I am a Clinton democrat; my partner is a Reagan republican. I think that pretty much paints the picture. I'm a democrat based on hopes of social progress; he is a republican based on hopes of economic prosperity. We fight about politics on a fairly regular basis. Not argue. Fight. I am confrontation-averse, so I try to go through life without mentioning or showing interest in anything political around my partner. Not easy, but I think I do pretty well.
I wish I could compare my methods and our limited success rate with other couples in the same ideological boat, but I'm not sure enough of us exist for any meaning comparison. It's a hard row to hoe. I'm not sure many people would want to or be able to do it, even with the extravagant blow-outs we sometimes have taken into account.
Do other people draw lines in the sand? I can't because there is literally nothing he hasn't said to me over politics.
I cannot conceive of a workable way to handle this source of conflict, except to give up every belief I hold dear, which to me, is actually a fate worse than physical death, because what are we without our ideals? Is someone who holds no convictions, political or otherwise, fully human? Aren't the intangible things the components of our innermost self (souls)? If I did not love justice, for example, would I still be the same person I am now? If I did not believe in equality, would my daily walk through this world look or be different? I think we're made of our deeply held beliefs. We are that feeling of right-or-wrong that defies religion, social structure, class, etc.
And, yes, I try every time we fight to explain why I won't just do/think/believe as he wants me to do. He can't grasp it. Nothing I say or even write for him penetrates, and that well and truly baffles me. I can understand why he has his beliefs. He wants to make more money and pay less taxes and for the world to be as it was in his youth. Easy-peasy. Why keeps him from doing the same? Ever?
Well...I guess that's more personality than political persuasion, in either sense.
For the record, I have never tried to change his mind about anything. I respect his life experiences and what brought him to his conclusions about politics. I totes understand wanting more money. Really, I do. I just don't get why he can't agree to disagree or put some limits on how far the arguing goes.
Other people have found away through this. I know we will too eventually. I'm just hoping ... sooner rather than later, you know?
Because repetition is inevitable and transformation is not.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
But they can't even drive!
I wanted to wait until after World Stroke Day to post this, otherwise I would have released the steam sooner.
So basically, one of my friends who likes to rib me about the geritocracy thing expressed doubt that people who couldn't even drive a car in many states, because of age restrictions, could lead a country.
As much as I hate the term ableist, that's kind of it in a nutshell right there. What abilities are absolutely necessary to be a good leader? I believe common sense, natural intelligence, compassion, a deep well of life-experience, and a calm demeanor are among the most important qualities. I see no reason why matters of body or health should interfere with matters of mind or soul.
Do any of our sitting presidents drive themselves anyway???
I would much rather have a president that can't stand up than one who won't stand up, if you know what I mean.
That's all academic, I know, but it really bothered me how inane of a qualification that is. And not because I didn't learn to drive until I was almost eighteen.
So basically, one of my friends who likes to rib me about the geritocracy thing expressed doubt that people who couldn't even drive a car in many states, because of age restrictions, could lead a country.
As much as I hate the term ableist, that's kind of it in a nutshell right there. What abilities are absolutely necessary to be a good leader? I believe common sense, natural intelligence, compassion, a deep well of life-experience, and a calm demeanor are among the most important qualities. I see no reason why matters of body or health should interfere with matters of mind or soul.
Do any of our sitting presidents drive themselves anyway???
I would much rather have a president that can't stand up than one who won't stand up, if you know what I mean.
That's all academic, I know, but it really bothered me how inane of a qualification that is. And not because I didn't learn to drive until I was almost eighteen.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Geritocracy vs gerontocracy
A few people have pointed out to me, thanks to their mad wikipedia skills, that the term gerontocracy already exists and describes a form of governance similar to this thing that I posit.
Actually, no.
Gerontocracy existed in Russia during the Cold War. It was a way of explaining that though their leaders aged, they never left their positions in the Communist hierarchy. The system was a static one created by late-middle-aged politicians, much like the ones that rule...everywhere, even here. They were not chosen for their age, their life experience, their values. They just had the right connections and toed a party line.
