(^{with a little intro by Svetlana for good measure})

Rally round everyone. We are throwing a party tonight (or helping throw a party, or….).
It takes place at Bourbon, it starts at 8, alcohol will be readily available and Ian Svenonius is DJing.
Moments like this CAN be expected:

As a bonus feature though, you get to have your brain cells stimulated a little before you destroy them with all that Dewar’s.

As you may have noticed the political circus (read: the Democratic and Republican conventions) is in high season and to celebrate everyone celebrating something Modernist Society has once again rallied up with their main man (squeeze) Trace Crutchfield to present to you special previews of Current TV’s “(Un)conventionally yours”, a toungue-in cheek guide to Minneapolis-St. Paul & Denver for those who will be attending the Dem/Rep National Conventions (Jason, who is behind Modernist was one of the shooters (camera & gun) for the Minneapolis episode). While it does include bits with actual real-life politcal types, it also includes Strip Clubs with meat raffles, toe tapping in bathrooms, Jesse Ventura, kung fu Islamists, guns, punk rock, gay pride, fashion and a slew of other non-traditional stuff, and in general, celebrates the joys of pageantry of politics.

You should totally come and see it. To believe it.

Trace (whom we totally want to be when we grow up) will be on hand tonight to answer questions, pose for photos and look sharp (last time he was in town everyone who can type or shoot (in public) showed up to hang tough with him) and so we figured we’d have Michael (especially in the light of his recent political firestarting on BYT) conduct a very serious interview.
Behold:

The two-party system is fully entrenched in American politics. Regardless of whom you feel best would represent you as a candidate for President that doesn’t matter as the twin Parties control everything: support Hillary’s position? Too bad! You get Obama. Giuliani supporter? Too bad! You get McCain.

Can you speak to the political mentality of people who feel one person is the better candidate but they’re given another and due to the party mindset they get fully (almost) behind whichever person the Party puts up? (in other words - he’s a Democrat, (she’s a Republican) so I am a Democrat (or Republican) so I have to vote for them.)

Did you go to one of those schools where they give out participation awards meant to make all kids feel like they’re winners? It doesn’t work like that when you’re running for President. It’s a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all, zero-sum proposition. There’s only one winner in the race for President. You might not especially cotton to the parties’ candidates that emerge victorious from the long bloody primary season, but really, the candidate probably isn’t all that different from the one you preferred in the first place. But let’s say you’re a Hillary supporter and just can’t stand black people. Go ahead and jump ship. The two parties are essentially the same anyway. Despite some unique traits they pretend to embody, they really don’t want any upstarts, so they conspire to keep a third party option out of the game. Citizens are then forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which of course leaves nothing but evil. But what about us margin walkers? Should we have to settle? What party do you belong to if are into guns and abortion? Or small government and welfare? The two parties are outmoded but well entrenched. After first calling me a knucklehead, Jesse Ventura laid the truth on me: American two-party politics is just like professional wrestling — a rigged game.

Anything else you’d like do add about (a never happening) 3rd Party?
The mentality of most american political players is sadly akin to the hometown sports fan. It’s just plain old rah rah partisanship. No one dares to mention the hard work needed to accomplish that difficult task. It’s the Ronald Reagan’s “morning In America” model. There is nothing worry about, people; the coach has the game in the bag. It’s evident when you watch most political pundits talk. They focus of key phrases and repitition like a head cheerleader. Smiles whoops and leaps are important to Republicans and Democrats. Positions are so ingrained that Republican or Democrat devaition from traditional positions would be political suicide. So people are content to think party affliation is legitimate demarcation. Saying that you are a Republican or Democrat no matter what is like saying I only fuck beautiful blondes. Which might be a viable position until you go to Thailand. I just wish more Americans would go to Thailand.

It’s no surprise to anyone who follows politics that the same corporations donate the same money to both political parties. How would you suggest someone get this point across to people who, again, are fully entrenched in the Democrat v. Republican mindset? (You’re voting for Obama? Did you know that the same corporate entities that donated to McCain donated to the Obama campaign?) Second, how would you suggest someone convey this as being supremely important to the political debate?

You don’t have to think long and hard to understand the notion of hedging your bets. And to think most Americans just have never really considered what a simple idea it is to give money to both guys. It would be stupid not to do it, wouldn’t it? Hedging is the back bone of speculation, Americans do it with live hogs, oil futures and presidential candidates. About this there really seems little that can be done, other outlaw bribery, and that just seems downright unAmerican. It’s interesting that the conventions are conveniently immune to any limit in giving. In this case, most of us are just sad we aren’t rich enough to buy drinks for everybody in the bar.

True…Now, Ditching the status quo. Say you are a D.C. resident. Now let’s pretend that you’re a Republican. D.C. historically votes overwhelmingly (over 90%) for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who they are which means that your opinion in D.C. doesn’t matter. It’s the same for overwhelmingly Republican states. Do you think this is, in this day and age of at-touch information, still the best way to elect a President, or should the archaic electoral system be ditched and, if so, in favor of what? The excuse that a candidate’s positions would be lost on someone in, say, Montana, because the candidate doesn’t choose to visit that state is a non-argument as anyone in Montana can follow the positions via the internet, television, or radio

Get rid of local politics, and you get rid of the very substance that keeps this poor economy afloat, and that is good ol’ fashion pork. Kickbacks. The spoils system. What is the point of getting elected if you can’t help out your friends and neighbors? So to run an election entirely on a national scale would mean turning your back on those very buddies who got you elected in the first place. As for the electoral college, some say it has to to go, that it’s an insult to democracy. Others ask why the student body presidents get to have their say above all others. But really, let’s be honest people, do you really trust average Americans to make an important decision like who to elect as President? They can’t even pick the right American Idol performer (Clay Aiken was robbed!) Obviously, Democracy needs some buffers from the crazed populace. It’s bad enough that the people were actually granted permission to vote for President. All of this used to be handled very skillfully and professionally by Senators, with no embarrassing Supreme Court cases or discussion of hanging chads. Thank goodness there are still Superdelagates. Sure, we hear that all were created equal, but we all know that some were created a little more equal than others, and that the way things should be.

