Integrity Disqualifies Sanders for White House
By Andy Borowitz
According to some experts, the electoral system has developed a number of safeguards over the past few decades to prevent someone with independence and backbone from occupying the Presidency.
“Bernie Sanders’s failure to become a member of either major political party excludes him from the network of cronyism and backroom deals required under our system to be elected,” said Davis Logsdon, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Though that failure alone would disqualify Sanders, the fact that he is not beholden to a major corporate interest or investment bank would also make him ineligible.”
Because of his ineligibility, Logsdon said, the Vermont Senator would be unable to fund-raise the one billion dollars required under the current system to run for President. “The best source of a billion dollars is billionaires, and Sanders has alienated them,” he said. “Clearly he didn’t think this through.”
Logsdon said that Sanders might persist in his quest for the White House despite his ineligibility but that such an effort would be doomed to fail. “Our political system has been refined over the years specifically to keep people like Bernie Sanders out of the White House,” he said. “The system works.”
This is exactly why we will never, CAN never have an honest politician, much less a legislative majority of honest politicians. To even have the slightest chance of being elected to high office, you would have had to spend years proving to the power bosses that you are a team player....that you will work tirelessly to help elect, and contribute money to, and to RAISE money for, the scoundrels who are on the top of the podium, regardless of their lack of morals and integrity.
Those two measures of character are not part of our political system. Politicians care about one thing, and it isn't the "public good". No, it's about getting themselves re-elected and possessing the power election brings, period. They would throw ANY of us under the bus to get re-elected.
When I hear someone say, "Oh, yes, they're a bunch of scoundrels all right...well, except for MY Senator/Reperesentative. He's a good guy", I wonder how, or even if, their brain works? Can anyone really be that naive?
I know of politicians who might have made their early reputation by being honest people, perhaps military heroes, etc, but somewhere along the way they were seduced by The Dark Side to put all that aside and play ball with the Devil. Even the most sedate politicians, the ones you never hear much from, are guilty. Instead of speaking up for "the people", they just "go along to get along". They are accessories to the crime. They might not pull the trigger, but they sure as hell drive the getaway car!
And THAT, my friends, is why I have no respect for ANY politician, of either party.
S
LATE EDIT: Except for Mr. Sanders, perhaps. Regardless of his politics, he has shown a disdain for the political Status Quo. Good for him! Which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected President. Honestly, I don't know how he made it to congress in the first place.
Yes, the Borowitz Report is satire (and always well worth a read), and, as is the way with good satire, it does indeed hit the nail on the head. I was recently rereading Harry Harrison’s Stainless Steel Rat series, in which, under the veil of humour, he repeatedly makes acute points about politics and morality. One of the lines was the well-established “Any politician’s highest priority is to get reelected.” I don’t think many people can be in much doubt about that.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s more invidious (especially in the US, though it applies to a degree in any country) is the need for enormous wealth before anyone has any reasonable chance of making it to the top in politics. I am sometimes tempted to suggest that US presidents should be selected not by the vote of the people, but by how much financial backing they have. It would probably work out much the same, and would save everyone all that tedious canvassing business.
Good satire always has a brush with facts and the truth and makes a valid point. This is good satire.
ReplyDeleteI think Simons final comment also classifies as good satire.
I read his stuff occasionally, and this is a good one. And all too accurate. One thing though....when you paint with a very broad brush, one can miss some detail. No, not every politician fits into your category. There are damn few, but they do exist. Often one has to look at local/state levels to find them, but they are there. Kshama Sawant from Seattle is one (unless you think the far left doesn't count). She was elected, and is popular in her district.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you're right. My rant was essentially aimed at the higher echelon "professional" politicians, not those at the lower grass roots level. But even then, there are no doubt some who want to do the right thing. Then the question becomes, are they trivialized?...assigned to committees with little visibility or importance? Are they singled out for defeat by their own party at the next election cycle because they won't play along? In other words, can good people be effective in politics if they buck the powers that be? I think not.
DeleteIt's always funny people say "throw all the bums out" and yet still most of the incumbents get elected.
ReplyDeleteAndy Borowitz is nearly always a good read, bringing a sardonic smile to even the most cynical face.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I think you are mostly right. Still...one can hope.
ReplyDeleteI like Bernie, but I don't think he has a serious shot at becoming president.
ReplyDeleteYou are allowed to fall in love with a candidate during the primaries, and I have always admired Bernie. Alas, I do not think he will be the actual candidate. People tend to tow the party line in the main election.
ReplyDelete