What I purpose differs in that aging into a position from an unappealingly youthful age (under 70) would be nearly impossible. Those who rule in a geritocracy would already have some serious seasoning before they even got to be so much as dog-catcher. It's not an aging system (much). It's a system run by the aged. No networking. No partisan politics.
And that's different.
Actually, no.
Gerontocracy existed in Russia during the Cold War. It was a way of explaining that though their leaders aged, they never left their positions in the Communist hierarchy. The system was a static one created by late-middle-aged politicians, much like the ones that rule...everywhere, even here. They were not chosen for their age, their life experience, their values. They just had the right connections and toed a party line.
What I purpose differs in that aging into a position from an unappealingly youthful age (under 70) would be nearly impossible. Those who rule in a geritocracy would already have some serious seasoning before they even got to be so much as dog-catcher. It's not an aging system (much). It's a system run by the aged. No networking. No partisan politics.
And that's different.
Monday, September 23, 2013
The elephant in the waiting room
I don't actually feel conflicted about the controversy over healthcare. I feel apathetic toward the healthcare reform currently underway (Affordable Healthcare Act) because it's badly cobbled together with some amazing parts and many more lackluster ones, all of which are the sine qua non of our failed political system. That said, people who oppose reform absolute baffle me at the most basic human level I know.
I think we're pretty much divided into three camps here: the chronically ill, those who've experienced a devastating health crisis, and the well. The first two groups support, IMHO, something being done to fix our broken, emotionally degrading, and financially oppressive system. The third group just wants the sick to fucking die already so they don't have to 'pay' for anyone else's problems. Harsh, but really, isn't that essentially true? Isn't that the crux of the matter?
People who are well believe themselves morally superior. They don't feel any gratitude for having their health. They taken it as a given that being a good, morally upstanding, probably Christian American gives them protection from the demons of disease, illness, and freak accident, while the godless and/or unrepentant get cancer or multiple sclerosis or what-have-you and then selfishly and evilly expect help.
I look at it this way: we do have some health factors within our reasonable control. We can choose not to smoke. We can choose to drink only in moderation. We can buckle our seat belts.
However, there are a lot of factors that are well beyond our control. I don't just mean our genes, gene expression, and genetic predispositions, although these play a huge part. People who are wholly reasonable and responsible in their day-to-day lives can still be injured or die from falling down the stairs. People who exercise can still have a massive heart attack. I refer you to Jim Fixx with regard to that one. People without a familial history of cancer can still get it and suffer expensively...and either live or die based on the quality of care received.
Yes, Virginia, even morally upstanding people who visit their churches and anti-abortion protests twice a week can still end up among the unwell.
I don't really want to wish chronic or long-term illness on anyone.
But for those who have never been there and those who never had a reason to feel grateful for their health or that of others, and therefore might find such gratitude as foreign as taking one's shoes off to enter a home, I sincerely wish they could have some sort of aha! moment that would let them understand how things are for the unwell people whom they so despise, especially those with inadequate access to care.
Now for some disclosure, lest anyone think that I'm interested in reform only for my own benefit: yes, I am chronically ill, but yes, I also have health insurance through my employer, and although the expense remains a pretty harsh financial burden, I am grateful for the fact that I can afford essential medications and preventative healthcare.
That said, most of the people I have sincerely loved in my life - and for any Christians reading, no, that isn't heathen code for 'guys I've fucked', although most of my former boyfriends fit in here too - the majority of them have had some sort of ongoing medical problem, whether it's debilitating back pain from a car accident, epilepsy, Type II diabetes, lingering effects of a stroke, or fibromyalgia. I have had little cause in my life to find or seek out the companionship of well people. That's just me, how I'm wired, apparently. Not to be flippant or tacky, but as a child, I always prefer my older, broken toys to the new ones. They gave greater comfort.
Anyway, that was weirdly long. Sorry about that. I spent a lot of time this weekend at home with my well partner, getting screamed at over this issue, so it's been on my mind.
I think we're pretty much divided into three camps here: the chronically ill, those who've experienced a devastating health crisis, and the well. The first two groups support, IMHO, something being done to fix our broken, emotionally degrading, and financially oppressive system. The third group just wants the sick to fucking die already so they don't have to 'pay' for anyone else's problems. Harsh, but really, isn't that essentially true? Isn't that the crux of the matter?
