|
What’s
the big deal about having just one attorney general?
Let’s keep’em both. If having one is good,
wouldn’t two be better? I mean, is it written down
somewhere that we can’t do that? Is there some
rule that we always have to have a loser?
I
think that’s one of the problems we have with low
voter turn-out now. People will tell you that it is
apathy, that people are just gully-dirt sorry, or
narcissistic (excessive fascination for or
fascination with oneself, self love), that they
don’t care anymore. But it’s not that at all.
The problem is losing. Who wants to be on the losing
side half the time?
The
problem is that we’ve perverted our language. Take
“sportsmanship.” When, pray tell, where on our
evolutionary tree, did sportsmanship, did being a
“good sport” become synonymous with being a
gracious loser?
What’s
with that? Losing is not a good thing It
builds character? That’s bunk! Losing causes
anxiety and depression and rage. These are good
things? No! You can’t put lipstick on that hog.
Why do we keep trying? Who are we fooling?
Sportsmanship
is about winning. It ain’t got a damn thing to do
with losing. Losing graciously? Please. Gracious
losing is a concept advanced by idiots. Same thing
with “honesty.” Where on earth did we get this
whacked-out notion that “honest” elections are
somehow preferable? You kiddin’ me? Who cooked
that up? Probably the same mis-fit that first
uttered “count every vote, make every vote
count.” What a dimwit! Why would you want to do
that?
You
know damn well that a certain percentage of this
morass we call “the electorate” hit the wrong
button by mistake. Why would you want to count
mistakes? Is there some rule about that, too?
Think
back. Elections were a lot more fun, the
participation was higher, the passions were hotter,
when cemeteries and coon hounds could vote. People
were so much more interested when you could steal an
election once in a while.
Theft
is not necessarily a bad thing in politics. We made
it this far, didn’t we? Politics has never been a
subject that got a lot of write-up in the Boy Scout
manual. There is a reason for that.
I
knew we’d gone too far when I walked into my
precinct at the Meadows of Dan Fire Department and
had to cast my lot with Virginia’s future on a
thing that reminded me of hitting the “popcorn”
button on a spindly legged microwave.
The
juice is just not worth the squeeze anymore.
Our
voting process now is about as appealing and raises
about the same emotion as the flimsy rectangular
aluminum trays the first TV dinners came in—and
about as appetizing. Remember those big green peas?
The ones as hard as marbles and tasted like plastic?
That’s what you get when language perversion and
technology find a toe-hold in politics. And we
wonder why turn-out is low?
Which
brings me back to my friends, Creigh Deeds and Bob
McDonnell. Let’s just keep’em both. They’re
both good guys, from opposite parties, from opposite
ends of the state. They’re both already setting up
offices. Let’em stay. Let’s just keep’em.
Think
about it. This would be the ultimate in
nonpartisanship, the ultimate in the new vogue—the
ultimate in “centrist” government. We’d have a
Democratic governor, a Republican lieutenant
governor and one apiece for attorney general. What
could be more balanced?
Doctors
do it all the time. They’re forever recommending
second opinions. What would be wrong with giving the
governor that option? If he gets an opinion he
doesn’t like at his first stop, he doesn’t have
to go back to the mansion and sulk, like he does
now, he just goes down to the hall and gets a second
opinion! Wouldn’t that be good? And think about
the feeling that would surely wash over Virginia’s
electorate.
Everybody—everybody—could
say, “My man won!” Would that be
refreshing, or what? It would have to be better than
what we have now—half the state dragging around,
trying to put on some ridiculous “good sport”
face about losing.
November
28, 2005
|
