Sunday, June 24, 2012

Puck on... Politics pt. 4

I told you we set traps, boy. And here is fertile ground. A veritable minefield.

You lure us into politics?

Oh, I wouldn’t say lure. It makes it sound so degrading. And give yourselves some credit. I mean we didn’t really invent it. Government, politics, democracy. You thought these up yourselves. Do they seem like something we would condone?

I think you would condone anything you could turn to your own devices.

Ah-hah! You have it! I have taught you well I see. You are quite right. It’s not so much what we make but what we can use. And there are lots of things, lots of things that fall into that category. Because, of course, it matters not the means but the skill to work it to your own ends. And, as I said, politics is rich territory. As an institution, it breeds conflict, nurtures subterfuge, praises ends over means. Why there’s often very little we have to do to really take advantage of it. Especially in recent years. It’s getting to the point where they don’t even hide it anymore. Why, it is common practice for your candidates to change their tune depending on whose favor they’re trying to curry. So commonplace as to be expected, tolerated and, in some ways, even encouraged.

Rich territory, indeed.

Yes. And yet, you would have me think that it is a place you and your kind ought to tread? Ah, but of course, you’re trying to redeem it. But are you? Can you? Is there redemption for politics?

You’re saying there isn’t?

I’m saying if you ever actually did or could, wouldn’t it cease to be politics? Setting aside, for the moment, whether or not you should, let’s address whether or not you are even trying to.

I think some people are.

And are their efforts meeting with success?

I don’t know how we would measure that.

Well, that does make it hard to figure whether or not you’re doing anything constructive, doesn’t it?

I suppose.

Well, let’s see if we can figure out some sort of rubric, then, shall we? Let’s see. Perhaps, if more laws that followed your specific moral stance could be passed, that would count, wouldn’t it?

I suppose.

Or if your kind had more freedom to voice your beliefs in the public forum, that would be a good sign, right?

I suppose.

If more people were elected who subscribed to your faith?

I suppose.

Maybe, if the overall bent of the government was towards your morality and away from some secular one; how about that?

I suppose.

Ah, but how exactly is any of that different from a political party? You want laws that follow your way of thinking, to have more people elected who are a part of your group, to have more people hear your opinions, to have the institutions of government under your control. Why, it seems that you’ve reduced your truth to a political platform and your kind into little more than a lobby group. What’s the difference? How exactly are you standing out from all the other politicos with their heads up their-?

Ah, but you’re right! That’s it. The difference between you and them is that they’re wrong and you’re right! So, it doesn’t matter if you use the same methods because the agenda you’re pushing is the correct one. And, of course, the ends always justify… the means.

Oh my. It seems we’ve wandered into a moral quandary.

Have I made a misstep? Tricked you in any way? Or have I just uncovered the little lie that you all have been telling yourselves this whole time? Now, what are we make of that?

No comments:

Post a Comment