People who are well believe themselves morally superior. They don't feel any gratitude for having their health. They taken it as a given that being a good, morally upstanding, probably Christian American gives them protection from the demons of disease, illness, and freak accident, while the godless and/or unrepentant get cancer or multiple sclerosis or what-have-you and then selfishly and evilly expect help.
I look at it this way: we do have some health factors within our reasonable control. We can choose not to smoke. We can choose to drink only in moderation. We can buckle our seat belts.
However, there are a lot of factors that are well beyond our control. I don't just mean our genes, gene expression, and genetic predispositions, although these play a huge part. People who are wholly reasonable and responsible in their day-to-day lives can still be injured or die from falling down the stairs. People who exercise can still have a massive heart attack. I refer you to Jim Fixx with regard to that one. People without a familial history of cancer can still get it and suffer expensively...and either live or die based on the quality of care received.
Yes, Virginia, even morally upstanding people who visit their churches and anti-abortion protests twice a week can still end up among the unwell.
I don't really want to wish chronic or long-term illness on anyone.
But for those who have never been there and those who never had a reason to feel grateful for their health or that of others, and therefore might find such gratitude as foreign as taking one's shoes off to enter a home, I sincerely wish they could have some sort of aha! moment that would let them understand how things are for the unwell people whom they so despise, especially those with inadequate access to care.
Now for some disclosure, lest anyone think that I'm interested in reform only for my own benefit: yes, I am chronically ill, but yes, I also have health insurance through my employer, and although the expense remains a pretty harsh financial burden, I am grateful for the fact that I can afford essential medications and preventative healthcare.
That said, most of the people I have sincerely loved in my life - and for any Christians reading, no, that isn't heathen code for 'guys I've fucked', although most of my former boyfriends fit in here too - the majority of them have had some sort of ongoing medical problem, whether it's debilitating back pain from a car accident, epilepsy, Type II diabetes, lingering effects of a stroke, or fibromyalgia. I have had little cause in my life to find or seek out the companionship of well people. That's just me, how I'm wired, apparently. Not to be flippant or tacky, but as a child, I always prefer my older, broken toys to the new ones. They gave greater comfort.
Anyway, that was weirdly long. Sorry about that. I spent a lot of time this weekend at home with my well partner, getting screamed at over this issue, so it's been on my mind.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The cabinet
I got another 'friendly' question about the geritocracy thing yesterday. How would I choose to staff the Cabinet?
The basic disagreement here is that the Cabinet is currently staffed by chosen advisers to the president, all of whom have impressive skill sets and resumes and substantial political connections. If chosen based solely on age, the skill sets may not correlate well with job requirements, but if chosen on merit and ability, like now, then the young guns, most of whom would probably be between 45 and 65, may be able to turn the president into a puppet.
Hunh...valid argument.
Also, some (all?) Cabinet positions are in the current order of succession.
A skilled Cabinet is necessary for a good presidency. Two words: Jimmy Carter. The US requires a strong executive. It's part of our national character.
Obviously, in order to satisfy all the demands present in selecting the right kind of people for the job, a system of checks and balances would need to be created, but the system cannot be too complex, because the more moving parts a thing has, the more likely it is to break.
So what I would suggest is that each cabinet position from Secretary of State down to Administrator of the Small Business Administration have a set of qualifications that would ultimately allow for the selection of the oldest qualified professional person, not otherwise engaged in governance. Like with Secretary of State, the likeliest place to find such a person would be the oldest US diplomat. Defense, the oldest (retired probably) US general or admiral. The minimum age for serving on the Cabinet should be 70 or 75 years, with possible exceptions made by act of Congress. Determining the right profession-position fit(s) would be something the Supreme Court might do. Just to spread the responsibility a bit.
This would also take the partisan politics out of the equation, which would be very much necessary in the first few decades of the system overall.
Again, I have no intentions of overthrowing the government. I just like to think about other ways to do things.
