think. Both Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, Independent candidates for the presidency, are blamed for Bill Clinton winning in 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000, respectively. If enough of the Independents would actually vote that way, an Independent would act as more than the spoiler. Unfortunately, having watched Dobbs just one time made me suspect that true Independents would not ultimately go for him. He seems too curmudgeonly and seems to be working too hard to come up with words to communicate his disgust with the two parties and too loose of a canon- and this is coming from a guy that gets close to getting thrown out of his family's or in-laws houses at religious holidays for being too controversial. At any rate, I read his Wikipedia entry, and all of the things he has said and done are perfectly fine by me, but age coupled with that kind of flippancy smacks of someone whose mental state is in a decline. But that is better than the traditional gang of candidates who have been mental for years. I’d still vote for him because we have to get an Independent’s poll numbers (and I hate to admit this because I think there should be national, state, and local law against polling) to 15% so that Independents can get into the debates. The 15% polling number is just one more thing I would change. Who am I kidding- here is the Wikipedia entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs) This guy has bigger cajones than a polar bear with testicular elephantitas, even if the bear's jewels are measured after the bear has spent a significant time out of the icy water (think shrinkage). Read Dobbs’ book, watch his show; this is the type of guy that should be running this friggin’ country. In the Wall Street Journal Online article I quote from above, Dobbs is described as “CNNs fuming voice for the disaffected” . . . and “laments the squeeze on incomes of middle-income Americans.” These are courtesy of Dobbs' wikipedia entry:

- Dobbs describes illegal immigration as an invasion;

- he labeled the current N.Y. governor an “idiot” for desiring to issue illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. (Ah, not sure why they would need a car, want a car, or want to drive a car in New York you say- ah, driver’s license = citizenship verification? = voting rights- hell no!)

- he made a $1,000 contribution to the Bush-Cheney campaign but has since described the Bush administration and the then republican controlled congress as “disgraceful”

The Independents: Both Nader’s and Dobbs’ books contain the right amount of anxiety, frustration, defiance, facts, instances of fraud, and shhhhhhhhhhhhhh- proof, unless you are a republican or democratic voting zombie. For, it is inconceivable that both of them are making up all of the particulars contained in their books. I have done so much research over the last year that a lot of the stuff I’m seeing in Nader’s and Dobbs’ books I’ve read in one or more other sources. I had a hard time trying to decide which passages to note because there is so little in Nader’s and Dobbs books that should go unquoted.

I was watching Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” program the Sunday morning prior to the New Hampshire primary and Obama was supposed to soundly defeat Clinton according to a couple of poll experts. That didn’t happen. I’m telling you- polls are dangerous to the political process, for more reasons than this, that I will address in a subsequent column.

The most interesting thing I’ve heard in the last couple months- the canvassers mentioned in one of the graphics they had prepared on "Meet the Press" was that 45% of the voters in New Hampshire are Independents. From the way the poll experts presented the information, they are taking for granted that these Independent voters will align with either the republican or democratic nominee. That isn’t an Independent voter- that is an undecided voter. An Independent voter has the balls, sans elephantitas, to vote for a type of candidate who may not have a chance to win an election for 20 years, or until a third and fourth party can be established.

I noticed that again, Ron Paul was off to the far reaches of the stage after the South Carolina debate which took place on January 10th. Arguably, Paul is the least conservative of the republican candidates and so never stands in a more prominent position; product placement is just as important for political candidates as it is for a madame deciding which whores to have prospective clients view first when they pull up to the cat-house. Yeah, a comparison of whores to candidates is meant in the best way. Paul wasn’t even invited to a Fox debate (a republican/conservative based network) because he wasn’t polling well enough. This is a man who is still in the race and had been invited to every other debate. Fox should have caught far more heat than they did. Ah, Paul isn’t a true republican and ran as a Populist in the 1988 presidential election. So, we’ll take him on our side. Paul polled at 10% in Iowa, far better than Giuliani’s 3%, yet Giuliani was included in the Fox debate. Fox News maintained that they only had enough room for so many candidates. Unless Ron Paul is the size of the dragon from the Shrek movies, include him in the debate. Paul supporters had every right to protest. Paul is caught in a media and politically devised catch-22: the media doesn't cover him because he hasn't polled very well and he hasn't polled very well because the media won't cover him. The republican nominating committee (RNC), and Rush Limbaugh types must fear the type, or overall lack, of conservatism that Paul represents or they would push to have him included in debates, or seriously consider his ideas on their Echo Narcissistic programs.

