Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead,
There's something wrong
Can you hear me Major Tom
Can you hear me Major Tom….
—"Space Oddity" by David Bowie
An Election Oddity. As things shape up for the next presidential election cycle my brain is starting to short circuit.
Since the 1980's our society has overdosed on the notion of "diversity". You're simply not acceptable to polite society unless you represent diversity of a very narrow and specified Zeitgeist. Even corporations, institutions and organizations have all contorted themselves to be able to proclaim: "we are diverse". Even though the Church is very diverse, members from every nation, ethnic, cultural and language group on earth, it obviously, so we were told, flunked the diversity test when the cardinals failed to elect the first ever black, Jewish, lesbian Pope and instead elected as usual a old celibate Bishop from Argentina. So much to my befuddlement as I look at the candidate line-up I see on one side running for president: two Hispanic men, one black man, one woman and a few middle aged white men. On the other side I see one elderly white woman and a few middle aged to elderly white men. But I am told the latter really represents diversity and not the former. What am I missing here?
Then of course there are a lot of people hoping for the election of the first ever woman president. Except we have been told in no uncertain terms that gender is a social construct therefore gender is whatever you decide (see Caitlyn once known as Bruce). So what's the point of electing the first woman as president? After all we might elect her and then she could tell us she is actually a man. Will that mean we did not actually elect the first woman president? And if we elect a man and he decides he is really a woman then does that mean we did elect the first woman president? Isn't the whole push to elect the first woman as president way too gender stereotypical? Why do all these people who want to elect the first woman continue to be so gender static? Confusing.
In the last election cycle we were repeatedly reminded that Mitt Romney's wealth disqualified him from being president. However now that the Clintons are as rich as the Romneys, wealth is now a qualifying characteristic. Rich is the new poor. After all the Romneys made their money in the private sector and the Clintons made their money feeding off the public trough. Which apparently is the virtuous way to avarice. Then there is Marco Rubio who is one of the few non multi-millionaire presidential candidates and who has not always been able to balance his own checkbook, with student loans that he conscientiously paid back. Think how rich he could be if he just defaulted on all those loans. So as a result he is just too poor to be president. Romney too rich, Rubio too poor, Clinton just right. Kind of like the three little bears: this one is too rich, this one is too poor, this one is just right, said the NY Times.
Then the biggest of all scandals, EVER, Sen. Rubio piled up four traffic citations in 17yrs! Imagine. However, it is the Clintons that are being picked on for all the non-scandals in their past. I wonder if Mrs. Clinton ever "inhaled" unlike her hubby and does she prefer boxers or briefs? We can't know as she has taken a monastic vow of silence. There again silence is the new campaign speech.
So if I got this straight: a heterosexually married, very wealthy, elderly, white woman unfairly victimized for her selfless public service embodies diversity, gender fluidity, non-heteronormativity and the perfect financial portfolio. Or am I missing something?
With the reverse logic of the alternative universe of the election oddity, sounds like a winner.
Love, Fr. John B.BACK TO LIST