Political Circus

The performance art of politics

The most visible part of politics is entertainment. Public inquiries, floor debates, confirmation hearings have little to do with actual politics, policy making, economic decision making or anything that actually matters.

It is all about posturing without even a pretense of care and substance. It is a dog and pony show to dazzle the supporters of the participants.

What you see on your screen is your representative or fave politician delivering a speech, asking pointed ‘gotcha!’ questions, bullying, insulting and slandering the witnesses/appointees. The point is to see how one can perform under pressure and handle difficult questions.

I long wondered about this ballet of political posturing and avoidance disguised as inquiries into serious concerns. The roles are set, and everybody is expected to play theirs. It is not very demanding. It is well known that congressmen and senators don’t spend a minute more than is necessary to show their face, perform the expected function of bullying or delivering canned speeches and talking points. Nobody is interested in hearing answers or learning anything about the subject at hand. It is all just a show. It is not supposed to change minds on the merits of any argument.
It is like a bunch of monkeys in a cage throwing sh*t at each other for the entertainment of the viewing public.

The confirmation debates were especially vicious and pathetic manifestations of the virtual shit-show.

Consider the Cash Patel confirmation hearing. Just about every conversation followed the same script:

Ask an insulting, slanderous, out of context question, interrupt the answer then declare for the records that your question was not answered.

Pam Bondi, Cash Patel and RFK Jr. Were really good standing their grounds, but still, never really confronted the Democrats badgering them. They did not submit to the questions and the questioners, but they didn’t confront the questions either. It is a theatre that could be turned real with simply turning the questions around and handing them back to the questioner.

I would like to see exchanges like this:

I am sorry senator ‘X’ but this was a dishonest question. I do not answer to insults, slander, distortions and baseless accusations. Could you please ask a better question?

If there is an underhanded accusation, falsehood:

You don’t want me to answer this question… - if asked why, then – because I cannot do it without exposing some moral or intellectual failure on your part and unlike you, I am not in the business of trading public insults.

If consistently interrupted:

I would love to answer your question, but you clearly demonstrated that you do not have the civility to allow me to finish my answer. Is there a chance that you can force some manner on yourself and allow me to finish my answer?

Amy Klobuchar was badgering Kash Patel about his suggestion of turning the FBI headquarters into a museum to the point that the chairman had to explain her that making statements is another part of the proceedings.
She wanted him to submit, to acknowledge that he said something unacceptable.
She repeated the demand with a trembling voice “Mr. Chairman, I am quoting his own words”
This would have been a perfect opportunity to ask:

What exactly is it that you would like to know? You seem to know everything already. What I said, when, and in what context. What is the point and meaning of your question? What is missing? What are you so outraged about? What do you disagree with? What new information can I possibly provide you with? If you were not able to understand the idea, how can I help you understand it?

All of the points I was trying to make above are about the culture of these inquiries; the lack of civility and even basic common sense. It takes two to tango. The antagonistic party in these hearings wants to look righteous, and in control to expose the worst of their opponents. The problem is the victim playing along. Ignoring the questions, avoiding answers is playing along. Sleaze must be confronted.

To finish, let me use the exchange between Bernie Sanders and RFK Jr. to show how a stupid question could be turned around:

This was the first BS (I mean Bernie Sanders) question:

“Do you agree with me, that the United States should join every other major country on earth and guarantee health care to all people as a human right. Yes, or no?”

RFK Jr tried to answer but is interrupted with the question repeated: “Is healthcare a human right?” When RFK Jr. tries to offer a proper explanation, BS interrupts the answer before moving on to similarly stupid questions about climate change, abortion and vaccination. He never allowed time for an answer before moving on to the next ‘question.’ Each of those questions represented ideological lampposts that B.S. diligently marked to claim them as his territory.

Kennedy accepted the framework of the question and tried to answer it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK! Such approach only invite more badgering.

The answer to the question “Is healthcare a human right?” should have been:

Well, Bernie, this is an excellent question, especially considering that you are the number one opponent of it. You are NOT a champion of human rights, especially when it comes to healthcare.

My answer to your question would be ABSOLUTELY, but that answer would be just as absolutely meaningless without clarifying our respective understanding of what we mean by these terms.

What is healthcare? What is a human right? You keep using these words, but I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

For you, conceptually ‘healthcare as a human right’ means unconstrained rights to avail onto other people’s time, effort and resources. It means freedom from financial responsibilities concerning our health.
The problem with this concept is the simple economic truth that free resources create unlimited demand.
There is no way to escape this law. In practice, what you call a human right is its exact opposite, a severe limitation on human rights.

In the healthcare you advocate, every decision is political. If the government is the guarantor of our ‘healthcare rights’, then the government decides:

• Who can be a doctor and how many can we have;
  what kind of education they all must have, what sort of medical paradigm they must espouse; what sort drugs and procedures they can or must provide;

• The government will decide what can be researched, what can be published and what choices any one of us can have about our own health.

• The government will decide what health is, how long will you live and how much of that ‘free’ are they willing to spend on you.

Government run systems are corruptible and they are failing. Just look at Canada and the UK.
A system where you can die waiting for medical treatment may be free, but not desirable.

This is what you advocate when you say ‘healthcare is a human right’.
What I support is medical freedom, the right to make medical decisions without ANY influence by financially interested third parties. Like the ones who provided nearly 1.5 million dollars to your 2020 campaign.

The short answer to your question is that it is NOT a yes or no question.
As you can see, it is difficult to answer a question if we cannot even agree on what the question means. We could talk about it, but I doubt your ability to do so, as your question clearly shows that you don’t have a friendly clue what you are talking about.

Of course, I am just dreaming. We cannot possibly have a conversation like this, but I hope you will agree that these are the kind of conversations we SHOULD have.

Positive change must start with honest conversations. The political circus of tribal posturing and careful avoidance of any substantial discussion serves only to maintain the status quo.
To change it, we MUST confront the bullies by addressing/questioning the question before answering it.

We must turn them around and expose the dirt, the lies, the assumptions, the distortions, the false narratives and motivation behind them. It does not have to be rude or uncivil, but firm and resolute.
Change starts with questioning the framework.

I think we should also do this in our own lives. Stupid and sleazy questions should not be answered, but addressed for what they are.

Like everything else on Substack, this is a reader supported publication.
You can help it by following or subscribing.
You can engage with it by clicking on like and/or commenting.
A ‘like’ costs nothing and is worth a lot.
You can help this Stack grow by sharing, recommending, quoting or referencing it.
You can support it by pledging your financial support.
Any and all of it will be much appreciated.

References