Listen above or read below
What was that, Troy?
Oh, nothing, I was just pondering that you even have contempt for those close to you as well as the Constitution, Hugo? I’m starting to believe you have contempt for everyone and Everything.
Oddly, I’d agree with all of what you just said, except for your claim that I have contempt for the Constitution. I adore the Constitution of Everything.
Okay, even if you don’t feel contempt for the Constitution, you want to pick and choose which parts you follow and which you don’t.
To some people, what you say might seem fair, but the Constitution isn’t the glorious and perfect protector of democratic society that many make it out to be.
Then we should see where it’s broken and work to change it for the better, not just shout that it’s wrong and then ignore it.
Change it for the better. So you’re a supporter of the Second Amendment now then, Troy?
You know full well that’s not what I meant.
And you know full well that guns don’t kill people, people do.
But for some reason, five times more often in Everything than in Spot, even though we share the same ancestors and have a more prosperous economy.
So is one of the problems with the Constitution the fact that it allows for amendments? Should we insist that the original Constitution is what we should all follow, exactly as the Framers of the Constitution intended?
Again, you’re putting words into my mouth. Just because it started imperfect and later changes have been imperfect, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying to make changes for the better. Nothing stays the same forever and as the world and society changes and advances, we should always be looking to adapt and improve the Constitution to keep up with those changes.
Nothing stays the same forever. That’s the most insightful thing I’ve ever heard you say, Troy. You should get it tattooed on the back of your hand as a constant reminder that you need to be prepared to constantly adapt to a world that can change in so many unexpected ways.
I don’t think I’m the kind of person who gets tattoos.
Really, I thought all you liberals were a bit wild.
And I always thought we could rely on the National Party members to do stupid stuff, so I assume you’ve got a tattoo, Hugo?
I have. Two, in fact. An elephant’s left ear and an elephant’s right ear.
That sounds every bit as insane as your policies.
Zzzziippppttt.
Crumphh.
Still insane?
Guuullphhh, ooh that burns. Well, granted, seen in context like that your tattoos don’t seem quite so insane. I venture some might even suggest the full ensemble is rather witty, but please Hugo, please pull your briefs and pants back up.
Fffuufferff.
Zzzziippppttt.
And just maybe my policies aren’t as insane either. Trust me, Troy, when you start to realize that, you’ll see that you and I have much more in common than you currently think. Already, we agree that Everything’s Constitution is imperfect. Don’t we?
Well, to an extent, yes, but I hardly think we agree about which bits are broken. The Electoral College system is an absurd throwback to the past that means the candidate who gets the most votes isn’t guaranteed to win an election. And this crazy system that effectively means that the votes of some Everythingers are worth more than others is made worse with every state sending two senators to serve in the Senate, regardless of the population size of each state. If these things were reported as happening in Nothing under Mr Hooterz, our media would be outraged at his despicable attacks on democracy. The anomalies are indefensible in a democratic society as they’re clearly undemocratic, aren’t they, Hugo?
A bit strong to say indefensible, I feel, but obviously if these so called ‘anomalies’ are so undemocratic, why not just amend the Constitution as it allows?
You know full well that the National Party would never support abolishing the Electoral College system and the smaller states would never give up their disproportionate power, so there’s no way undo these undemocratic laws under our democratic system.
Isn’t it ironic?
Maybe. Or maybe not. Oh, I don’t know. Damn Alanis Morisette and damn that stupid song.
Oh well, it’s not important. So the unequal voting power is your only complaint with the Constitution then, Troy?
Well, no, there are other issues. It fails to guarantee housing and healthcare for all Everythingers, two essential human rights that every fair and equitable society should ensure for every member. Originally, it made no mention of equal rights for women and permitted slavery. Hardly a great basis for a defining document of democracy. And for all the time spent by the Framers of the Constitution to ensure they were creating and agreeing on a document that carefully considered all aspects of society and sought to define rights and laws for a long-lived society, the language is often ridiculously vague as if they actually couldn’t quite decide what they meant.
In fairness, I could say that your last complaint about the Constitution is equally vague and indecisive. Regardless, I think you’re still overlooking the biggest oversight made by the Framers of the Constitution.
And that is?
It appears that they never anticipated political parties.
You’re telling me that political parties are a bad thing?
Of course they are. If you’re a fan of democracy that is. I, however, love them and what they allow individuals to achieve. Political parties exist solely for the benefit of us politicians and to the detriment of the voters.
You’re going to have to sell that idea to me, Hugo.
Okay, consider that the voters are like your wife. You’ve taken vows to love and to honor her for all time. Meanwhile, political parties are like your mistress.
I don’t have a mistress.
Don’t worry, Troy, I’m sure we can sort that out. Now, the voters, like your wife, expect you to put them first always and in everything. You can tell your wife that you won’t cheat on her, and you may even mean it, but the problem is that she’s never there at the instant of jeopardy. So at the point when you find yourself once more falling into bed with your mistress and when you could really do with your wife’s strength to make you stick to your promise of fidelity, she lets you down by being absent. Your wife effectively forces you to cheat on her by letting you go off somewhere without her, knowing you might see your mistress.
