As has been previously pointed out, most everybody seems to be suffering some fundamental delusions about the exact nature of the job we’re currently considering candidates for. Namely, the job of executive branch of our Glorious Gummint: this mostly entails ordering the military about, being the ultimate last word in pardons and reprieves, signing treaties, being an enabler or obstruction for Congressionally authored legislation, talking to Important Foreigners, nominating SC judges and various more minor government-appointed jobs, and giving us a big talk every once in awhile to remind us he’s still there. (This last function has decreased in importance since the advent of C-Span.) Nowhere in the job description is anything about abortion, the state of marriage these days, energy policy, health care, public health in general, gun control or lack thereof, or any other of a dozen issues that we demand their opinions on and then proceed to collectively pretend they might ever have any direct power over. This is a particularly silly dance with respect to the economy, which the government believes itself to be in charge of in much the same way our local county council fancies itself to be in charge of traffic: they both confuse the power to obstruct, impede, and complicate with the power to control and guide. (Memo to the local legislators in question: there are only two main streets in town, some thirty thousand more people work in town than live there, and we are on a mesa. Unless you plan on having the Lab suspend some laws of physics locally, you are not going to get rid of rush hour.)
Not only are we basically confused about what job we’re even asking our candidates to do, we are completely obsessed with the selection process, which now begins more than a year before the actual relevant election does. (I’m not even going to BEGIN to go into the people who apparently believe George W. Bush is running again.) This process has essentially become a concentrated singularity of every political tic and stammer we as a nation have collectively accumulated*, as every neurosis we’ve managed to attach to the mythical figure at the head of our schizophrenic government plays out like a multi-month version of a Miss America interview for each would-be contender. We now have to do it twice: once to pick a candidate for each party, in which the candidates must compete to please the perpetually aggravated base of their own faction, and then again nationally, in which the candidates must take back most of what they said during the primaries to avoid making the voters who don’t belong to either fringe stampede to the other guy in terror. Although this process is messy, tiresome, and ugly, it is not in any way mysterious: the rules and arcana are well-defined, if inconvenient.
Normally all of this is reasonably easy to ignore, unless you’ve recently been reading history and the actual theory and instructions behind our government. It’s one of the small indignities of living in the future; in the past, the majority may have been ignorant and confused, but there was no way for millions of them at a time to remind you of that in so many small ways every day, thanks to the inefficiencies of communication. Sometimes, though, something still pulls you up short, mostly when one of the would-bes in the theoretical position of needing to know how these things work betrays that it’s not just pandering, they really don’t have any clue.
Mike Huckabee, one-time Republican presidential wannabe and current sore loser, is one such individual:
An advocate for better health since his diabetes diagnosis five years ago, Mike Huckabee warned Wednesday that the illness may pose a greater threat than terrorism to the United States.
Nearly 59 million Americans are at risk for type 2 diabetes. The former Arkansas governor said the epidemic would be “the lead story” across the country if tens of millions were in danger of terrorist attacks.
“The greatest challenge to America may not be something from without, it may be something from within,” Huckabee said. “It’s our own unhealthy habits.”
Up to a certain extent, Huckabee can be forgiven; he’s addressing a conference on diabetes as the keynote speaker, and not the press or America at large. However, even when pandering to a very specific audience, there are certain things you expect to be implicitly recognized from a politician. Among them are these:
1. There is a distinction between a threat from a demented individual, group, or state to directly attack Americans and a threat from the moral failings of Americans. Specifically, one of them is in fact the very definition of a national security issue- which is the responsibility of government- and one of them is not, unless you want to stretch national security to include the security of cellular insulin sensitivity. (Are we to protect autosomal cells as individuals separate from and sovereign within citizens, now? Will autoimmune disorders become civil wars?)
2. We do not generally regard poor decision-making skills (or decisions made that merely disagree with our sentiments of what is optimal rather than harming us) as an equivalent threat to the body politic as deliberate attempts to blow the body politic into small and completely nonfunctional pieces. One thing may technically kill more people, but we don’t evaluate national security issues based on body count over time. If we did, the most logical conclusion would be devoting all national resources to defeating cellular senescence.
