You are currently browsing srmencken's articles.
In the interest of improving both the morale and the operational efficiency of our great republic, I humbly submit the following modest proposal:
The great challenge of democracy has always been the desperate struggle to fill our government’s offices with those who are not only willing, but also worthy and able to serve. We are beset on both aisles of our legislature with nincompoops, derelicts, blackguards, and Quislings. From sea to shining sea we reap the bitter harvest sown by men and women whose incompetence and moral bankruptcy have prompted many ignoble punsters to speculate that, if prefixes are to be trusted, “progress” is the opposite of “congress.” To combat this rampant infection in our body politic, I advocate the ratification of a Constitutional Amedment guranteeing an immediate and unpardonable sentence of death upon any who fail to win re-election to public office. I recognize that many will object to such a seemingly brutal policy, but I can assure any nay-sayers that the advantages are many and profound.
The theory of natural selection alone offers ample justification for this course of action. Imagine how many Dan Quayles, Cynthia McKinneys, and Ross Perots could be weeded out of the system by the mere threat (to say nothing of the application) of lethal force. Once the Congressional pack has been culled of its old and weak (politically speaking) only the strong, honest, and effective statesmen (and women) would be left to thrive. Do we dare to picture a legislature made up only of Daniel Websters, Henry Clays, and Tip O’Neills?
Moreover, such a system would drastically improve the honesty of the politician on the campaign trail. If the chopping block were the eventual destination for those who could not keep their promises, how many would dare to write checks that their posteriers couldn’t gurantee? Rather than promising to end poverty in a decade, our politicians would instead be forced to plan for more realistic goals, and (dare we dream?) they would actually be concerned about achieving them. For that matter, the American taxpayer could then reasonably expect to get his money’s worth out of Congress; pain of death is a powerful incentive for legislators to stay in the Capitol and do their work, instead of twiddling their thumbs at fundraisers.
Naturally, some will raise the ethical question of whether we can, in good conscience, expect our leaders to submit to execution if they fail to faithfully uphold the responsibilities of their offices. But upon careful reflection, we can easily see that we expect as much or more from others who serve the general public. Has not our nation executed soldiers who fled the battlefield for no more base a reason than wishing not to be blown to smithereens? Aren’t we willing to accept the death of the innocent sick as a consequence of the incompetence of doctors? And more importantly, should not those who seek the power to govern our nation be willing to lay down their lives for it? They expect as much from the workingman whenever they enact the draft, and I suspect that the public as a whole will enjoy seeing the tables turned.
And if none of these advantages can be reaped, we can at least take comfort in the fact that, if Congressmen are sent to the gallows for their failures, we may reliably assume that the issue of term limits never need be brought up again.
At Beks’ behest (an enormously fun phrase to say, by the way) I read a blogger’s post dealing largely with the concept of egalitarianism (a word which, I note with some ironic humor, is decidedly un-egalitarian). Here, in a state influenced somewhat by a marvelous process known as fermentation, I offer my own profound take on the subject.
America is a nation founded largely on the concept of equality. The trouble is that very few people understand exactly what KIND of equality the founders were advocating. A student of history could easily discover that, quite contrary to popular belief, many of the founders did NOT believe that all men were equal. For that matter, I daresay few of the colonists would have disagreed. There are few who could display the courage and restraint of Washington. Fewer still could match the unrivaled genius of Jefferson. And how many human beings could possibly possess the undeniable moral credentials of Lincoln? History and science both offer us proof positive that people are most distinctly UNequal. Moreover, the very traits that distinguish us from one another are, in fact, hereditary! Children of major athletes have a general tendency to grow up and become… major athletes. Witness the Manning family. Children of brilliant scholars have a tendency to grow up and become… brilliant scholars! Actors breed other actors, doctors breed other doctors, and… I note with some dismay… politicians breed other politicians.
This is, of course, a topic that is anathema to American culture. We are raised to believe, for example, that any person can grow up to become president of the United States. It is part of our idealistic devotion to the spirit of Horatio Alger. Common sense, however, dictates the opposite. Could someone with a mental retardation be placed in charge of negotiating with important allies as well as enemies? Could someone with a history of spousal abuse be trusted with the power of our armed forces?
We are NOT equal. Some are superb athletes; some are superb artists. In certain rare cases, individuals exhibit a wide range of extraordinary talent. When it comes down to it, however, it is evident that we are all blessed and cursed with different facilities and deficiencies, though we refuse to admit it. H.L. Mencken (my pseudo-namesake, as some of you hopefully noticed) was not afraid to admit to this. So why are we, as a culture, reluctantly to recgonize this fact?
Possibly it has a great deal to do with a sense of our inferiority. It is painful to realize that we are lesser than others; every spelling-bee runner up and every quarterback who lost the Superbowl feel the sharp pangs of being “less than the best.” However, I think our problem comes from a mere misunderstanding of the nature of inequality.
