i want to collect my thoughts on why i'm so reluctant to truly back any politician. i understand that there are a lot of 'good' ones out there, who are working to 'dismantle' the oppressive nature of the current american government but they all have short comings. no one's perfect. to an extent, that's fine. holding them all to a rigid purity test doesn't seem like the best use of anyone's time because, after all, not everyone will agree on anything. my purity test may not be the same as another's. maybe my purity test is wrong. etc. etc. which, i guess, brings me to a momentary standstill. should i just give them the pass since they, 'they' being progressive candidates that i agree with on many things, are working towards a solution that, for what it's worth, is a better situation than the one we're currently in?
i guess a few, maybe even just last year, i was inclined to think so. i was more on the side of "yes go off" or whatever. i remember being inspired by aoc's win as a sign that maybe the culture was shifting. but then, she slipped up here and there. backtracked some of her more brazen comments in order to not alienate people who disagree. and it was a moment like this that dis-inspired me with her. at that moment it became clear again that politicians will truly say what they need to in order to not lose power/support
which, of course. they need people to like them so that they vote for them. in turn, they get elected or stay in their position. that's how politics works! but that's the issue i have. if more people are against what you view as the right thing, you have to shift your position. isn't that a cop out? that's not genuine. why should i trust someone that will backpedal, or even take a step forward to later take steps back, in order to win an election. it's one thing if that person sticks to their beliefs, whether i agree or not, and it's another issue if they shape-shift for votes or approval
people love politicians. lots of people still love obama. there's love for biden. for warren. for sanders. for omar. etc. people we elected to 'represent' us are being elevated to celebrity status. i don't think they should. by celebrating politicians we create an energy for them that propels them. we overlook flaws and say, "so what. they're still good." we ignore faults because we see it as a team versus team thing. i'm guilty of this as well. i would say even now. i give sanders a pass on a lot of shit because i think he's the best candidate for 2020. i don't know. it's because of his track record. he hasn't wavered much in what he believes in. it's that consistency in 'progressive' values that i like. but even then, i'm not going to share stuff about how 'great' he is. because he can't be that great. politicians are supposed to work for us. represent us. not the other way around. we shouldn't stan them, since they ideally should just be a mirror of our own collective consensus and ideals
i'm thinking of that meme that a friend of mine shared. it's a picture of 'the squad'. those progressive woc politicians. i forget who's all in it but the point is, the picture has text that reads 'what if imperialism had a girl boss?' and that's the overarching issue here. america is an imperialist machine. you can interpret that as the idea of america. or the idea of american exceptionalism. or even physically, america as a country. as a people. why should i back a politician that is, at best, complicit with the violence committed in the name of america. should i be content that it's a woman doing it now? i wasn't content when it was a black man doing it. race doesn't absolve. neither does gender. violence is violence. i get that not everyone is 'responsible' for what the u.s. does. a state rep doesn't call the shots. but they take part in the system that does. they help uphold that system. is that not as bad? even assuming that they got in it to reform it, they are well aware that the way things are set up, change is a long-term plan. having a vision for the future doesn't mean that there isn't harm being done today
should politicians be celebrities? no. should they flip flop and compromise their ideals? no. should anyone aspire to be in charge of an imperialist machine? no. someone has to 'steer the ship' i suppose. but they shouldn't be idolized
none of what i wrote is new or groundbreaking. these are all critiques that were made well before i wrote them down here. but the way the majority of the people i know interpret politics is discouraging. i tried to argue this once while drunk and others thought i was just a 'nihilist.' i get why that may be the interpretation of this. but it's not that i don't think it matters. i think it matters too much. that we need to really scrutinize everything. that idolizing politicians obscures that. meeting them does too. i prefer to keep my distance. i don't want to meet them. by virtue of their job, they have to be charismatic. i don't want anything to do with their charisma