Also, I was watching something called Glenn Beck on CNNs Headline News who was ridiculing N.Y. mayor Michael Bloomberg, a former republican turned Independent, who is considering a presidential run. Beck could hardly get the words he was using to berate Bloomberg’s potential candidacy out of his mouth; I could almost see the hamster working overtime with the assistance of a recently acquired dojo master inspirationally running the wheel which allowed Beck to speak. The words were seemingly physically forming inside of his maw so that they could compete to sky-dive out of Beck’s yap. The thing that struck me most about Beck’s vehement ostracism of Bloomberg was his attack against Bloomberg’s platform. Beck felt that Bloomberg was all over the place, choosing a position from over here from the right and over there from the left as if he were ordering ala carte at a Chinese food restaurant- to paraphrase Beck. Duh! That is what an Independent is- someone who can’t stand either side, chooses the better aspects of both, more in line with the middle class voter. Why would an Independent come out- anti gun, pro illegal immigration, pro choice, pro SCHIP (child’s health care), pro Medicare, pro poor people, and pro education in government’s control? The democrats already have that sickening platform to themselves. However, if Beck is right about Bloomberg’s position on immigration, then the good mayor should save all his millions, because Independents wouldn’t vote for him anyway.

Idle Hands do the Devil's Work: I admit, thinking is more difficult, getting people to be engaged in the topic of politics, to contribute to the discussion, to become impassioned voters, to contribute one’s valuable time, to watching Bill Moyers echo the sentiments of Nader and Dobbs, to petitioning on behalf of a candidate, to shout back at those democratic and republican pundits who think they know better than any Independent, takes some fortitude, desire, intelligence and a mindset which is probably akin to making a New Year’s resolution to decide to stick to an exercise regimen at the gym or to stop the chiggers in our life from getting a habanero pepper facial. It is surreal to become emotionally involved, because too often we can get up and grab a soda from the fridge and only have to emotionally commit to opening it. “Nothing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility.” -Elizabeth Cady Stanton. To get involved in a middle class taxpayer cause is one of my goals for 2008- I don’t call them resolutions. I sent a $25 check to Common Cause for membership fees just last week- see commoncause.org. Not getting involved seemed too hypocritical of me. My hands were too idol and apathy in politics is the devil's product.

Sure, it is tougher to sell anyone confused by the diametrically opposed viewpoints of traditional republicans and democrats on a third choice, or a fourth one. See, because if you are as pig-headed as some of the Echo Narcissists (see part 16), or the even less evolved voting public (Narcissistically speaking) that swallows what the Echo Narcissists have to say, you only have to know one side of the argument- your own. The die-hard republicans and democrats I know are loathe to accept the validity of even one point on the other side- I think they think it means they could be weakening- like they are political alcoholics on the verge of falling off the wagon if they so much as sniff a drink that contains truth laced with rum.

The Devil you don't Know: Even “Independents” are afraid of the devil they don’t know- a phrase that is rapidly approaching the level of a cliche. They know that the democrats will screw them one way or the republicans another and they have been conditioned to accept it- even to joke of it and to offer the Thing One and Thing Two of politics (democrats and republicans- see part 15) a cooler handshake than a wounded baby dolphin would give to a killer shark, but still Independents help elect one side or the other because they are familiar with those types of devils. Being an Independent means that both sides of the argument must be known as well as the portion of many arguments in the middle that neither side much accounts for, because life is seldom as simple as carte blanche for or against something- there are nuances to almost everything.

