As IF Times

Why are such incompetent people elected to public office?  Given the epidemic of incompetence in political regimes worldwide, but especially in the West where supposedly the most advanced democracies exist, we have to wonder; how can the ‘leaders’ be so inept?

There’s an old saying that you elect who you deserve as your political leaders, but is that really true?  Who really elects them?

Taking the case of Canada for an example, it’s not true that the nation decided that out of 40 million people, they collectively concluded that someone like Justin Trudeau is the best qualified person to run the affairs of the nation.  This is not a political view, it’s simply one of logic.  Someone whom has never run a business, nor had any training in management and whose only asset is that his father was once Prime Minister of the country is placed in the role of national leader.

As is the case in the United States, Canada has only two or three political parties that effectively control who people get to vote for. The system has evolved so that elections are like going to Costco. At Costco they only stock limited brands of any particular product. There is no wide selection of any given product unlike in grocery stores or large supermarkets.  Someone in management makes an economic decision to stock Brand A’s product instead of those of other brands. Thus, if you want to buy beans, it’s Brand A…or nothing.

It’s quite the same in politics.  Since there are really only two (at most 3) parties to choose from, the choices are made for the public by a very small cabal of party insiders.  Thus, if you’re part of that cabal, the leverage you have on the rest of the nation is gargantuan.  Logically, if you have enough money at your disposal, you can exert enormous influence simply by leveraging those in the cabal; forget the public. Of course, this is obvious now as corporate interests drive all elections. This process has been in place for decades, but it has becomes more and more refined with each election cycle. The illusion of choice to the public is thus perpetuated even as people become more disillusioned with the process.

Political strategists know that name recognition means much more than actual policies when it comes to voters.  Most will go into a polling booth and be discouraged by the list of names offered and just tick the box for the names or parties they recognize. It’s like buying Heinz ketchup at Costco.  It may not be the best, but you know the name. If we had an election today, Taylor Swift would win an election over almost any qualified candidate based solely on name recognition.  Yes, people are that level of dumb.  A guy like Joe Biden spends his entire career as a politician, elected only because he’s been elected enough times for name recognition, but makes it all the way to the top job while being on the wrong side of every major policy issue in his career….and often on both sides of the same issue.

An even more absurd example is the current mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow.  The mayor’s claim to fame is that her late husband was a national NDP politician and after his passing, the political halo effect was passed on to his wife.  Of course, now with revelations of her ruminating about taxing the rain on property holders as well as her police department advising citizens to keep car keys near their unlocked doors for easier theft, her unsuitability for political office is revealed.  Too late, she’s in.

We’re kind of seeing some of this nonsense in the US. There has been ongoing speculation that the wife of former President Obama, Michele, can somehow be qualified to step into the Presidency.  This is the same illogical mindset that thought Hilary Clinton would be a good second act for Bill.  Or that the Kennedy family has a permanent place in political office. This is the road favored by Monarchists who are able to pass on their reins of power to ensuing generations.  Queen Elizabeth knew this wasn’t a good idea, so she held off passing her reins as long as she could.

The whole idea of living in a society with representative governments is that people who have power and influence reflect the wishes and values of the citizens.  The US at least, was founded on this principle.  Now it seems as if the political winds have shifted back towards the monarchist model where people are considered to be ‘rightfully’ ensconced in power.

In the case of Costco, they have implemented a program of creating their own house labelled products to compete with the name brand products. What’s notable is that these house labelled products are often better and cheaper than the big label brands.  We need the Costco model for politics.  As at Costco, we should be able to return the politicians if not satisfactory.  There definitely has to be a better refund policy.

link Wearied by partisan warfare, many women desert Obamas Democrats – Yahoo News.

The headline reads that women deserted the Obama Democrats because of partisan warfare.  That’s a big slice of round processed meat.  As politicians have learned (or not) over and over again in all societies, the only issues that really matter are the ones that affect personal pocketbooks and circumstances.

The political left have consistently employed one classic tool in their on going efforts to harvest the hearts and minds of the populace.  That tool is the balkanization of the population.  If there are aggrieved groups to pander to, the political left will position themselves as their champions, to be their voice in the larger oppressive society.  The rise of the Obama phenomenon was a perfect storm in the history of the United States since he was anointed with the role of savior of all aggrieved groups, not to mention fixer of the weather.  When he was elected, the populace lavished the kind of adoration upon him that would make 12 year old girls at a Justin Bieber concert wince. The ebullient period of his ascent in 2008 and through to the 2012 vote was a time when every aggrieved group felt that their particular gripes would be addressed.

Only they weren’t.  Instead, the agenda consisted of ideological programs that were wanted by no one except the ideologues.  From government mandated health care, to EPA lunacy, to porous borders to ill advised withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, all of these were botched resulting in the worst possible outcomes for Americans.  When the realities of having to govern a complex society within a complex world became evident, it became more and more obvious that he was woefully ill equipped for the role.  It’s as if Justin Bieber was asked to run the country.  With the inventory of failed policies and initiatives piling up like crashed cars in fog storm, even the most ardent followers and supporters deserted the ship.  When it became obvious that individuals’ circumstances were not only not improving but deteriorating, something had to change.  The results of the recently held mid term elections were a resounding repudiation of the Obama programs; by all of his constituencies.

Women didn’t desert because of bickering, nor did the blacks, the latinos, the gays or students. That’s non sensical. Why wouldn’t they desert the Republicans? That’s as logical as opening the windows because you feel a draft.  It wasn’t because they wanted the battling to stop; it’s because they wanted to stop Obama. In an article written here a few years ago, we commented on the aftermath of the 2012 vote and its implications: 2012 vote .  The thesis was that the vote then did not signal a massive ideological shift of the population since core American values hadn’t changed.   It appears that assumption was correct.  In an interview the day after this most recent vote, the President claims to have heard the people, invoking his own famous quote from his election victory years ago, “elections have consequences”.  Interestingly, he claims to have also heard the 2/3 of the population that didn’t vote.   What that quote tells you is that the President has moved to another state after the election—the state of denial.