Politics itself has become a kind of autoimmune disorder, or some kind of bacterial infection like those flesh-eating diseases, devouring the body politic. My suspicion, however, is that it’s more likely an autoimmune disorder because I see almost no resistance to drugs in global, national or local politics.
It’s Sunday morning, Mother’s Day in America. If the Tea Party was not so deluded about the propensity of ‘open markets’ to produce anything that coincides with the general notion of ‘fair,’ there might be some hope. Instead, they choose to believe in an ‘invisible hand’ that directs commercial traffic and economic well-being into normal"">fair deals. They really ought to read their history. Achieving asymmetry of information and then doubling down by passing the risk onto anyone else, is the singular skill of the dealmaker (e.g. see Goldman Sachs, or look under “Ponzi game,” in Wikipedia –or better still, read Niall Ferguson’s, The Ascent of Money).
The one thing the TeePee-ers are right about is the moral turpitude rampant in both of our major political parties, Republican and Democrat I’m not necessarily talking about the ‘stance’ some Republican senator may take in an airport restroom, or the ‘tickle me homo’ congressman or philanderers and pedophiles in both parties. I’m talking about the endemic structural corruption that provides the sad distinction between the two: The Republican Party panders to anyone that will leave the 1-percenters (those who hold the bulk of American wealth) alone, while the Democrat Party cultivates those who believe that “helping the people,” like all charity, should begin at home (the closer the better, like keeping $90K is the freezer was just a pilot for a program to put $90K in every refrigerator, you know…an updated version of a chicken in every pot).
Look no further than the New York State Legislature to see what I mean. What passes for bi partisanship is an Alphonse and Gaston routine without the politeness, as party hacks bend over each other to scoop up the people’s money in the interest of their own enablers, friends, family, and mistresses. (I have to say, former Governor Elliot Spitzer is practically a saint -- he used his own money for his hookers.)
So somebody out there tell me how we can possibly change these outcomes without changing the structure? We all had (biological) parents. Is that what has to change? If you think it can’t change, think again.
This morning’s Mother’s Day factoid was this: 41-percent of US births in 2008, were to single woman, compared to 28 percent in 1990. We’ve known for years that sales of Mother’s Day greeting cards far outnumber the volume of Father’s Day greeting card sales –presumably sad evidence of irresponsible male sexual behavior, higher levels of young male mortality, broken marriages, and so on. This trend, however, is also evidence of pregnancies effected medically, in which not only is coitus unnecessary, but the male contributor is officially absent and “anonymous.”
Evolutionary social psychologist, Geoffrey F. Miller (University of New Mexico) writes, “Culture, rather than a system for transmitting useful technical knowledge and group-benefiting traditions down through the generations, can be considered an arena for various courtship displays in which individuals try to attract and retain sexual partners (normal"">The Evolution of Culture, Dunbar, Knight, Power). According to Miller, courtship displays are extremely “costly” (all that plumage and dancing about) but produces almost no discernable ‘survival benefit’ to the off-spring. On the other hand, the “cost” of “courtship display” does help improve the chance that mating will take place and, at the same time, keeps competing suitors at bay.
This courtship explanation, better accounts for the behavior we actually see in society than does natural selection. If males and females choose mating partners largely based on their energetic courtship displays (fancy clothes, good grooming, fast cars, big expense account, and robust bumping and grinding) this explains much about the behavior of our politicians (if not our bosses, friends, and ourselves).
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the end of matrimony also spelled the end of corruption?
Add a Comment