If an independent receives 3% of the popular vote in 2008’s general election- so what- maybe we get to 7% four years later. The republicans and democrats have solved relatively few things since at least Andrew Jackson anyway, so I don’t see the spirit, the ideal of wanting to buck the system going away.

Electoral College: I’ll get into this more later- but the aforementioned Perot, described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, won 19% of the popular vote and no electoral votes in 1992. He appealed to the political middle- fiscally he was a republican and socially he was a democrat- that first stance is what cost George H.W. Bush the presidency in 1992. Huh, it seems polling, redistricting as it equates to immigration and the majority vote, the political cabal of republicans and democrats, the hesitant Independents, Echo Narcissists giving unequal space and air time to the preferred candidates, and oh yeah, the politicians themselves, are all issues that will keep the middle class financially compromised well into the future if not resolved. Yes, throw the electoral college problem into the mix. Getting candidates on all our state’s ballots should not require 30k names on a petition. Standardize the requirement- see because certain types of state’s rights, in an unrequited way, should have been dispensed with during the Civil War, for the threat of a state's secession is no longer an avenue to be feared by the federal government. Yeah, that was sarcasm.

* The probably generally understood meaning of the phrase probably doesn’t require a footnote. But biblically, and believe me, I am no self-righteous biblical revisionist- the paraphrased words come from several biblical passages, the most pertinent of which, because it makes only one reference to god, comes from Mark 1:3- “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Yeah, I think there is a subtextual application in those words which can be divested of its religious meaning and adorned with a political one. But maybe that’s just me. And I’m not referring to any Independent as a savior, just an improvement, whose path could be made more straight if more Independents were to vote for him or her.

** In fairness here as well, I think Dobbs might mean, proportionally. As we know, the middle class is often subjectively defined. Some people think that a purely economic definition will suffice, and with that the middle-classers fall anywhere in between a gross income of between $30k to $90k and some think the range is more like $45k-$150k, still others think that a more broad economic definition would have middle-classers in-between $45k and $300k. If 60-80% of the people fall within that category (the percentage of taxpayers is also a matter of debate), they most likely would be paying the most in taxes. I have already commented that CEOs allowed by the government to accept pay packages that jeopardize a company’s financial well-being and tax shelter laws which assist corporations in hiding revenues is where more tax money ought to come from. Nader and Dobbs both touch on CEO salaries and corporate greed in their books.

Next time: I’ve thus far only referred to two books- Nader’s and Dobbs’ in the library of political commentary, which provided me with corroborating evidence. Next, I will jump into an even more cursory and historical look at books written in the last 16 years. Ah, if only Echo Narcissists could restrict their pathetic politically motivated contributions to the airways- they must consider themselves authors as well. I wonder what Twain would say about a person who can’t WRITE a good book.

Middle Class Part 16: Echo Narcissism, The Bad Apples on the Tree of Politics

“The individual citizen can with horror convince himself in this war of what would occasionally cross his mind in peacetime- that the state has forbidden to the individual the practice of wrong-doing, not because it desires to abolish it, but because it wants to monopolize it . . .”
- written by Sigmund Freud (Thoughts for the Times on War and Death, 1915)

Yes, that was written by the world’s most historically famous psychiatrist during World War I, but it stands up pretty well today. Given the types and quantities of crimes being committed that have nothing to do with the state/government, I can’t quite agree with the quotation in its entirety, but if the sentiment is restricted to crimes conducted under the auspices of campaigns, government generally, and overseen by politicians, whether unwittingly or deliberately, well then, our man Freud has a point.

