Unleashed

I once made the decision to eschew discussing current events and the news and such in this space, as I believed there were already enough (and most probably too many) people spouting their specific brand of nonsense into the digital world. That decision has been reversed, because I am a flexible well-rounded person who is fully capable of changing his mind when the reality of a situation demands it.

Or when the surreality of a situation infuriates me to a point beyond belief. That being said, I feel that a return to this path calls for the return of a certain pathwalker, and a gentleman (that’s me) always allows others to precede him. Plus, I recently saw a church with the best name ever, and it inspired me to reach out.

So, for the first time in some time, without further ado (except for this next short clause), because of my aforementioned recent holy epiphany, I unleash for and upon you, St. John the Amenable:  

I, your patron saint of the Disgruntled Groan, return once again at the behest of your regular (if regular he can be called, in the case of actually producing written words) author, to ask the lot of you one simple question, which I will then proceed to answer for you, as you are not invited to edit this document:

What in the unbridled realm of heathenry have you done?

The promised answer: You have allowed it all to become so very, very, terrible, and I am here to set it right again.

Now see here: I am aware that in your only barely United States, a presidential election is underway in this, the year of Your Almost Certainly Perplexed Lord, 2016. Further and more, I am aware that in all elections, the populace is invariably and unfortunately subjected to a great deal of obnoxious and odorous ordure, of both the donkey and elephant varieties.  This election, however, is of another make entirely, as so much of the rhetoric being passed is rather lacking even in the density required for an excretion to labeled waste. It is instead more akin to a methane release, in that it causes a largely unpleasant reaction in those exposed to it, but ultimately carries no weight of its own.

I would very much like to not feel obligated to explain or support my position, but as I am not running for president (as of this moment in time), I cannot expect my words to be taken as gospel without bothering to base them in anything resembling reason or actual fact. That being the case, allow me to provide examples of the ethereal excrement to which I allude.

First, I ask, I beseech, I entreat anyone to explain to me how it is acceptable for a candidate to so boldly avoid answering a question? I have been following this election rather diligently since its commencement in what I now believe to be the end of our most recent ice age. Somehow, these “straight-shooters”, all of them different than the bureaucratic do-nothings whose lazy tyranny has caused us all so much suffering (what with our expanded health care and diminished unemployment and marriage equality), have failed to do much in the way of providing actual answers to questions relating to their presidential qualifications.

What they expose us to, instead, during their multitudinous debates and rallies and supremely staged political events, are responses along the lines of (and here I shall paraphrase, as the notion of quoting any of these ideological idiots appalls me) “trust me, okay?” and “that guy’s wrong and dumb and I’m better” and so on. One of the only true examples of a straightforward answer I did hear, was the simple “no” one candidate offered when given an opportunity to comment on another’s answer. Do you not find it informative that the atmosphere of the room shifted, instantly becoming more relaxed when this answer was given? Do you not find it infuriating to know that providing a simple answer, which is expected of any mentally able person in most every other avenue of the world, is seen as both a rarity and a clever maneuver?

Admittedly, the language of politics lends itself to manipulation, and at its best can be used to shape a conversation that polishes one’s own deeds and qualifications to a high and glossy shine. In this case, however, it is used primarily to belittle opponents in order to deflect, lest an actual rationale somehow crack the shellacked and seamless plastic surface. Unfortunately, being able to explain why someone else is not right for a job is not the same as proving oneself to the best choice. If that were the case, I would be acquainted with a great deal more movie directors and professional football coaches and skilled automobile drivers than I presently am. What it means instead is that for some there exists no real candidate for which to vote, and so the disenfranchised must vote against someone instead.  This is known as picking ”the lesser of two evils”, and the defeated connotation it carries reflects all too well the mentality of those who adopt it.

Understand, people don’t even pick avocados this way. No one selects an avocado simply in order to not pick another one; that avocado is chosen according to its ripeness, its qualifications for consumption, its potential for guacamole greatness. But a president? Sure, that job can be assigned to any rube, as long as it’s not the other side's rube. This is the method of the broken, the defeated, the ones who believe in their hearts that nothing will ever truly be improved, and the language of their candidate bears that out. Promises to undo change, to bring back times gone by, to flee the future and hide behind the illusions of synthetic traditions, surely appeal to those who believe the future to be a grim one. Theirs is a world of only rotten avocados, and I for one desire it not.

As a people, as a culture, it must be remembered that leaders not only reflect the time during which they lead, but also help to shape it. Commotion and crudity are not substitutes for eloquence and reason, and we should demand that our leaders understand this fact and behave accordingly.

-St. John the Amenable