Thursday, May 15, 2014

Americans Debate whether they Get Stuff Done

Dateline: WASHINGTON—Politicians rallied on Get Stuff Done Day, to reassure the American people that their government is in working order. Many boasted of their accomplishments while in office, describing in great detail the stuff in question.

Some showcased the collection of games on their mobile devices, which they play to occupy their time as representatives in Congress.

“The stuff I accomplish,” said Rep. Blowhard, “may not be as fancy as that of the young whippersnappers; I don’t go in for the newfangled gadgets. But I’m second to none in the fine art of finger-twiddling.”
 
“Every single work day without fail,” said Rep. Doolittle resentfully, “I walk from my office to the restroom to empty my bowels. That’s twelve steps there and twelve more back again, mind you, and I’m on that toilet for hours on end because of my IBS. So I can stand proud and declare that I get piles of stuff done for my fellow Americans.”

Congresswoman Shirker has been criticized for doing next to nothing in her official capacity, but at a press conference she vigorously defended the stuff she gets done: “Sure, I sit on my leather chair all day, apparently doing nothing whatsoever. But have a closer look! See how many times I breathe a minute? And now you’ve confirmed the stuff I get done for the American people.

“Do I hold my breath to spite my constituents? Not on your life! I inhale and exhale thousands of times a day, laboriously going through those motions, taxing my lungs, and I do it to carry out the public will. They didn’t elect me just to keel over. No sir, I assure you I’m very much alive as I doze off at my desk. With each breath I take I get stuff done, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to feed the plants which in turn supply oxygen to my constituents—to working men and women and to their children. You’re welcome!”

Cynical protestors showed up at some of the political rallies, insisting that the politicians aren’t in fact working hard enough to get stuff done.

“They talk a lot,” said a young unemployed man wearing a Jon Stewart T-shirt, “but they don’t get stuff done. I want to see them fix the country, but the stuff they do? They’re just making everything worse. Their stuff is the bad stuff, but we expect only good stuff from our elected representatives. I’d have thought that was implied.”

Asked what he thinks should be done about the gridlock and systemic corruption in Washington, the young man said his job as a disaffected ironist and know-it-all is to ridicule everything until the Apocalypse, whereupon he can brag that he expected all along that the worst would happen.

A third party surprised the audiences at the rallies and press conferences, to protest both the politicians and the cynical protestors.

“Whether a politician gets stuff done is neither here nor there,” said one of those outraged citizens. “If your standard of political action is that pitifully low, your political system’s utterly dysfunctional, your culture is in ruins, and it’s time for a revolution. That’s what the Declaration of Independence says: abolish the government if it stands in the way of our rights to safety and happiness.

“So how would that be for getting stuff done?”

5 comments:

  1. Hmm, seems a bit of an easy shot.

    Also if you had the system working alright, what would you be doing? Certainly not adjusting the system as it works well? You'd be more like a mother hen, just keeping things warm with your bum. If something works, are you supposed to mess with it? I'm not saying it does, but the idea is to get to such a status and any progress towards that means more mother hen-ism.

    I'm interested in the four year dictator syndrome (or whatever number of years the politician sits in whatever seat of power) - that sure, you have this voting system and were very emperic about counting who voted for whom. But once they get in, hey, they just do what they want to do (oh, they will call it 'consulting their heart' or something like that) and so making the voting system relatively redundant (we could just flip coins to see who gets in, as they are just going to do what they want). Seems both sides empower each other to break promises by them both regularly doing so, so they help each other be oath breakers since no one expects better and in the two party systems then there isn't anything else to choose from.

    the young man said his job as a disaffected ironist and know-it-all is to ridicule everything until the Apocalypse, whereupon he can brag that he expected all along that the worst would happen.

    lol, that reminds me of someone! :) Worse, they'll write fantasy so as to brag and be know-it-all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Easy shot? I'm merely detecting an impoverishing of language here and a gross lowering of political standards, when you have this meme about the need for politicians to "get stuff done."

      How would I run a country? This is a very difficult question. I think the politics takes care of itself if the underlying culture is in good health. The culture I want to see arise focuses on the existential predicament, the threat of naturalism, and the value of tragic heroism. We need to be realistic and idealistic at the same time. So we have to expect that for various natural reasons, sociopaths will tend to rise to positions of power whereupon they'll mislead the country. So what systems do we put in place to curb those dynamics? Should philosopher-kings rule? Wouldn't philosophers have their head in the clouds and thus lack the practical know-how? (There was a Simpsons episode about the nerds getting together to rule Springfield, which led to disaster.)

      I'm reading Philip Mirowski's recent book on neoliberalism, so I'm inclined to think that one of the main reasons for gridlock in the US is that most members of both parties are neoliberals, which means they want to prevent government from functioning well, so it stays out of the market's way.

      If you're suggesting I was thinking of RSB, that's not so, although that sentence might well apply to both of us. ;) I was really thinking of the young, postmodern Jon Stewart fans who ridicule the dysfunctional government without looking much in the mirror.

      Delete
  2. I'm merely detecting an impoverishing of language here and a gross lowering of political standards, when you have this meme about the need for politicians to "get stuff done."

    Huh? Maybe this one flew past me - are you parodying politicians primarily, or are you parodying the meme of politicians getting stuff done and those who perpetuate the meme without thinking about it? If it's the latter, well, I didn't catch that one.

    How would you run the country? I didn't ask that, but everyone loves to answer that question so I'll roll with it.

    The culture I want to see arise focuses on the existential predicament, the threat of naturalism, and the value of tragic heroism.

    Sounds like it's pretty non expressible in any empiric format - ie, how would anyone know they are for filling that requirement? Unless they basically are beholden to consulting yourself on it? >:)

    So we have to expect that for various natural reasons, sociopaths will tend to rise to positions of power whereupon they'll mislead the country. So what systems do we put in place to curb those dynamics? Should philosopher-kings rule? Wouldn't philosophers have their head in the clouds and thus lack the practical know-how?
    Yep, quite a scenario. Philosophers aren't interested in having any method of being empirically wrong, sociopaths don't care whether they are right (in the moral sense)

    I think it starts with developing methods for individual food production, instead of people relying on a hand that feeds them and thus being unwilling to bite said hand (politically)

    If you're suggesting I was thinking of RSB, that's not so
    Aww, I thought it was a funny reference!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant to be satirizing both sides. First it's the politicians who have to pretend to be busy doing something worthwhile. Then it's the cynical critics of politicians who just want them to be "getting stuff done," without realizing that if that's how low their standard's gotten, the critics themselves need to be getting stuff done, namely sparking a revolution to retrieve their country that's slid into the abyss.

      You asked what I'd be doing if I had the system working alright. I outlined some of my principles. As for the specifics, I'd have to think about them more. My point is that a noble leader's first task should be to address the natural dynamics that corrupt her and thus the system she controls. Why would anyone other than a latent sociopath want to be in a position of great power?

      Delete
  3. I didn't really get the both sides thing - sure, I'm a sample size of one, but atleast in regard to me I'm not sure this satire would get through.

    On the other matter I really didn't ask what you'd do if you got the system working alright - I raised the four year dictator problem model, where once they get in they pretty much do as they will and are policed by nothing (even though we went to great pains to police the vote taking).

    I'm not sure what you mean about addressing the dynamic - I don't bank on self restraint being of much worth (not dependably). I bank on actual laws restraining powers rather than some noble leader restraining themselves in some noble way.

    ReplyDelete