The Man Elected King

In an old Don Henley song, commentary on the status of the US President is somewhat at variance to their actual power - however, & this is the important part, the perception of the voters is that they are electing someone with some sort of absolute power to make decisions in their name, & can thereafter be held responsible for not fulfilling their dreams.
Do we so need someone to blame? Or are we so tribal that we need someone to be seen as the leader of the rabble?

Democracy is supposed to be a system whereby a monarch is not necessary - government is through the people's representatives. It makes no sense for there to still be monarch from amongst these. It makes no sense for two reasons:

• it gives the impression that the leader is elected for that purpose (not for being a representative)
• it assumes that one of the elected representatives must be the leader

So, what happens if the best leader is not amongst those elected? Or cannot "form a majority" in the parlance of the Westminster system? This is a common enough problem that shows one of the major defects of that system.

We still think of nationhood as being embodied in a leader - someone who represents "us" on the world stage. Surely, this should have nothing to do with electing local representatives into a body for setting policies & laws. It just makes no sense.
Similarly, that person should not be expected to represent or talk to the whole populace, because, by definition, they only have the support of half of those who vote - sometimes even less in a two-party-preferred system. This doesn't make them any more likely to represent the non-voters.

Call me a monarchist, if you like, but at least a monarch is someone you can do nothing about, & is therefore not worth complaining about - they simply represent the monarchy, not a political party or an agenda; they have no need to be popular or seek re-election or bombard people with propaganda. You could say that there are far more advantages to disadvantages.

To be honest, all historical disadvantages of the system have become irrelevant, mostly through the maturity of the population, combined with advances in information & communications. I think it's also been proven many times over that democracy does not work in many parts of the world explicitly because people think it guarantees that their king rules the people in their name (their tribe, the one they voted for, beats the other tribe). This to me implies that party politics should not be foisted on anyone who wants to become socially mature.

Good monarchy - with a few simple safe-guards - is a far more effective form of government. Leadership should take advice from the people's representatives (as an executive), & act on that advice without fear of repurcussions to their own position. In this case, by safe-guards, I do not mean that there should be a group of people who can depose the monarch if they disagree. That way leads to the same systems we currently call "democracy". The only safe-guards are around the actual fitness of the leader to make decisions, & ensurance that enough information is available to them. Of course, you always have that little problem of who is watching the watchers ...

Put a Label on it

I do not consider myself "radical", & yet much of my thinking definitely is. I juts don't like the label; more specifically, I do not like the negative connotations that people associate with that label. De Bono long ago pointed out how the words that we use gather meaning in certain contexts that make them thereafter unusable. He pointed out otherwise harmless words like "superficial", which has now been associated with terms like "slipshod", implying that no real effort was applied - just scratching the surface of a problem. From his medical background, a superficial wound, for example, is a relatively good thing, though.

Similarly, radical. There was a political movement in England in the 1800s that tried to be independent of the two major parties. They still have that problem there, & we in Australia have it now. The two major parties try to paint themselves as diametrically opposed, yet both trying to cover the middle ground of the "undecided" voter. The reality is that the middle ground is the silent majority who have no possible allegiance to either of the major alternatives, but are trapped in a political system that simplifies government into politics, & politics into two-party-preferred. In the US, the system is geared even more towards the two major alternatives, to the point where it is very difficult for an "independent" (anyone else) to be even recognised. In Fiji, I asked locals what differentiated the major parties, & was told that one was conservative & the other socialist. Asking deeper questions revealed that the division was actually racial - one was Indian-dominated & the other Native-dominated. It's just in the label.

I am not a radical, & yet I believe that these things should change. The radicals of the past also believed that, which is what was so threatening to those diametrically opposed parties. It is interesting to note that those two parties have changed over time, even been replaced by other parties, but there are still two of them vying for the popular vote.
Those in power - & by this I do not mean those in government, but those in politics - do not like to give up their power. They somehow think that they have the right to be in government because they are very good at politics. I don't agree. To me, this disqualifies them, on the basis that they spend all of their time differentiating themselves from their opposition. If that's the chief aim of both parties, then they are effectively the same.

A valid political alternative is one that sets policies based on government, rather than opposition. A government needs to make decisions for the good of the people, not the re-election of the party. This cannot be done within the confines of the current system.
It is truly radical to believe that change is possible. It is even more radical to want to cause such change. Without change, we get stuck with the labels that are meaningless, misapplied, destructive, regressive & often dishonest.

To move forward, we have to divest ourselves of the labels. We have to think outside of the box we have been placed in. We have to be more than a little radical.

Everything You Say

I'm struggling to start this post, because it works off the premise that everything you say - & the way you say it - has a layer of meaning provided by you (the author) & your reader/listener, based on your background, psychology, state of mind, ability to perceive, communicate, interpret, ... & you end up down the rabbit hole losing all sense of proportion & proper grammar.

Then I thought of the old Police song "Every step you take", & its meanings, relative to the name of the band & the lead singer.

I'll just start again, before my head explodes or crashes into the ceiling before I can find the "Eat me" cake.

What you say says more about you than it does the topic you are discussing, in general. Politics is a classic example. The larger the audience, the bigger the issue, the more strident the voice, the more likely that the communication is not in the words. I should say, the true meaning is not in the words. Politicians are not a special case, but they are a classic example of assuming an audience & treating it in a special way.
Politicians treat people like morons (who else would vote for them?), & everyone knows that the best way to communicate with a moron is to speak louder, slower, & use small words & non-threatening hand gestures. Politicians don't say "You are a moron, so I'll speak slower", but by their actions they demonstrate how they relate to their audience.

Then there's the words that they use to communicate their message. An acquaintance long ago introduced me to "projection" - saying something about someone with the hope that nobody thinks the same of you.

A classic politician statement will go along the lines of "My learned opponent is lying!" I've obviously cleaned that up & made it more polite, but I think I have succinctly represented 50% of politicians' pronouncements. Let's look closely at what they've said, within the context of their belief that they are talking to morons.
They don't say "I am telling the truth!" Morons don't believe you when you say that. Politicians also don't say "They're lying - just ask them!" because morons don't follow up on information provided. (Let's forget about the logic puzzle of how to ask a question of someone who is suspected of lying.)

A politician is actually making an empty statement when they say that their opponent is lying (or that their opponent eats babies, will raise taxes, or intends to sell the public service to an overseas consultancy).
They are in fact expressing a fear. They hope that you'll acquire the fear that they express - that the opponent is untrustworthy, &, more importantly, that you will think that they (the politician) ARE trustworthy. After all, there couldn't possibly be two politicians who lie. The deepest fear that the politician has is that they have lower credibility than their opponent, & they express that fear by wanting you to believe their opponent (has) less.

Children do this a lot. "Johnny, did you eat a cookie?" "No, it was Billy! I saw him!" This is a normal response regardless of whether a cookie was eaten in the first place. Johnny needs to be trusted. Someone needs to bear the blame. Billy isn't there to defend himself. Everyone's happy.

Politicians are slightly more efficient, in that you don't have to ask them if they've eaten a cookie, they will jump straight in to assuming that Billy ate one, & they just want to make sure that they're not covered in crumbs.