It has occurred to me that this post is not as clear as it could be.
By “support” I’m referring to cheerful promotion, to advocating a candidate as on “our side” etc.
File this under Another Problem With Democracy. Everyone says that we’re supposed to be realistic. We’re supposed to not be perfectionists. Blah, blah, blah. One might think that such exhortations mean that we are supposed to keep our heads about us and, well, be realistic and not be perfectionists. I’m sure many do mean that.
But for some it seems to mean the opposite and worse. It means that we should take a look at a list of realistic candidates, without demanding perfection…. and then jump head-first into the fantasy world in which this candidate, chosen so realistically, is now the perfect messiah, the Good Guy, the Champion of Right.
I have to confess that I really liked the ant-Bush attitude that in the first few years of this century because I thought it would end this sort of thing. I thought people’s anger at the Bush regime was a cynicism and opposition to politics. But it wasn’t. Demonizing Bush was simply an urge to find a fresh, young, god to control The Machinery Of Heaven. And even now, when we have even less excuse for our war than before, and even more fiscal insanity (exponentially more) than before, Obama continues to be worshiped and professing Christians decorate the bodies of their young children with his beautific face on their clothing.
Gag.
It is all pagan worship and it is all headed toward human sacrifice. The first sacrifice is one’s own brain, and the rest follows naturally and more literally.
I never thought I would say this so soon, but Bush’s sins aren’t an excuse anymore.
Anyway, saying I can’t “support” someone doesn’t mean that he or she isn’t worth voting for. It just means there is not much to get excited about. Which, in our modern political context, virtually makes you part of the opposition.
You’re like the Mikey of politics. When you like somebody, we’ll know the real deal has arrived 🙂
Well, that’s the problem isn’t it? Are politicians supposed to appeal to consumers like other goods? Are they suppose to advertise that way? Why should we need to “like” them?
Is there anywhere in the Bible that envisions that kind of social arrangement?
Well, I suppose I’m one of the blah-blah-blah-ers, since I wrote an anti-perfectionism post a couple of weeks ago. Though I hope I’m not guilty of rah-rah-rahing. 🙂
And I agree that cynicism + anger does not equal maturity.
No, Angie; you weren’t in my mind. I’ve written for realism v. looking for the perfect 3rd-party candidate, myself.
The industrial revolution keeps gnawing at the back of my mind these days. Someone said “medicine has always been expensive”. NPR said it hadn’t. We didn’t have a *drug* to *cure* a *disease* until the early 20th century.
Guilds burned down your house if you came up with improvements in cobblery.
Commodity is a powerful metaphor. It doesn’t have to be a marxist ‘fetish’ but that that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
This is to openly wonder if I have to expect the Bible to envision our current arrangements. I wish it did, more.
Mutatis mutandis takes longer and longer each time.
To possibly clarify, the fact that the Bible doesn’t envision something doesn’t mean that it can’t be used with authority. It just means that we have to be careful how we use it. Specifically, I think the way we might teach people in Sunday School to deal with the civil magistrate may need some more finesse.