Posted 4 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 5:37 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It seems there is some confusion about the credibility regarding certain candidates for office. I would settle such matters, so that we may set them aside with confidence, and employ our efforts in some more productive direction.
First, a question:
- What is the proper role of Government?
I am sure there are no end of possible answers to such a question, and so let us refine the nature of our search:
- Is it not the proper role of Government to respond to the needs of the people in times of emergency?
During the month of August, one candidate did indeed, insist with his advocacy, that it was not a proper function of government to respond to the needs of the people during times of emergency. This was done with the assurance that if elected, one candidate would indeed end FEMA.
Do not take my word for it - though I saw it myself on CNN. Let me submit as evidence the following:
If indeed, it is a proper function of government to address with care the needs of the people during time of emergency, then it follows a failure to meet those needs will bring discredit to the government itself, raise questions of legitimacy to rule, breed discontent, unrest, and so usher in the possibility of revolt. We saw this clearly during Katrina.
- What could possess a candidate for office to advocate ending such a program?
There may be many reasons, I have not researched with care the various points this particular candidate has raised. I would suggest whatever points he has raised must stem from one of three possible sources:
cynicism over fraud and abuse of government largess
cynicism in the face of incompetence and red tape
willfull and deliberate sabotage of the people's institutions for the benefit of large private enterprise.
None of these possible explanations for such advocacy as has been suggested - ending FEMA - is indicative of an individual qualified to meet the challenges of high office.
Such a fact is stark, readily evident, and rarely receives more than passing acknowledgement. But it does beg another question:
- If such an individual is so clearly unfit for public service, why do individuals of influence advocate on his behalf?
Again, there are but few possibilities:
a simple and fundamental lack of understanding regarding the proper functions of government.
A very carefully thought out plan to deceive, divide, and conquer the electorate, and that thinking could lead in two different directions with two different purposes - both using the same Empty Shirt device:
By making the candidate attractive to a portion of either left, or right, will drain votes from an opposing candidate in a three way race;
By creating the appearance of support for such an Empty Shirt, it may provide incentive to those already in office, or those planning to run for office, to lean further in a specific direction.
If a society is sufficiently compartmentalized into silos of information, it is entirely possible that one candidate may suite the needs of either side of the political divide, simultaneously.
there is one further use of such an individual, and that is as a means of polling the public during election, to determine the degree of success behind various forms of political advertising, and gauge the public in terms of it's familiarity with the issues, and their degree of cynicism regarding the establishment.
These kinds of machinations are, in my view, extremely dangerous, and ultimately serve only to discredit the entire system. When perceptions of discredit and illegitimacy gain wide currency, it is certain that open revolt cannot be far behind.