(Click to enlarge)
On Choosing Politicians
(This was written after a short paddle in the summer of 2008)
On a day when it was simply too hot to paddle out to the sea buoy despite the favorable current and wind conditions (virtually no wind), I decided to just paddle straight out for an hour and return to my beach, hopefully ahead of serious dehydration. The heat and some other things going on in my life had me in a foul mood so naturally my thoughts turned toward politicians. I had been reading about the earmarks won by the usual subjects in Washington, and my favorite quote about politicians popped into my thoughts. G. K. Chesterton, back in the 1920’s said: “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.” Now we all know that such quotes are always considered hyperbole, but given the absolutely treasonous statements by some politicians while our nation is at war perhaps some of those bastards should be hanged.
The synchronized swells over which my kayak guided smoothly and almost effortlessly did nothing to assuage my anger at being faced with two poor choices, once again, for president of the United States. I would hope that were “none of the above” placed on every ballot in the country, that “none of the above” would carry 49 states – Massachusetts being the only exception since those people would probably write in “Kennedy,” and by that they would mean any Kennedy still standing.
Sometimes I think our form of government, because of its dependence on elected politicians, just simply does not work, but then I’m always reminded of what Winston Churchill said about it: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Of course his remarks were meant also to include our Democratic Republic.
Sir Winston, the Man of the Century, was not often wrong, and I’m sure he knew what he was talking about when he spoke those words about democracy. We do, though, have to find a better way to vet our candidates for public office. If an applicant for a federal job has to go through a detailed background check by the FBI or some other federal investigative service before he can be hired, why can’t we mandate such background investigations for anyone who has declared himself a candidate for public office? Why do we leave something so important to the media, where definitive evidence of bias has been painfully obvious forever? Of course, in addition to the media, we can also rely on the materials produced and distributed by the candidate himself. Now that’s really reliable. In addition to requiring a background investigation on those who have declared themselves ready to “serve the people,” why not require them to take and pass closely monitored detailed written examinations on Economics, History (especially the history of war), and Philosophy (with an emphasis on Logic)? The results of such examinations could be made public so everyone could see exactly how intelligent these people are. Some might say that the so-called “debates” are the equivalent of oral examinations. Sorry. The next time one of the candidates answers a question put by one of the “debate” moderators honestly and completely rather than using well-practiced obfuscatory skills to look intelligent while evading the question, will be a milestone in American politics.
(On such things does one ruminate while paddling a one-person kayak miles out in the ocean - closer to God.)