The founders, though they believed men to be inequal, recognized that all men were fashioned in the image and likeness of god, and as such, equally entitled to the dignity and freedom of free citizens. This is the ideal of equality upon which America was founded: that, though some men may be morally, athletically, intellectually, or otherwise superior to others, we are all equal before our Creator and His divine law.
We have long since lost our understanding of this basic concept. Indeed, we have lost even a basic understanding of who is “better” than whom: many mistaken believe that mere wealth or prestige conveys superiority, hence the continued success of Donald Trump and Paris Hilton. This is not a new flaw, actually: in the past, the Europeans confused superiority with heritage. A descendant of a great man was naturally assumed to be a great man as well, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The unfortunate result of our confusion is that we both bow to the unworthy and exalt the unable. This can be seen in our higher education: we have begun to believe, quite foolishly, that the ideal goal for all children is college. In point of fact, college is not the proper place for all people. This is not a slur against the less intellectually able or less motivated: lack of talent or ambition is no reason to feel shame. As Kumar once put it: “Just because I’m hung like a horse doesn’t mean I have to be a porn star.”
What this does mean is that we must begin to examine our leaders and question their qualities. We must throw out the unworthy candidates and demand the worth ones: even if they do not want to serve. A notable trait shared by many of the founders was that they would have greatly preferred to stay at home and enjoy their own lives rather than dedicate them to the service of their country. It is an understandable impulse: all people desire a life of peace with their families. It has been shown, however, that truly great men will rise to the needs of their country if their neighbors but demand it; witness Cincinnatus, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams.
The leaders America needs are those stubborn few who can serve, but wish not to. Shakespeare made a keen observation in Julius Caesar: “Yon Cassius has the lean and hungry look- such men are dangerous.” We should be wary of those politicians who seek office; instead, we should demand the reclusive neighbor of unimpeachable character to serve us. We need never fear the ambitions of those who never sought office; instead, we should cast a suspicious eye at those who seek power.
Forgive the disorganized and incoherent nature of my ramblings- I started without a clear thesis in mind, and the justifier of God’s ways to man clouded my mind as I wrote this.
I choose to inaugarate my entry into the blogosphere with my critical take on Barbara Ehrenreich’s most recent effort, Bait and Switch. A sequel of sorts to her famous opus Nickel and Dimed, Bait and Switch describes her “undercover investigation” of the white-collar world of “transition” (the euphemism job seekers use to describe their search for employment. Ehrenreich’s goal: to successfully masquerade as a white-collar job applicant, gain employment in a typical “Middle American” job, and expose the seamy underside of both worlds.
As it turns out, Ehrenreich could only achieve one of her stated goals. After several months and a considerable financial investment in a variety of books, “coaches” and other such tools, Ehrenreich could not successfully manage to get herself a job… sort of. In truth, she is unable to find a job within the criteria that she set for herself, which, she later manages to mention, might perhaps have been unreasonable. For starters, she sought a job that offered good health insurance and a minimum $50,000 salary. Speaking as someone who considers himself to be a respectable member of the white-collar middle class, I found the bar she set to be a tad high (I make barely more than half that salary, and yet I manage to afford many material comforts and still put some money in the bank every month).
Ehrenreich is offered a commission-based job with Aflac, but does not return after the second interview because the job did not meet her standards. This is only one example of a notable Ehrenreich foible: a tendency to only make half-hearted attempts in her undercover work. In Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich walked out of a waitressing job during a busy lunch hour because she decided that she could not tolerate the stress. In Bait and Switch, she continued this trend, arriving late to nearly every meeting or interview, and consistently failing to adhere to the expected corporate dress code. Would someone genuinely seeking employment continue to make such egregious, yet easily avoidable, errors? Insightful and eloquent though she may be, Ehrenreich is sorely deficient in the Protestant Work Ethic.
The audience will now take a moment to reflect on the magnanimity the author has shown by refraining from making any jokes about radical leftist authors not being able to get real jobs.
So Ehrenreich’s book is a flop, right? After all, she has failed to actually infiltrate the society that she was trying to expose. As it turns out, she manages to strike paydirt during her futile job search. Ehrenreich’s description and analysis of the so-called “transition” industry (really nothing more than a mix of pop psychobabble and empty positive-thinking strategies) are scathing indictments of those who prey upon the psychologically and financially vulnerable job-seeking population.
Moreover, Ehrenreich does a nice piece of amateur psychology in her analysis of the unemployed mentality. She identifies a crushing aura of despair, hopelessness, and depression that permeates her fellow job-seekers, and links it reasonably to the corporate mantra that is the employee who alone is responsible for his termination.
So how does the whole thing balance out? Well, on a scale of 1 to 10 Twains, 1 being the literary equivalent of Gigli and 10 being the literary equivalent of my own romantic prowess, I would give Bait and Switch a modest, but not entirely unrespectable, 5 Twains.
Disclaimer: The above review is overly brief, poorly organized, and decidedly NOT proofread. It was published primarily in an effort to jumpstart the author’s blogging habits.
Recent Comments