Pobody’s nerfect. Nobody is perfect. Those of us who think that a good government can accomplish positive things for society absolutely must make peace with this.
Chica my chihuahua is ideal. She is not, however, perfect. She’s not always a good dog. Usually, but not always. She eats cat shit every chance she gets. We have several cats. She gets lots of chances.
Swap “person” for “dog” and that might be a pretty good description for the very best possible politician.
It’s easy for me to think of Chica as perfect. The world – my world, my life – is a better place with her than it would be without her. But to say she’s perfect is sloppy thinking. What she is, is ideal. No one could do her job better than she does it. Ideal is attainable.
Perfect is not attainable.
Chica perfectly matches my ideal of a companion dog. She’s that kind of perfect. She’s not a robot. We annoy each other from time to time. Cat shit breath is not that pleasant. So if perfect means without flaw, without misbehavior, there is no such thing as a perfect dog. Or human.
We want our politicians to be perfect dogs. We want them to always be good. We want our politicians to not have any bad habits. We want creatures – in this case humans – to never, on any day of their lives, do anything which is annoying, stupid, unhealthy, or just plain wrong, possibly on purpose. In the case of politicians we have an entire industry segment dedicated to watching their personal and professional lives, making collections of their every misstep to display at every opportunity. It is known as Opposition Research. OR. And for every professional there are thousands of volunteers.
“She voted for…”
“Oh yeah? Well He voted against…”
“But she said…”
“And he said…” We hammer them with their mistakes for the rest of their lives.
I consider it a good day when I don’t say something stupid.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Those of us who think that a good government can accomplish positive things for society have got to figure this out.
Besides personal perfection we demand policy perfection. We would gladly lose an election to a Nazi over the difference between a minumum wage of twelve dollars an hour or fifteen dollars an hour.
Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters and, I suspect, even Jill supporters although I don’t personally know one to talk with, share a number of objectives. We do not share all our objectives. So we have two choices: we can join together to attain our shared objectives, or we can refuse to cooperate because of the differences.
We all want to breathe clean air and drink clean water. We want our neighbors everywhere in the country to be able to do the same. We want to provide enough free public education that people can get decent jobs when they are finished with school.
We want our fellow Americans to have enough to eat. We want ourselves and others to live in safety and reasonable comfort.
We want all races, all religions, all genders and gender preferences to be treated fairly in work and in life.
We want, wherever possible, to live in peace with other persons and nations.
If we refuse to join together to work toward these objectives we will not see them attained in our lifetimes.
If we proudly refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils” we will never vote. We will never never reach our goals. Because all people have flaws. If we focus our eyes on their flaws and call them evil, then we can never vote. For anybody. We have two choices: we can swallow our pride and vote for the greater good in spite of obvious flaws, or we can sit home and wait for the Messiah to run.
Because all humans are flawed.