It's What's for Dinner
Copyright (c) 2000 Wade Walker
It’s election season again, the time when every young man’s fancy turns to thoughts of politics. Or in the case of this election, to thoughts of taking four or five pipe-hittin weegroes, catching each of the major presidential candidates in his bunk, holding him down under a tightly-stretched sheet, and brutally beating him with a pillowcase full of personal-size bars of Ivory soap for being such a fucking idiot. But annoyingly enough for the blanket party lovers of the world, it’s actually not the candidates’ fault. It’s the political parties behind them. Suppose for a moment that, using my one-size-fits-all analogy for anything I think is stupid, we represent each political party by a type of sandwich. The Democrats are a ham and shit sandwich, ham because they’re great at handing out the pork. The Republicans are a Swiss cheese and shit sandwich, Swiss cheese because they’re mostly old, white, and holy. The astute reader may have noticed that both sandwiches have shit in them. Contrary to what you might think, this isn’t because all politicians are closet coprophages—they use enough maple syrup when they toss someone’s salad that they can hardly taste the shit at all. And it’s also not because the Shit Producers of America paid me to endorse their product in my essays by reprinting their catchy slogan "Shit. It’s what’s for dinner.ä
" Here’s where I get all, like, allegorical and shit. The shit represents the unsavory ideas that each party clings to so they can get the votes of their extreme wings. The extreme wing of the Democrats is the poor, the fuckups, and the communists, so the shit in their sandwich is the fact that they want to take all my muthafuckin money and give it to no-job-having loser chump-asses. For the Republicans, since their extreme wing is the Bible thumpers, dickless prudes, holy rollers and snake handlers, the shit in their sandwich is the fact that they want to outlaw porn, drugs, prostitution, and generally just about anything consensual and fun. It would seem, then, that we are on the horns of a dilemma. No matter which sandwich you pick, there’s going to be shit in it. All I really want is just a fucking ham and swiss sandwich, but sorry, that’s not an option. You can have any two ingredients you want, so long as one of them is shit. It’s a package deal, like those vacuum-sealed premade sandwiches you get at Circle K and heat up in the microwave, except with shit in it instead of processed cheese food or pork by-products. You know the Earl of Sandwich has got to be rolling over in Hell, but at least Satan’s got him doing it over a nice hickory fire so he can carve off cut after succulent cut of long pig for his diabolical feast of human-meat-stuffed hot cross buns. His demonic minions just have to make sure to rotate them 180 degrees before eating, so the cross’ll be upside down, or else they’ll get a holy bun-burn to the mouth, and we all know how painful those can be. But get thee behind me, Satan! Let’s take a look at the secular consequences of this dilemma. No matter which presidential candidate gets elected, he’ll come to office having pledged to enact some ideas into law that are disliked by the majority of the population. If we get lucky, they’ll wuss out like Bill Clinton and follow the popular will, defying their party once they’re safely ensconced in the Oval Office with their thong-wearing load-catcher du jour. But if they don’t, then we’ll have new laws passed that are favored only by a vocal minority. When enough of these laws have been passed by one side, eventually the public gets pissed off enough to vote the other side into office. They start by undoing what the previous party has done, which is good. But then they start enacting their pet issues into law. The end result is a lot of laws being passed, then modified, then modified again, all because the political parties are less concerned with doing what the majority wants, and more concerned with keeping the soft money rolling in so they can pay for Jesse Helms’ fifteenth prepuce piercing or keep the hush money flowing to the families of those four-and-twenty underage concubines Edward Kennedy had baked into a pie for the Thanksgiving party at the family compound. I can’t count the number of times I’ve wished I could chop the fiscal conservatives off the Republicans, the social liberals off the Democrats, and fuse them together to make a new party. But then I realized that another party’s exactly what we don’t need. What we do need is a new way of making laws, one that wasn’t practical back in those halcyon days of the republic when George Washington was still using his wooden dentures as an excuse not to have to go down on his interns. Here’s my proposal. Before a law is passed on some major issue, it should be required by law that it be poll-tested with a large, representative sample of the populace. We’ve got tons of companies like Gallup that get paid to do this already, so this part isn’t a problem. If less than 60% of the people polled like the proposed law, it should be immediately deleted and forgotten, leaving things in the status quo ante. If more than 60% like it, then it becomes law. I call this a "majority government", since, for each major issue, the decision is made according to the way the majority of people think. If there’s not a clear majority, nothing is done, so the laws don’t flip-flop back and forth as the parties gain and lose power. This form of government is actually more optimal than our current form, in terms of how many people would be satisfied with the way the laws are set up. For every law, it’s guaranteed that a majority of people will be in favor of it, regardless who’s in power. If there’s no majority, there’s no law. What could be more reasonable than that? Politicians often get criticized for following the polls instead of their own internal moral compass. Aside from the fact that what the politicians are really following is their cocks, what these critics are overlooking the fact that this is a democracy, not an oligarchy. We don’t need hypocritical patrician presidents who’re going to impose their values on all of us for four years, at the same time they’re sodomizing interns with cigars and ruining perfectly good Gap dresses because they’ve got less load control than a flatbed truck on a wet road with no bungee cords. What we need is a CEO who’s are going to do exactly what we, the board of directors, tell him to do. The best part of this plan is that if you actually look at poll data, you’ll find that even on the most controversial issues like abortion and homosexual marriage, there’s no clear majority one way or the other. This is actually good, because under my 60% rule, no law could be passed about these issues until some sort of consensus emerges. So most of the time, the government would just have to mind its own business, rather than passing gobs of extraneous legislation every year that there’s no agreement on. So why don’t we have a system like this now? Because it would take those who currently think of themselves as "leaders" and make them into mere implementers of the public will, which won’t buy you shit in the way of under-the-desk blowjobs. But if you assume a fixed supply of blowjobs, coupled with an effective decrease in demand from the political sector, just think how many of those blowjobs would be freed up for the rest of us. Maybe that’s what Adam Smith meant when he talked about the "invisible hand" at work.
respond to this writing in magnilocution