Bad apples: The old cliche- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree is quite true; if the tree is elected elected officials, then the apples are the political pundits and talk show hosts, the worm-ridden fruit resting comfortably in the shade of the tree it once hung from, inhabited by all kinds of insects, seen and unseen, rotting in the hole, in the groove, its impact with the ground has made. Both types of people, politicians and pundits should share the blame for being the biggest part of the middle class problem I’ve spent a year researching and months unleashing. The media/talk show hosts/political pundits continue to report on poll numbers which influence sheep-like voters which leaves the less popular, but not the less qualified, candidates out of the loop. I would think that voting for someone who would represent us as citizens on whatever level of government imaginable wouldn’t be mindful of how one’s prom king and queen were elected when I was in high school.

Wag the dog: Today’s evil political equivalents come in the forms of the media, (one example would be Bill O’Reilly, as an emissary, an accomplice, a leech of evil along the lines of Beelzebub) and Hillary Clinton (one example of a politician- more along the lines of Satan himself). One needn’t have read "Paradise Lost" to follow me here. Neither the politicians nor most members of the media are all that interested in allowing the public to become fully acquainted with the metaphorical equivalent of the apple granted to Eve in the Garden of Eden because the government’s monopolizing manner of controlling the practice of wrong-doing (to cite Freud above) would be subject to the will of the public, that is, if the public could ever effectively organize. Political pundits and talk show hosts are the fleas and the politicians are the dog; and the fleas only very infrequently bite the breed of dog that supports their livelihood in this world, for it is wrong for a republican flea like Bill O’Reilly to bite one of his hosts, Mike Huckabee. O’Reilly, Jason Lewis, Bob Davis, etc. are more suited to bite democratic dogs like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. When I’ve heard conservative talk show hosts discuss the field of republican candidates for president with anxiety, I’ve learned that the pundits are dissatisfied with the current crop of republicans because the pundits find the republican candidates might not be guaranteed to kick a democratic nominee’s behind in a general election. Huh, if you aren’t that enamored with your own candidates, why don’t you vote for an Independent. Fleas, dogs, trees, apples- the blessed metaphors. Sorry, but so many metaphors strike me as being ripe (ahem, we are talking about apples here) for the dysfunctional topic at hand.

Media bias: The liberals have a majority when it comes to maintaining a passive-aggressive stranglehold on the media of television and newspaper. So the conservatives, insecure by this slight, use the radio to rail on the liberals in a desperate attempt to get back at them, like politics is some little spat between toddlers who haven’t yet made enough noise for their parents to take notice. Oh, they’re related alright- the democrats and the republicans. Many psychologists, including Freud, would tell you that the people that we are most likely to find fault with are the ones who are most like ourselves, and happens without our even knowing it. The democrats and republicans hate each other and it is the voters that lose out because often this escalates into personality conflicts rather than issue debate. And the voter is at a loss as to how to hold candidates accountable for not talking about the things that matter.

I otter: I again recently wrote in to Bob Davis, just another in a long line of conservative radio talk show hosts, who is based in Minnesota. His topic that day concerned the lack of issues being discussed by the then over-populated field of political candidates. He was frustrated that all they were talking about were personal differences, sex, race, religion, weight, likability, on what side of their scalp their rival parts his hair, etc. He then asked for people to call in, requesting their opinions on what are some of the issues they’d like the candidates to discuss. I wrote in, because I can’t call in at work and don’t listen at home- I have to focus on successfully accomplishing one of my myriad of New Year’s resolutions- one of which is to try to eat non-rotten apples left handed. Anyway, I wrote in that the biggest issue, the Rosetta Stone of issues, the root of the problem, if you will, was campaign finance. These candidates are raking in millions from individuals and corporations that the candidate will be beholden to when or if they get elected. Anyone who doesn’t think this is a major problem is more naïve than a dim-witted, homeless crab with a hearing problem who in mid June accepts the dinner invitation of an otter who swears he has given up shellfish for lint. See, the hard of hearing crab, thought that the otter said Lent. Lent is a religious period extending 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday, which often places the demand on adherents of catholicism to give something up which one enjoys. But the dim-witted crab became confused; it didn’t occur to her that Lent occurs in March and April and never in June. And an otter giving up the delicacy of fresh shellfish in favor of lint, well, that is just pure insanity. So, the crab was confused on many fronts.

