Culturalism · Federal Government · Uncategorized

The Wrath of Undecideds

MSNBC recently interviewed an Ohio voter to gauge his opinion of the Trump-Biden debate. The chap, who is undecided, gave a prototypical spiel about both candidates being negative, and asked them to provide more specifics. I had to stifle a laugh, because his line is so grimly predictable for an “independent moderate.” Such folks are trotted out every election, almost as if to maintain the fantastic faith people place in democracy, and the notion that votes somehow matter. The race becomes all about those swing ballots, with politicians desperately courting the enlightened few in hopes of seizing that magical 50.1 percent ticket so their legacy is protected. Democracy lives another glorious day.

But does it really? This sycophantic obsession with undecideds may warm individual hearts, yet in truth it simply masks the great scam which is civic duty in the United States. Headstrong souls march about feeling self-important in front of the reporter’s microphone, when in fact they reveal the bitter shallows of their own brain, and those of the comrade travelers nearby.

Fly back to 2012 for a moment. Obama and Romney were battling it out for the sainted executive office, and CNN began its custom of assembling a car of simpletons identified by their unwillingness to pick red or blue ahead of the election. Easily the most infuriating to hear blabber was our friend Joe:

The picture is everything here. Despite claiming to be the former owner of a flooring company, which probably required him to manage employees and make tough decisions, Stoltz remained dreamy-eyed until the very end, also demanding “more specifics” from Diversity Corporate Guy and Magic Underwear Corporate Guy.  Perhaps I expect too much of people, but how difficult is it to predict what a president will do based on history? Republicans like to spend on the military and cut taxes for the rich, while Democrats increase trans-revenue and expand welfare. Overlap exists, but namely on the Carebearland question.

 For a grown man who has lived through different elections to be still playing footsie with both parties right before the balloting day indicates either a lazy mind or pure ignorance, but not the foundations for brilliance and the sanctity of the vote. Joey would ultimately cast his paper for Obama after the president “was forceful” when responding to Romney, and because Billy Boy Clinton endorsed him. Furthermore, Obama’s mention of education in the debate really sealed the deal:

“That third debate sunk it all the way in for me — since I am in school and Obama was focused on education.”

That’s right, he voted for a politician who dropped the “education” word in a televised debate, because he is also in school. These are the creatures holding out to the end, my friends. Child-like minds agitating over trigger words and the prospect of being given something. Here are a couple more photos for good measure:

Is this the Try Guys convention?
Who’s writing this blog again?
The undecided “Radical for Jesus”

Ahh, is democracy not happiness?          

Federal Government

Expect a Ceremonial President

Nowadays calling an election with any degree of certainty veers dangerously close to the path of damnation. Copious statistics and technical analysis cannot reliably affirm an outcome in cases where the political Black Swan prevails, and therefore electing to make bold predictions presents a troublesome risk. With that being said, value can still be extracted from pontifications about what specific results might look like.

On this front, let us consider the notion of a Biden Presidency, and how minimally Biden would tend to influence day-by-day machinations. It is abundantly clear that Mr. Robinette has been affected by some form of mental decline. This fact is not advanced to mock him as a person—and indeed sympathy should be called for—but in terms of the office itself, Uncle Joe is bound to be more of a figurehead than any other president beforehand, and perhaps will not even be much apart from a statue to promote the vague sense of national unity.

Such a development is interesting in light of America’s political tradition. Although officially a presidential system, the Executive Branch has vacillated widely in terms of overall power. We have the concept of the Imperial Presidency conceived in the 1970s, and the tenure of Chief of Staff Don Regan, who was popularly seen as “prime minister” over President Reagan’s government. More recently, Dick Cheney usurped great power from George W. Bush while serving as the latter’s vice president, while Donald Trump has reclaimed significant authority for himself in the Oval Office.

But Biden would likely be different. At the tender young age of 78 and with failing memory, he is liable to embody the ceremonial, Head of State-style president visible in most European democracies; typically an elderly man or woman with basic duties to make appointments and appear at events but otherwise divorced from real responsibility and power. Democrats can flash his smile for the cameras, get legislation signed, and then allow the inner chamber doors to shut securely, locking Joey out of the real decision table.

Some will undoubtedly decry the possibility, perhaps appealing to his many years as a senator and champion for transforming bills into law. The same could of course be said for Robert Byrd, who hung on until the very end despite limited abilities towards that junction. Biden’s advantage over others here would be his legacy as a president, not simply another grouchy curmudgeon in the congressional retirement home. That prize is quite substantial for a person not confident of what his own name is.

But fear not, for while Biden may happily inhabit the world of ceremonial statesmanship, the Head of Government will be faithfully executed by a steady puppet mistress, if not her crafty friend.