I just checked. As of December, John Kerry would still be minimally eligible to be Secretary of State. Seventy just isn't that old these days, is it? :)
The basic disagreement here is that the Cabinet is currently staffed by chosen advisers to the president, all of whom have impressive skill sets and resumes and substantial political connections. If chosen based solely on age, the skill sets may not correlate well with job requirements, but if chosen on merit and ability, like now, then the young guns, most of whom would probably be between 45 and 65, may be able to turn the president into a puppet.
Hunh...valid argument.
Also, some (all?) Cabinet positions are in the current order of succession.
A skilled Cabinet is necessary for a good presidency. Two words: Jimmy Carter. The US requires a strong executive. It's part of our national character.
Obviously, in order to satisfy all the demands present in selecting the right kind of people for the job, a system of checks and balances would need to be created, but the system cannot be too complex, because the more moving parts a thing has, the more likely it is to break.
So what I would suggest is that each cabinet position from Secretary of State down to Administrator of the Small Business Administration have a set of qualifications that would ultimately allow for the selection of the oldest qualified professional person, not otherwise engaged in governance. Like with Secretary of State, the likeliest place to find such a person would be the oldest US diplomat. Defense, the oldest (retired probably) US general or admiral. The minimum age for serving on the Cabinet should be 70 or 75 years, with possible exceptions made by act of Congress. Determining the right profession-position fit(s) would be something the Supreme Court might do. Just to spread the responsibility a bit.
This would also take the partisan politics out of the equation, which would be very much necessary in the first few decades of the system overall.
Again, I have no intentions of overthrowing the government. I just like to think about other ways to do things.
I just checked. As of December, John Kerry would still be minimally eligible to be Secretary of State. Seventy just isn't that old these days, is it? :)
Friday, August 30, 2013
Other countries' politics - Germany
The political issues I care about are, generally speaking, uniquely American issues. That's why I enjoy watching other countries have their elections. I don't have to get all upset and grouchy over anything any party over yonder touts or believes. I can be objective and observe with some degree of pleasant detachment. This is especially true of Europe where I can agree with most major parties on most major issues, to a degree.
So Germany is electing a new chancellor, from what I gather, sometime next month. If I understand the system right, they then build a government with enough power to get things done. If they fail, they vote again in a few months, but a lot more unhappily? I envy them that because with only two parties and some wingding groups, the US government has been unable to get anything done for some time now.
So one of their big newspapers, Sueddeutsche, which I read in my eight-year-old level German primarily because of how high it comes up in the Google search for German papers, has a quiz that people can take to find out which Party their opinions most closely align with. Quiz here, enjoy!
Despite my US political leanings, which gambol between liberal and anarchist, I actually align most closely with the CDU and CSU, not with the traditionally cool SPD, which gave us the magnificently earnest, human, and mildly heroic Willy Brandt all those years ago.
Gratuitous Brandt pic:
My German ancestry is rather limited to a few lines on my mother's side, but I have always had an affinity for the language, cuisine, and music. And, alas, for the politics, in as much as I could ever understand the post-war German world.
That said, I am tempted to retake the quiz via Google translate and see if perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. I mean that tongue in cheek. I probably would be a conservative over there.
Anyway, good luck with the election. I wish I could get more mainstream coverage over here. In English. On television. Pooh.
Macht's gut!
So Germany is electing a new chancellor, from what I gather, sometime next month. If I understand the system right, they then build a government with enough power to get things done. If they fail, they vote again in a few months, but a lot more unhappily? I envy them that because with only two parties and some wingding groups, the US government has been unable to get anything done for some time now.
So one of their big newspapers, Sueddeutsche, which I read in my eight-year-old level German primarily because of how high it comes up in the Google search for German papers, has a quiz that people can take to find out which Party their opinions most closely align with. Quiz here, enjoy!
Despite my US political leanings, which gambol between liberal and anarchist, I actually align most closely with the CDU and CSU, not with the traditionally cool SPD, which gave us the magnificently earnest, human, and mildly heroic Willy Brandt all those years ago.
Gratuitous Brandt pic:
That said, I am tempted to retake the quiz via Google translate and see if perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. I mean that tongue in cheek. I probably would be a conservative over there.
Anyway, good luck with the election. I wish I could get more mainstream coverage over here. In English. On television. Pooh.
