or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
March 27, 2008
Actual Good Writing, Actually By Michael Kinsley, Actually In Time
Somehow, against all odds, something accurate and relevant to human life was written by Michael Kinsley, and appeared in Time magazine:
[V]oters are also right to feel that something is phony about democratic politics and that it's getting worse. Even a candidate who agrees with you on all important issues and always has—no dreaded flip-flops—is forced by the conventions of politics to be disingenuous about at least one core issue: why he or she is running.Ladies and gentlemen, they are running because they are ambitious. No, really, they are. You probably suspected as much. And yet you would abandon any candidate who dared to admit this, or at least they all believe that you would...[T]he purest form of ambition is political ambition, because it represents a desire to rule over other people.
When you hear the presidential candidates carrying on about democracy and freedom, do you ever wonder what they would be saying if they had been born into societies with different values? What if Mitt Romney had come to adulthood in Nazi Germany? What if Hillary Clinton had gone to Moscow State University and married a promising young apparatchik? What if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, like his father, where even now people are slaughtering one another over a crooked election? Which of them would be the courageous dissidents, risking their lives for the values they talk about freely—in every sense—on the campaign trail? And which would be playing the universal human power game under the local rules, whatever they happened to be?
Without naming names, I believe that most of them would be playing the game. What motivates most politicians, especially those running for President, is closer to your classic will-to-power than to a deep desire to reform the health-care system.
The one flaw here is Kinsley's failure to describe this in terms of Larrys, Moes and Curlys.
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at March 27, 2008 04:29 PMTHAT'S why I'm voting for Michael Meyer.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at March 27, 2008 04:57 PMAs George L. Tirebiter once said, "It ain't much, but its a government job."
Posted by: Mike Meyer at March 27, 2008 05:00 PMHe's figured this out just now?
Our country is a Kindergarten.
Therefore, in the spirit of Kinsley--slow learner or late bloomer--
DER WILLE ZUM MEYER
EIN VOLK EIN MEYER
Posted by: donescobar at March 27, 2008 05:33 PM
It is obvious, donescobar, but you gotta admire anyone willing to state obvious truths in Time Magazine, of all places. I'm sure he knew it all along.
And it's not obvious to a lot of people--that's why there was such a fuss over the word "monster" being applied to Hillary Clinton by Samantha Power. Granted that Power was only talking about how HRC was running her campaign, it was still true. But some people at mainstream blogs nodded sagely and said "Yes, it would be silly to compare HRC to some dictator who actually kills people." Yes, of course it would be silly to compare a politician in a democracy who supports an unjust war to anyone who actually has people killed.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at March 27, 2008 05:50 PMIf Hillary Clinton had been born in a less repressive society maybe she would have concluded that she could divorce her husband and still have a chance for higher office. Of course in virtually any society, large numbers of people would see her as insincere and annoying.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen at March 27, 2008 06:00 PMAnd the mind-pummeling irony is that Ralph Nader is the only candidate who's constantly accused of running for selfish reasons, yet he's the only one who isn't.
Posted by: John Caruso at March 27, 2008 06:21 PMYeah, yeah. It's been DER WILLE ZUR MACHT all along the way, whether you call it a democracy, plutocracy, or Diktatur. If some crumbs fall off the table for the "common good," lucky us.
A lot of crumbs you get in small places, more Athenian in size, with homogeneous populations, where "everybody knows your name." (Almost): Finland, Norway etc. Or, in countries that recently got demolished and experience a springtime of good intentions: Deutschland. But fall and winter won't be far behind. Spengler was pompous, but not wrong.
And the mind-pummeling irony is that Ralph Nader is the only candidate who's constantly accused of running for selfish reasons, yet he's the only one who isn't.
Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Oh gods. Thanks for that one John - I had a lousy day and I really needed that laugh.
If you really think that Nader isn't running for his own selfish reasons, you've pretty much missed the point of Jon's post. Of course he's running for his own selfish reasons - almost everyone who seeks political power and influence runs for selfish reasons. If they wanted to do things for unselfish reasons there are many ways for millionaires to affect the system without attaining political power.
But then, what would be the point?
(And Nader used to be the guy you could point to to show, by example, how much a rich white guy actually could influence the system without bothering to try to achieve political power for himself. Now... not so much. He's just like the pols he castigates. Dare I say it - there's not really a dime's worth of difference between him and the rest of the crew he's running against - at least where personal ego and ambition are measured.)
Posted by: NonyNony at March 27, 2008 08:55 PMNonyNony: Thanks for illustrating my point!
Posted by: John Caruso at March 27, 2008 09:51 PMwell, duh. pretty fucking obvious. But you miss an important element (duh, because you people are so fucking stupid). campaigns are made up of players, interest groups, and suckers. the suckers think it's about health care or transforming our souls. the interest groups know it's about legislation and money for them. but for the players, the people really driving the campaigns, it's all about the DC jobs at the end of the line. Harold Ickes wants some WH job, not to champion the common man blahblahblah. Clinton can't just drop out because hundreds of people have spent a year or two of their lives planning on being players. She owes them.
Posted by: xyz at March 28, 2008 04:04 AMAnd Nader used to be the guy you could point to to show, by example, how much a rich white guy actually could influence the system without bothering to try to achieve political power for himself. Now... not so much.
a)The whole reason he started running for Prez was that he no longer could get any of his issues a fair hearing, either from Dems or Reps.
b) When he did have a modicum of influence he wasn't "rich".
c) Which bothers you more, that he's saved some money by living nearly ascetically over the years or that he's "white?"
He's just like the pols he castigates.
Pols take money from industry to make industry richer and more secure. Nader uses money from citizen and consumer groups to try to get their concerns an airing. Those are similar much like the bargains struck by Faust and Francis of Assisi are similar.
Dare I say it - there's not really a dime's worth of difference between him and the rest of the crew he's running against - at least where personal ego and ambition are measured
Do you have some special power which allows you to divine the inner souls of man? Do you have an 800 number, maybe 1-800-I-Know-If-Your-Husband-Loves-You? Also, what is impersonal ego?
Posted by: cavjam at March 28, 2008 10:22 AMOh Saint Ralph is a fucking asshole. A holier than thou POS who knew law well enough but not economics or history. I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge with his name on it.
Posted by: xyz at March 28, 2008 10:46 AMOh Saint Ralph is a fucking asshole. A holier than thou POS who knew law well enough but not economics or history. I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge with his name on it.
A reg'lar Descartes: "Facio argumentum ad hominem, ergo sum." /pedantry
Posted by: cavjam at March 28, 2008 12:50 PM
