Complex Numbers

Speaking of Screwing up the World...

...just in case you haven't noticed, this is an election year in the US.

Ideally, this would mean thoughtful debate about the positions and goals of each of the candidates, and sober reflection on which can best serve the nation as it currently stands.

But, as I believe Rita Mae Brown put it, "If life made sense, men would ride sidesaddle."

(Okay, that comment is even funnier if you know her, but you get the idea.)

Instead, we're treated to endless streams of criticism about who said what, and how that reflects on the candidates' ability to be elected.

Like we can't figure out for ourselves who can be elected.

Oh, well, maybe that's a good point.

Really, I don't recall the country being this polarized in my youth. Maybe I just wasn't paying as much attention then, but it seems to me the chasm between "liberal" and "conservative" (both of which are now misnomers) has widened, leaving those of us who harbor views from each extreme hanging. It's become a battle of absolutes. "Conservatives" are convinced that only they are right, and that they are for (e.g.) small government and less government interference in daily life (so why are they so against government interference in who can get married?) "Liberals" are equally convinced of their superiority, though examples elude me now.

Point is - well, even CNN was calling it "Ballot Bowl 2008." Like it's a football game or something, with the outcome decided with one clear winner and one clear loser, and winner take all, and what's the long-term meaning? Nothing, just like it matters not one iota which team wins a sporting event.

Well, sports are about the worst analogy I can think of for politics. You don't just wear one candidate's colors and start shaking your pom-poms (though it's interesting to note that G.W. Bush was a cheerleader in college). Sports is about winning, and playing fair (in that order). Politics should be about choosing the best course for the country - NOT what's best for any one individual, say the voter for example.

Democracy isn't there to cater to the whimsies and fads of a majority; it's there to protect the rights of everyone, majority or minority. When I hear that so-and-so wouldn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman, or Obama because he's "black" (he's half-white; how come he's not "white?"), I start to have serious doubts about the direction we're going. Because black, white, man, woman - none of that matters, really, if a society is fair and just.

Whoever gets the White House in November has some serious messes to clean up, and I don't wish that on anybody. But let's not forget the truly important thing: whoever it will be, it won't be Bush.

And that'll be cause for celebration.