Macht's gut!
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Government okays laziness and gluttony
That's right. I am a little pissed about the government getting a little too useless to bother saying-no to drugs these days. State's rights are an iffy proposition to begin with. I believe we fought a war on the subject and yes, the state's rights side lost. I know. My ancestors were there.
So marijuana. Not a good idea.
Here's my take. In graduate school, I had this psycho professor who was my adviser, my thesis adviser, and my employer. Call this the dark trifecta, if you will. Anyway, he did A MEGA TON of Mary Jane. It made him super-forgetful. Like he would tell me to do things, job and school-related, and completely and utterly forget later after I had worked pretty hard to get these things done. I could never tell when he was so high that I should blow-off the requests, so I got pretty bad burnout from the experience of sometimes trying to do the impossible and then coming back, exhausted, but successful, to confusion, derision, and...well, annoyance from him.
I started hating users then. I hate them now.
If he had kept it together, I probably would have had a very different life than the one I have now. That life might include a lot more scholarship, travel, and personal satisfaction. It might include better salary and benefits. It might include a lot of things that he destroyed for me because he just couldn't keep it together while using.
He's probably destroyed other people's lives since then. Because he has tenure, I seriously doubt he destroyed his own, no matter how bad he got. I don't know.
I've always hoped he would get caught by Virginia's finest with more than an ounce or whatever and jailed. I makes me feel better. This could still happen, for sure, but I doubt he would serve any real time without the feds being pro-useful citizen too. I doubt it would make any impact unless he did serious time where he had to bargain for favors and...well, I think we know what I'm looking for here.
So, yeah, I'm major league disappointed with my president right now. I might vote for the other guys next time, if they can make me believe they'll fix this.
So marijuana. Not a good idea.
Here's my take. In graduate school, I had this psycho professor who was my adviser, my thesis adviser, and my employer. Call this the dark trifecta, if you will. Anyway, he did A MEGA TON of Mary Jane. It made him super-forgetful. Like he would tell me to do things, job and school-related, and completely and utterly forget later after I had worked pretty hard to get these things done. I could never tell when he was so high that I should blow-off the requests, so I got pretty bad burnout from the experience of sometimes trying to do the impossible and then coming back, exhausted, but successful, to confusion, derision, and...well, annoyance from him.
I started hating users then. I hate them now.
If he had kept it together, I probably would have had a very different life than the one I have now. That life might include a lot more scholarship, travel, and personal satisfaction. It might include better salary and benefits. It might include a lot of things that he destroyed for me because he just couldn't keep it together while using.
He's probably destroyed other people's lives since then. Because he has tenure, I seriously doubt he destroyed his own, no matter how bad he got. I don't know.
I've always hoped he would get caught by Virginia's finest with more than an ounce or whatever and jailed. I makes me feel better. This could still happen, for sure, but I doubt he would serve any real time without the feds being pro-useful citizen too. I doubt it would make any impact unless he did serious time where he had to bargain for favors and...well, I think we know what I'm looking for here.
So, yeah, I'm major league disappointed with my president right now. I might vote for the other guys next time, if they can make me believe they'll fix this.
Monday, August 26, 2013
The purpose, you say?
Today at lunch one of my friends asked me what the point of my whole geritocracy idea was, what I hoped to accomplish with a 'society' rebuilt under those conditions.
Honestly, I'm not a very compassionate person; however, even so, I can see this is something our society, as it is now, fails at. Every time a poor kid gets a free lunch or an elderly person uses Medicare to pay for a bad hip, someone idiot...okay, usually a lot of idiots...bawl about how it isn't fair, that they could have used that money for whatever's bothering them. I hear things like this every goddamn day. Usually from middle-aged white men. Usually from people who have never been poor, hungry, or experienced a major illness.
I think if someone lives to be in their nineties or older, they have experienced or at least witnessed enough of this kind of suffering to have a more finely tuned (or existent!) sense of compassion for their fellow humans. They understand that paying a few extra pennies a year to fight hunger, disease, and poverty is not zomg! unfair. It's what decent people do.
Then why aren't old people out there making a difference now?
Some are. I know volunteers in their mid-to-late eighties. Seriously.