Campaign finance: Anyway, Davis downplayed it and asked if I had ever gotten involved, ever campaigned for a candidate, volunteered to be an election judge, participated in a caucus, contributed to a campaign. Actually, for him, these are fairly substantial questions which he meant rhetorically. I responded that contributing in such ways, especially monetarily, was a waste of time, and his other suggestions were small potatoes compared to the larger issues of most candidates being on the hook for returning the favor of receiving millions of dollars to aid in their campaign effort. Caucus? Did he wonder if I had ever attended a caucus? Hilarious, and next he’ll tell me that an NFL team can thrive while running the wishbone offense. The playing field, in every walk of life, changes in time. The measures he listed are for a time that has long since passed. The politicians, corporations, etc. are playing hide and seek with the money earned by the middle class. So far as I remember, the game of hide and seek is best played when those who are hiding keep quiet about their location. Unfortunately for us, politicians, corporations, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc. are better at this game than the taxpayers. Where and how are they hiding it and how much are they hiding? See parts 9-11. Politicians are spending billions of dollars on a war the public is increasingly against and the best idea you have is to tell a well-informed INDEPENDENT voter to caucus? This is the kind of guy that would cite and fine a homeowner for code violations while his house was burning to the ground, a fire proven not to have been caused by the violations in question. The house in that example is symbolic of the country- just making sure you're following me. Now, Cletis and Eunice might have met in Mabel's barn to caucus in the 1920s, but that pig just isn't going to fly these days.

My response to Bob’s solutions: I’m quoting myself here, awfully pretentious- “How beholden would a republican candidate be to a guy who gave $100, helping to finance the republican's campaign, and asking the republican to vote FOR the smoking ban, if the tobacco company that gave his political party $10.3 million requested that he vote AGAINST the smoking ban?” I've found that Bob often doesn't have answers to other people's questions. I’m sure Bob feels that he has monopolized knowledge, but I learned that the largest contributor to the republican party prior to the 2000 presidential election was the tobacco corporation Phillip Morris ($10.3 million). Among the other top 25 is R. J. Reynolds, another major tobacco company. (Courtesy of Charles Lewis' book: "The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and His Democratic Challengers--and What They Expect in Return"). Is it any wonder why republicans in congress would largely vote against a smoking ban in what are deemed public areas such as restaurants. Now, republicans would tell you that they voted against the smoking ban because it is a check on our personal liberties, because they detest regulations.

There is some truth to that. But for the same reason, isn’t it a personal liberty violation to continue to allow smoking in public places when at least 75% of the people don’t smoke? Head to: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp (revised 10/25/2007) where you’ll find that second-hand smoke inhalation was found to be the cause of 38,400 deaths from heart disease and lung cancer alone. Incidentally, I wrote in to Jason Lewis, another Minnesota based conservative radio talk show host this summer when the smoking ban topic was in high gear (see the end of part 10). I informed him that while I was writing to him to decry his attempt to compare the right to smoke in public places to the right to eat oneself to death, my wife was attempting to prevent my son from smacking my daughter across the top of the head with a plastic toy. She advised my son that he couldn’t hit other people, and that he could, but shouldn’t, hit himself either. I hoped that Mr. Lewis was able to take my meaning. It must only be a violation of personal liberty if a conservative says so.