Are you sure that sounds reasonable?
Yes, I am. And the voters are just as much responsible for politicians cheating on them. Just because their politician has promised to do this and that for them, they should know full well they can’t trust them the moment they head to Congress. Once there, they’re in the control of their party, their mistress, and at the instant of jeopardy, when they’re voting, they’ll always put their party first, just like the cheating husband with his mistress.
They can resist, they don’t have to follow the party line in everything.
Don’t be naive, Troy, of course they can’t. Rather like when your mistress is kneeling in front of you mumbling incomprehensibly, it’s near impossible to resist. And if it looks like they’re going to, there’s always the option of a bit of BDSM, whether they like it or not. They can shout ‘lime pickle’ as many times as they like, the party whips never respect their safe words.
So, voters would be better off voting for independents, rather than those representing political parties?
That certainly seems to be how the Framers of The Constitution saw things playing out. That’s the only way to understand the way that they created the core mechanism outlined in the Constitution. Their great plan to ensure the perpetual democratic government of Everything by the separation of power through the three branches of government. But political parties allow us to bridge the points of separation and control all three branches of government. The Framers of the Constitution trusted that politicians would always act in the best interests of the voters who elected them. They seemingly never considered the politicians would group together into parties and that their loyalties would switch from the voters to their parties.
Okay, that does mean that a political party can control two branches of our government, but the judges on our Supreme Court aren’t members of political parties.
Are you soft in the head, Troy? The First-Best-Guy chooses the nominees for the court, who are invariably chosen because of their partisan beliefs. Those nominees are then confirmed by the Senate. If the First-Best-Guy’s party controls the Senate, it’s a slam dunk. The judges may not be members of political parties, but both the National Party and the People’s Party appoint judges because of their political beliefs. Seriously, the separation of power outlined in the Constitution looks like it was devised by a bunch of kindergarteners who’d been smoking skunk. I genuinely believe the universe…oops, I mean God…that’s going to take some getting used to…yes, God designed it like that to allow me to take full control.
God? And you’re the second coming, I suppose.
Why not? They’re all waiting for Jesus. I don’t even have to tell them I am, they’ll fill in the gaps and paint on a halo. When they love you, you can say anything. You can do anything. You can stare the camera down and insist you never had sexual relations with that woman, while your intern looks on adoringly in the bokeh background with your gene pool dripping from her chin. Embrace the world with declarations of a new era of peace while unleashing robotic destruction on anyone who you deem an enemy, foreigner or Everythinger alike. Swear to crush government corruption and then sit under the Christmas tree as friend, enemy and the undecided bring you gift after gift. The losers who support me expect the Messiah and won’t recognize the devil. And as long as they believe in me, the party will line up behind me and empower me, regardless of what I do. Every single party member only cares about using my popularity to grow their own power and wealth. Keep the losers on side and the gutless-wonders of the National Party will swear that black is white, if I tell them it’s so. It worked for Blitzen, it worked for Hooterz and it’ll work for me.
So we should ban political parties then.
Fortunately, that’s not a workable plan.
The people, sorry, the losers as you call them, could do the next best thing and refuse to vote for members of political parties. If they only voted for independent politicians to represent them in Congress, they couldn’t be bent to do the will of the First-Best-Guy. They could stand up to him as the Constitution intended. And if they only voted for independents in their state legislatures too, they’d even have the power to change the Constitution and create a truly independent judicial system.
That’s a lovely little thought, I’m sure, but it simply fails to reflect reality. Power corrupts. Your theoretical independent politicians may start off making all the right noises about working for the losers, but once they get a taste of power, they’ll change. They’ll all be ‘four legs good, two legs better’ as they force their little piggy snouts into the trough to gorge on as much as they can, making themselves fatter and the losers thinner. No, if you really want to make a difference, you should probably aspire to ban politicians. Honestly, Troy, anyone who wants to be a politician should be automatically excluded from being a politician.
Let’s do that then.
Now you’re speaking my language, Troy. Ban politicians and replace them all with a single supreme leader. Someone like me.
That’s not what I’m thinking. We should select our leaders in the same way that juries are selected for court trials.
Say what?
Well, no-one ever wants to serve on a jury at a trial and you say we’d be better off with politicians who don’t want to be politicians. So once a year, there could be a lottery and our next batch of politicians to lead us would be picked randomly. Perhaps with a final selection process to refine the choices as a fail-safe against being led by utter incompetents, like Fantastico Hobble and Bambi. Of course, we need to be careful the civil service doesn’t become the new ruling class. Maybe the most senior level, the ones who advise the politicians would be time limited in service. Say, they could only serve in the senior role for five years, during which time they would mentor their replacements. And at the end of five years, they would select the next group of mentees and retire on a salary tied to the nation’s average wage. It would end the scourge of political parties and career politicians and lead to governments made up of people doing what they believe to be best rather than doing what they think will get them re-elected. Anyway, just spit-balling a few ideas.
Errr…ummm…oooh…that’s actually not a crazy, stupid idea. Don’t you ever, ever repeat that idea to anyone. Understand?