But for the most part, our society warehouses the elderly starting at a pretty young age, especially if mobility issues are involved. For my part, I don't thinking walking around is that important of a qualification for good leaders. I ::heart:: FDR, yo.
We see older people as in the way, especially once they're no longer competitively spry, and as a society we do our best to not see them anymore, either by putting them away or setting up obstacles to participation in public life. Put together, all of that leads to further decline. Sad stuff, folks.
I also don't believe it's suggested much that people do anything but molder in their old age. Maybe the slightest push would do it.
And...yeah, a lot of the elderly in our society end their lives in poverty, which limits their ability to do stuff just as much as it limits everyone else's, you know? Volunteerism actually does cost something, even if it's only gasoline for the car. Usually more.
As a caveat to this issue, this is why ending political campaigns would benefit everyone. It's no longer rich bastard vs richer bastard. Geritocracy helps level the playing field somewhat. Richer people live longer, sure, but then again, the majority of our most venerable citizens are not Fortune 500 people. They're ordinary. Like the rest of us.
Yeah...so answering the original question, what do I see as the major benefits here? Compassion, work ethic, civic responsibility, and life experience, not the almighty dollar, informing our country's governance. The implications are pretty amazing, if you think about it.
Honestly, I'm not a very compassionate person; however, even so, I can see this is something our society, as it is now, fails at. Every time a poor kid gets a free lunch or an elderly person uses Medicare to pay for a bad hip, someone idiot...okay, usually a lot of idiots...bawl about how it isn't fair, that they could have used that money for whatever's bothering them. I hear things like this every goddamn day. Usually from middle-aged white men. Usually from people who have never been poor, hungry, or experienced a major illness.
I think if someone lives to be in their nineties or older, they have experienced or at least witnessed enough of this kind of suffering to have a more finely tuned (or existent!) sense of compassion for their fellow humans. They understand that paying a few extra pennies a year to fight hunger, disease, and poverty is not zomg! unfair. It's what decent people do.
Then why aren't old people out there making a difference now?
Some are. I know volunteers in their mid-to-late eighties. Seriously.
But for the most part, our society warehouses the elderly starting at a pretty young age, especially if mobility issues are involved. For my part, I don't thinking walking around is that important of a qualification for good leaders. I ::heart:: FDR, yo.
We see older people as in the way, especially once they're no longer competitively spry, and as a society we do our best to not see them anymore, either by putting them away or setting up obstacles to participation in public life. Put together, all of that leads to further decline. Sad stuff, folks.
I also don't believe it's suggested much that people do anything but molder in their old age. Maybe the slightest push would do it.
And...yeah, a lot of the elderly in our society end their lives in poverty, which limits their ability to do stuff just as much as it limits everyone else's, you know? Volunteerism actually does cost something, even if it's only gasoline for the car. Usually more.
As a caveat to this issue, this is why ending political campaigns would benefit everyone. It's no longer rich bastard vs richer bastard. Geritocracy helps level the playing field somewhat. Richer people live longer, sure, but then again, the majority of our most venerable citizens are not Fortune 500 people. They're ordinary. Like the rest of us.
Yeah...so answering the original question, what do I see as the major benefits here? Compassion, work ethic, civic responsibility, and life experience, not the almighty dollar, informing our country's governance. The implications are pretty amazing, if you think about it.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Now for something more relevant
I saw this on Yahoo! News yesterday.
Basically, it's the United States redrawn so that each state contains the same number of people. The purpose would be, in theory, to provide more equal representation.
This is via http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
It's not the Times, but it is the Internet. Take it with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, cool thought exercise. I think it would pair nicely with some of my ideas. :)
By the way, I wonder if people living in a geritocracy would naturally take better care of themselves in order to participate in public life to a greater degree in their later years. Hmm...nice incentive, right? Maybe.
This is via http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
It's not the Times, but it is the Internet. Take it with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, cool thought exercise. I think it would pair nicely with some of my ideas. :)
By the way, I wonder if people living in a geritocracy would naturally take better care of themselves in order to participate in public life to a greater degree in their later years. Hmm...nice incentive, right? Maybe.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Give me Geritocracy
In an increasingly polarized federal republic, the notion that one must be either a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, right or left, red or blue, has become so wholly irksome to me that I am pretty much done thinking that democracy is the only way to go in terms of political systems. Not to mention utter disagreeableness of every single modern political campaign.