The politics of perfect: See, conservatives think that this country is perfect when they are in power and call all the shots. Democrats think this country is in a terrible state of affairs no matter who is in power and will continue to think so until white men are the minority, all reparations have been made to any current minority, and they hand over the country to Mexicans, Middle-Easterners, Indians, Hmongs, etc. Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, said: “ ‘I don’t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands.’ ” (I’m quoting from George Will’s November 25, 2007 article- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_failings_of_heroic_conserv.html). I’m pretty sure T.R. said this well after he led the Rough Rider’s charge up Kettle Hill during the Spanish-American War, like when he was president- see, because that is when he had the most power. Thing is, a lot of republicans think that this country would be perfect if no one ever questioned a thing they do, because they would have the citizens believe that ‘everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds’- to paraphrase a sarcastic famous line used by Voltaire in his novel "Candide." I agree with Will’s assessment of conservatives and thought as he does prior to having read his article because of my electronic mail exchanges with conservative talk show host Mr. Davis. Roosevelt’s cousin, Franklin Delano, a democrat, had more power as president than Teddy ever did, and I know the republican’s don’t look upon the New Deal initiatives F.D.R. shoved through congress all that favorably in retrospect.

On many levels, this country may be without peer in the world, but it is not without a ton of rotten apples. Seemingly, any disgust felt and somewhat allowed to be expressed by citizens who feel compelled to call into any conservative’s show is met by the host with pontification, and filibustering which placates the mostly ill-equipped callers into submission or silence. Bob Davis, and hundreds of conservatives and liberals like him are part of the problem. They won’t justify any of the disgust of the millions of people like me who are rightfully at odds with American politics and government or concede any reasonable, provable ways in which conscientious voters express themselves. A colleague listens to Davis as well and corrected me once. After I sent an instant message to my friend stating that one caller had brought a knife to a gun fight, he responded- no, he brought a spork. Bob Davis is apparently never wrong, as I’ve discovered. Davis is much like the tree from which he . . . stems- George W. Bush, republican president, who upon direct questioning at a number of news conferences, will never come up with one instance where he made a mistake in judgment as president. Hmm- in seven years in office?

Echo Narcissism: I believe I’ve come up with an original term for radio talk show hosts, equating them to the combination of two Greek mythical figures. Both of the stories have a few variations, one of which concerns Echo falling in love with Narcissus. The most popular version of the Echo story is that Hera punished the nymph Echo by having her repeat only the last syllable of the last person to utter a word. After the caller is hung up on, the host can then mockingly berate the caller, repeating (Echo) the argument if only to chastise the sentiment. I have found that the host repeats their view again and again, apparently thinking they can somehow equate that repetition to a resolution of the issue in their favor. Since talk show hosts are paid for talking, and in many cases, talking over the listener gracious enough to provide some fodder to their show, I think this an appropriate connection, but not nearly as appropriate as the second component of this malady whose almost exclusive membership is comprised of talk show hosts. Narcissus was a hero who was quite enamored with his own beauty. In most versions of the story, Narcissus becomes entranced with his reflection in a pool of water. He is transfixed and despite his sorrow, for reasons I won’t get into here, but perhaps might have extended to him becoming overly enamored with the political leader of his choice, he essentially falls in love with himself. So, political pundits, experts, radio talk show hosts, whose opinions aren’t to be questioned, even those who would call themselves democrats, in my opinion should be diagnosed by a psychiatrist from this point forward as suffering from Echo Narcissism. Their opinion is beyond reproof; they will talk over you; they will mockingly repeat what it is a contrarian might have to say in dispute of the host’s monopolizing views, and they love themselves for their ability to do so. They have the right and the platform, for they are paid to do so and their employers expect it of them.

