They’re all the same.
The candidates are different—or at least they have different names—but the elections themselves are all the same.
If you know me, you know that I love elections. Or I have loved elections. The bustle of the polling places, the volunteers and proud voters, the hopeful candidates, the tension, the promise, the hope for a better future—it’s all worked together to enchant me in the past.
But the longer I do this journalism thing, the more I see that little ever changes. Maybe I’m just getting jaded.
I’m not talking about specific policy, necessarily. There have been some beneficial changes to the law in the last year.
But even changes that obviously need to be made—like closing loopholes that would allow rapists to get away with felony crimes because, in the narrow-focused eyes of the state, they didn’t actually commit any felony crimes—get mired in partisanship, ego wars, and the general drudgery of slogging through the swamp that is our government.
If some sort of reform actually passes, these days it seems to be in spite of our elected officials, not because of them.
Consider an issue on the forefront of many debates today, due to the recent killings in Isla Vista: gun control. I typed those words into Google, and the first link that came up was for an article in the Boston Herald. The lead: “Opponents of a sweeping gun control bill are pushing back on Beacon Hill, saying the Democratic-backed measure stigmatizes gun owners and won’t help reduce crime.”
There’s nothing surprising about that sentence. At maybe that’s my point.
Remember back in 2012, when President Barack Obama was up for re-election? Partisan rhetoric boiled down complex issues to ridiculous extremes. Reproductive rights and discussions regarding abortion created a black-and-white split. “Republicans hate women!” one side shouted. “Democrats hate babies!” the other side shouted back.
Our society as a whole is not exactly the best at grasping nuance, I think.
Perhaps I’m letting the doom and gloom of recent days get me down. I don’t know. You tell me: Do you think that things are getting better?
I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t try to improve the world. And I absolutely believe in the importance of voting. Having to pick between vanilla and tapioca is still making a choice—and every once in a while, we do get a surprising jalapeño pepper thrown into the mix.
But I am saying that as I sat down to write this column in the hours before the polls closed, knowing that whatever I wrote ahead of the final tally wouldn’t appear until after the results were revealed, I had a difficult time trying to imagine how different the world would look if Candidate A won over Candidate B.
The whole situation eerily reminds me of the Borg from StarTrek: The Next Generation. I know what you’re thinking: “Canary, you are the geekiest bird I’ve ever met,” but bear with me. (P.S. I have it on pretty good authority that parrots are the geekiest birds, but that’s a different story.)
Back to the Borg: For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Trekkie world, I’ll fill you in a little bit. According to startrek.com, the Borg species is part organic, part artificial intelligence and is thousands of years old. When Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) makes first contact with the Borg, he gets assimilated and sent back to the U.S.S. Enterprise to explain to the frightened crew that the Borg’s goal is to “raise the quality of life” of every species they encounter through assimilation. Born humanoid, the Borg are almost immediately implanted with bio-chips that link their brains to a collective consciousness via a unique subspace frequency emitted by each drone.
I know this is starting to get a little weird, but that last statement really encapsulates what I’m getting at. I choose to believe that most of the people who run for political office start off with good intentions—they want to help make the world a better place by passing important legislation, helping to create jobs, and improving our government infrastructure. But in order to do that, they feel that they have to conform—assimilate—to the political game of fundraising, jingoistic campaign signs and literature, and questionably ethical sound bites. Notice that I didn’t infer that assimilation starts once a newly elected official boards the political mother ship, i.e. the state or federal capital, or even City Hall.
No, these days, assimilation begins with the campaigning process. Rather than discussing the issues in an honest and intelligent manner, our politicos pander to the masses—or, perhaps more fittingly, the cartoonish target audience their handles tell them to pander to—by ramping up the mudslinging and finger pointing.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that politicians and voters should join forces and resist that Borg-like mindset. To our politicians, I say it’s OK to be human. In fact, it’s absolutely needed. When you’re putting together that campaign brochure or that latest press release, when you’re about to cast your vote, try taking a moment to actually think about what you’re saying or doing. Don’t just insert a canned, unfeeling quote. Speak to us like a human being; cast your vote like a human being. And to the voters, I say don’t let the politi-Borg fool you. Learn the facts, research the issues, and make informed decisions. Resistance isn’t futile; it’s imperative.
The Canary is proud to be a geek. Send comments to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 5-12, 2014.