3. It is not, technically, the job of any aspect of the government to make decisions about basic daily functions for us. Unfortunately, this is the most understandable point of delusion, as so many people share it. One would think, though, that it might have occurred to him that we don’t have nationalized health care yet and saved its more blatant Big Brother suggestions for after its implementation.
Although it pales in the face of these basic failures of understanding, Huckabee is still baffled about one more thing he really shouldn’t be:
He touted an idea he floated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture while he was governor. It would leverage the value of food stamps based on the nutritional content of food.
Food stamps worth $1 would give consumers $1.25 in buying power if the vouchers were used on healthy foods like fruits and vegetables. A $1 voucher would decrease in value to 75 cents for foods with little nutritional value.
“I never could get anybody to go along with it,” Huckabee said, blaming the lack of USDA interest on government red tape.
Mr. Huckabee, the USDA knows exactly who its primary customers are, and whose lobbyists create the pressure that defines the rules and their jobs. They are the same people whose interests are behind the reasons we have soda (and everything else) flavored with high-fructose corn syrup, why corn ethanol subsidies were pushed through with such a quickness, and why official dietary recommendations for people with type II diabetes still include starchy grains as the base of the “food” pyramid even though bathing their cells in a constant flow of carbohydrates is exactly how they became diabetic in the first place: they are grain growers. Grain is easier and more economical to grow, transport, store, and process than healthy fruits and vegetables are, which is why more people farm it, which is why they are the biggest and meanest section of the agricultural lobby, which is why getting the USDA to use food stamps to twist the arms of the poor into healthy choices is like getting the Crips and the Bloods to spearhead an effort to stamp out crack. We may kid ourselves into believing the churches that are a more familiar environment for Mr. Huckabee give charity without prejudice and always work in the best interests of the disadvantage, but believing that government “charity” is impartial to its own interests versus those of the hapless recipient is roughly akin to retaining a fervent belief in the Easter Bunny’s impartial distribution of chocolate eggs.
In other News of the Terminally Confused, we have the wife of another presidential hopeful, who is apparently determined to capture the role of most obnoxious first lady-to-be from her husband’s chief political rival, even if he doesn’t get the job: Michelle Obama on how “they” are blocking Barack’s nomination. (Note: I normally don’t like to link to partisan discussions of what somebody said rather than the most direct source, but I like linking directly to long videos even less. The link to her C-SPAN recorded speech is in the article.)
According to Mrs. Obama, her husband is still not the nominee because “they” keep “raising the bar for this man”. First he wasn’t the nominee because they said he couldn’t organize, then he organized, then they said he couldn’t raise money, then he raised money, then he couldn’t win in the primaries and caucuses and then he did, and JUST HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO PROVE?
Unfortunately for Mrs. Obama- or rather, obviously to everyone BUT her- is that “they” are the very same “they” that set the bar in exactly the same place for Hillary Clinton and for John McCain: the people who vote in primaries and caucuses, who will go on to be exactly the same them that vote in the general election, who are exactly the same them that have the final say in whether or not Barack Obama is going to be president or not. Everybody else is just a commentator, trying to predict what “they” will do. Campaign, primaries, caucuses, convention, nomination, general election: same they the whole time. Same bars in exactly the same places for all the same people the whole time. Yes, it’s a long and irritating process, but it’s the same one for everyone, and for a very good reason: deciding who is going to be president for the next four years is a huge one, even if that job isn’t quite as influential as most people believe it to be.
Either Michelle Obama is completely uneducated in basic civics, or she really, truly, deep down in her heart believes that, regardless of the rules, the only fair thing to do is declare her husband the nominee (and presumably also president- have you SEEN the old white dude the Republicans picked?) because it is his turn, which she thinks “they” the people at some curiously undefined point said he could have just as soon as he accomplished the bare basics of being a politician on a national scale.
That never worked on the playground for *me*. However, I learned that it didn’t and stopped trying it. Did it really work out well for her that often, or does she just not learn? Maybe it’s in the same secret manual for the presidency that details transubstantiation of enemies into allies, soul therapy, and the mass conscription of citizens as workers for “change”.
Hat Tips: Hot Air and Neo-Neocon.
*If only there were a solution to memetic load as elegant as the one so many organisms enjoy as the solution to genetic load.