List of Echo Narcissists/parasitic blow-hards: Most any radio or television talk show personality could be listed, and since I wouldn’t be able to come up with a comprehensive list- I’ll leave that to the imagination of any reader still following this topic. Most of the Echo Narcissists I had a mind to refer to are much more conservative than liberal, which further echoes my point about the media bias in regards to the type of media format I mention above. What is especially interesting is that plenty of those I have in mind are MN radio personalities; Minnesota is historically one of the wildest cards in the deck of politics when it comes to voting for elected officials, because we will vote for anything- republicans, democrats, even former wrestlers, and probably narcoleptic cheetahs with a drastic case of halitosis derived from their inability to work the floss that would clear the gazelle cartilage from their incisors. Largely though, MN is considered a liberal state, the only state to vote for Mondale in the 1984 presidential election- (along with the District of Columbia- Mondale too brought a spork to a gunfight, gathering only 13 total electoral votes). Another friend of mine wondered at my idea of bringing an independent voice to the radio, stating that it wouldn’t work. I don’t bring sporks to gunfights. You would need advertisers and money and once companies, who are not buying politicians, find that an independent could gain an audience, we would be able to shout down the self-important jackasses who think we breath to hear their opinion.

How about those apples: Truth be told, I have a mature apple tree in my back yard and can’t stand the thing. The apples aren’t good enough to eat. In the autumn, bees inhabit them; the apples fall to the ground and rot, with worms, flies, and ants using them as apartment complexes so far as I can tell. I put gloves on to pick them up before mowing because they are so infiltrated with nature’s bottom-feeders- bees are the major tenants. My curious, near three-year-old will soon find them suitable play things and finding out if he or his younger sister will have a severe allergic reaction to a bee sting isn’t something I’m looking forward to. So, this coming spring, I will be treating my father’s chainsaw to an apple-tizer, a small taste of food, featuring apples, that in this case won't precede a feast. I’ve already used an apple tree as a fit analogy for the current state of politics. It will bring me great pleasure to remove such an insidious thing from the confines of this earth. If only divesting ourselves from most democrats and republicans were that easy.

The value of the vote: We, as a nation of voters, have been operating under the assumption that politicians are elected to represent us. I know this because we keep electing them. Politicians are clearly more beholden to the corporations that give them millions of dollars to fund campaigns than they are to a nation in which only half of the people vote. Now, this corruption may have come up gradually, unwittingly, or knowingly, with some of the politicians being more naturally inclined toward incompetence than others who are much more complicit, more deliberately evil, self-seeking and Satan-like, but rest assured, it is entirely possible that many of the politicians we’ve been electing aren’t so much thinking of those whom they are supposed to dutifully represent. So, despite a republican’s or a democrat’s best hopes, maybe the collective citizenry of the country, especially the millions of middle class voters, might begin to think and act as if their best interests aren’t being attended to. For, if we have been assuming the best without recent demonstrated proof that they aren’t acting in our best interests and the citizens are as disgruntled and frustrated as we appear to be without anything changing, shouldn’t we, for the sake of change, simply begin to assume the worst. Can't we begin to assume that politicians are entirely too beholden to the corporations and individuals who provide them with the larger campaign contributions? We could then champion a more conscientious set of political representatives, a more sincere-looking set of turkeys (to recall the contents of the political cartoon from part 15) and place them into office by the use of our vote? Oh, voting, that would be something people can do to alter the political landscape- yeah, that would be participating in the political process, and perhaps the only thing that can be done to turn the tide.

Apple of my eye: In short, we may not be able to finally, definitively and to all people prove that the current or upcoming group of politicians are morally bankrupt and are selling our future so that 1-10% of the country can benefit financially. But maybe we should assume that politicians, with few exceptions, have been plausibly denying their moral bankruptcy since the legitimized politically functional beginning of this country back in 1789. Isn’t that worth the passion of the protest vote, and a true appeal by the voters to change what simply voting the lesser of two evils into office will never be able to accomplish? A protest vote can powerful, if millions of people decide to cast it.

Next time: I will delve into some of the secondary source material I have read/skimmed in support of my theories- attorneys would probably call this corroborating evidence. Some of it was written by fleas, some of it was written by dogs, and some of it was written by a conscientious third group that seems to despise or be indifferent to the existence of both.