Change. It’s the word of the year. Can you speak to people who automatically accept this type of empty rhetoric despite being what many would call smart? This speaks to the corporate donations to each party and the fact that no real change will come as long as politicians accept money from corporate entities because in the end it is those donors who are going to be calling in the favors.

Well change is like saying “free BBQ” (!). Most of us are into it. Unless you are one of the few holding all the cards, or someone who has gout (which might be one in the same), change and free bbq are outstanding beacons for temporary smile. And a vote. It like offering a woman a brand new wardrobe every year. Like Change? Hell fuckin’ yeah, where do i vote?

And as for corporations calling in favors, do you really think that there is a single corporate interest? Do you think all the corporations in the world get together and mutually decide exactly what favors they are going to extract from their kept politicians? Corporations often compete with each other, therefore they have a long disparate and diverse list of demands for their politicians. So the agenda can really depend on who the top corporate dogs are at the moment — a pileup that is different with each political season. Thus, there is change. It’s not an empty promise.

Can you make fun of people who clamber to shake a politicians hand? You see grownups act like teenaged girls in the 60s at their first glimpse of the Beatles. What makes a grown-up fight and jockey for position in order to touch some dude who is supposed to (in theory) be just like everyone else? Do you feel it’s shameful that we as a populace view politicians in much the same manner as rock-stars?

The worst part about the conventions besides the tedium of a political informercial is that politicians walk around like rock stars. It’s the world turned upside down. I cant figure why you would want to talk to a politician, much less shake his hand. They dont know anything. And queing up to shake a hand that doesn’t at least have a body of Christ wafer seems dumb. On the other hand (ha) people are star struck, which is why crying at Pet Shop Boys’ performance or running to jump into the arms of Imelda Marcos happens (or it happens to me at least). So I guess my answer is, if people want to shake hands with people, who cares, but take it easy on McCain’s old lady’s paw, please. For me it means less people in the free BBQ line.

Corporate media. Elaborate on their influence into the political process. We witnessed it with Ron Paul - the media didn’t give him face time because, frankly, they were too dumb to fully think about and formulate questions and responses to his rhetoric. In turn the voting populace tends to ignore politicians who don’t have face time in front of cameras, face time that is directed by the media, which is owned by corporations. There’s no question here really, but if you can antagonize people a bit it would be great.

The reason I like Ron Paul is mainly because he said, “We rolled right into Iraq, why can’t we roll right out?” I even voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I switched parties to do it. I did it because I am a prick. And I did it because there is not one lick of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. But unless you’re a weirdo who likes to to dig into things, you would never know there was even an option by the light of corporate media. It is like asking people which they prefer — Roe or Wade. They are confused and they don’t want to be. Americans want things in black in white. Well, maybe black is a poor choice of words. And the answer to Roe or Wade? One requires oars and the other is what you do when catfish noodling.

Again on Ron Paul. Remember when he gave an elaborate and thought-through response to the 9/11 attacks during a debate and the reasons behind some of the hatred towards the U.S. due to its interventionalist policies? And then Rudy stood up and said “9/11″ and the audience went wild? These are the people who vote. We’re fucked. At least that’s my opinion. We parrot sound-bytes we hear on, again, corporate sponsored media, and don’t really think through the issues. I guess it’s because of our short attention spans. Can you blame it on video-games and the internet in some way and make it convincing?

Sound bites are easy. Even a show like “UnConventionaly Yours” edits in such a way that my head spins. Marketing execs tell us that people don’t have time for discussion, so everything is distilled to quips. But don’t get me wrong, I love quips. I don’t think we can blame short attention spans on the internet or video games. I think we should blame it on business schools. MBAs are the real danger to the American way of life. Politicians are at the mercy of their marketing managers. “Don’t say anything and it can never come back to haunt you.” But what about all the bad decisions that people with MBAs have made that not only haunt us but actually kick Americans in the balls? Enron anyone? Maybe those MBAs should encourage some free-wielding discussion rather than sticking to the ol’ zip the lips and sink the ships.

Do you ever think a really ugly non-photogenic person will be elected even if they were a political genius and sent by (insert your favorite deity here) to show us the light? Doesn’t the fact that it really doesn’t appear as though this will ever happen speak volumes about our shallowness and beauty-worship?

My diety Vishnu says every politician except JFK and Ronald Reagan has been ugly. But he says that you’re missing the point. You need God by your side more than a handsome face to win the oval office. Nietzsche said God is dead but he never ran a political campaign. Having a god with four arms is never a disadvantage, and it’s especially good to have the creator and destroyer of all existences on your security team.

want more:
useful links:

http://unconventionallyyours.com/
http://current.com/
http://www.themodernist.com/society.html
+

see you tonight, at this location.
Bring your own propaganda.

 Send to a Friend