So...if I could reinvent the US government, I would turn it into a pure geritocracy. The oldest living person in the US would be president - currently, this is Jeralean Talley of my home state of Georgia. The next oldest, the veep - Susannah Mushatt Jones of Brooklyn, NY. They're both black. I'm okay with that.
My senators would be the two oldest people from my state, who aren't occupying a higher office. My congressperson would be the oldest from my district. The Supreme Court would be made up of the oldest people in the US, not occupying a higher office.
No elections. No political parties. The same rules applied to lobbyist used to protect seniors from unscrupulous repairmen and the like.
What about dementia? My asshole friends always ask me that. I think we would need something like the Reagan Standard. No one can hold high office if they are more demented than Ronald Reagan during his second term. Even then...he was far from a terrible president.
What about term limits? I think they're pretty much self-limiting. Some years, we might have three presidents. Some presidents might serve a full four years. The stock market will sort itself out either way.
And this way, we will definitely get a woman president. And an Asian president. And presidents from underprivileged backgrounds. And presidents who held jobs far different from what we've grown accustomed to since the days when a haberdasher saved us from unending war with Japan.
Those are trifling things, though.
The biggest advantage would be the wisdom, practicality, and compassion that older Americans (seriously older) could bring to the government. Think of the oldest three people you know. I'm hoping they're at least seventy-five; mine are 106, 93, and 92. I deal with a lot of seniors in my line of work. Maybe that's why I have so much faith in them.
Are you still thinking?
Compare your three people to the last three presidents, vice-presidents, and speakers of the house. How do they measure up in terms of... intelligence, work ethic, kindness, moral compass, sincerity, frankness, etc? I bet they look pretty damn good, don't they?
Mine do.
This is really just wishful thinking. The system could never be put into place. Most of the elderly would flat out refuse. Those that didn't...probably retired politicians already and they're not all Jimmy Carters. You know?
Still, I like to imagine our country run this way. I think it would be a big improvement.
So...if I could reinvent the US government, I would turn it into a pure geritocracy. The oldest living person in the US would be president - currently, this is Jeralean Talley of my home state of Georgia. The next oldest, the veep - Susannah Mushatt Jones of Brooklyn, NY. They're both black. I'm okay with that.
My senators would be the two oldest people from my state, who aren't occupying a higher office. My congressperson would be the oldest from my district. The Supreme Court would be made up of the oldest people in the US, not occupying a higher office.
No elections. No political parties. The same rules applied to lobbyist used to protect seniors from unscrupulous repairmen and the like.
What about dementia? My asshole friends always ask me that. I think we would need something like the Reagan Standard. No one can hold high office if they are more demented than Ronald Reagan during his second term. Even then...he was far from a terrible president.
What about term limits? I think they're pretty much self-limiting. Some years, we might have three presidents. Some presidents might serve a full four years. The stock market will sort itself out either way.
And this way, we will definitely get a woman president. And an Asian president. And presidents from underprivileged backgrounds. And presidents who held jobs far different from what we've grown accustomed to since the days when a haberdasher saved us from unending war with Japan.
Those are trifling things, though.
The biggest advantage would be the wisdom, practicality, and compassion that older Americans (seriously older) could bring to the government. Think of the oldest three people you know. I'm hoping they're at least seventy-five; mine are 106, 93, and 92. I deal with a lot of seniors in my line of work. Maybe that's why I have so much faith in them.
Are you still thinking?
Compare your three people to the last three presidents, vice-presidents, and speakers of the house. How do they measure up in terms of... intelligence, work ethic, kindness, moral compass, sincerity, frankness, etc? I bet they look pretty damn good, don't they?
Mine do.
This is really just wishful thinking. The system could never be put into place. Most of the elderly would flat out refuse. Those that didn't...probably retired politicians already and they're not all Jimmy Carters. You know?
Still, I like to imagine our country run this way. I think it would be a big improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)