Candidate Contracts: Replacing Bad Brains With Good Brains

Abnormal BrainDemocracy is dead in America.

Representatives no longer represent.

I’m reminded of the classic comedy featuring Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle . . . Young Frankenstein.

Why was the Frankenstein creation a monster, disloyal, cold-hearted and destructive?

He had a bad brain.

A bad brain results in bad behavior.

The brains of our elected officials, the monsters who roam the two legislative bodies of our government, the Senate and the House of Representatives, have been corrupted by money, effectively destroyed, are now lacking the capacity to fulfill their constitutional mandate. They no longer are controlled by the citizens who elected them to office.  They now are exclusively the lapdogs of the rich and powerful — disloyal, cold-hearted, destructive.

Todays Typical CongressmanWe must replace the bad brains.

I call this procedure a lapdogectomy.

The lapdogs must go.  They must be replaced with good brains, those individuals who are willing to respond to the needs of their constituents — those candidates who will guarantee to us the voters that they will do the job we elect them to do.

How do we know who has a bad brain and who has a good brain?

The candidate contract is actually better than an MRI or CATSCAN in this respect.

After we the people have decided what issues are critical — based on numerous credible issue polls, there already is a good list of what the public wants done but isn’t getting done — we formulate candidate contracts spelling out in no uncertain terms what we expect our elected representatives in Congress to do IMMEDIATELY UPON ARRIVAL in the nation’s capital.  The contracts are presented to every candidate for office in the coming election.

Candidates with bad brains refuse to sign them.

Candidates with good brains gladly sign them.

We do not vote for people with bad brains.

We only vote for people with good brains.

Make sense?

Replace bad brains with good brains.

Could it be any easier?

This entry was posted in Deconstruction, Democracy, Political Analysis, Satire and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jon Warren Lentz

    .
    I agree with your observations completely.
    Only one probelm: tRump has no brain.

    • Which begs the question: Why yell and scream at someone who has no brain? He won’t understand any of it and will continue doing what brainless things he would do anyway.

      I say we move on. There are only so many productive hours in a day. Either you solve problems or you don’t. I’m not sure that calling a pig a ‘pig’ over and over and over produces more bacon or makes it any healthier to eat. My point is that there’s work to be done. Trump epitomizes and is an obvious target for the destruction of our country and democracy. But he is but one tool in a vast array of mechanisms by which this is being accomplished. We have to attack the system where it is vulnerable and where attack will make a decisive difference. Bashing Trump may be satisfying on some personal level but it doesn’t get to the root of the problem, nor does it provide us with the necessary leverage to defeat the neoliberal/wealthy elite juggernaut.

      • dale ruff

        We resist Trump not only to restrain him but as a warning to those who wouid replace him of the power of resistance to cripple ambitious pols. If Trump were impeached (with aid of the Republicans), Pence would be very careful not to meet the same fate. Punishment is deterrence.

        • Oh wow! I get it now. President Pence would say, “Damn! That’s scary! I don’t want that to happen to me.” And the Republican Congress would say, “Look what happened to Trump! We don’t want to make the American people mad. No way!” Then they’d start passing bills: Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, stop the military aggression across the Middle East, halt the intimidation of Russia with troops on their border, not just protect social security but raise the benefits and lower the retirement age, encourage and protect labor unions, rebuild public education, increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations, institute a transaction tax on Wall Street, forgive student loan debt, vastly increase funding for Planned Parenthood and the NEA and meals-on-wheels and school lunch and after school programs, reduce our nuclear arsenal and threat of nuclear war, stop our saber rattling in the South China Sea, eliminate corporate personhood, transition to state banking, retrieve control of the national currency right after nationalizing the Federal Reserve, on and on. Why didn’t I see this? I’m so stupid. Why didn’t I see the utopian world which will descend on us just from impeaching Trump, or as you say sounding a “warning” so that those darn Republicans would tremble in their boxers and briefs and finally start working for the people of this country? Thanks for straightening me out.

          • dale ruff

            Your knee jerk reaction misses the point. Pence would not become a saint but he would realize, as a calculating pol, that he needs to behave. I didn’t say you were stupid so don’t be so paranoid. I said that punishment acts as a deterrent and we need to pursue impeaching Trump for that very reason. Your sarcasm is sad.

          • “Your knee jerk reaction” and “don’t be so paranoid” are ad hominem and way beneath your talents. Very tacky but consistent with your over-wrought and irrational thinking.

            If anyone has missed the point it is you. I am only calling for perspective and recommended optimizing the impact of our activism. My sarcasm is only sad to someone who apparently is so boxed in by the need for “punishment” he has lost any sense of proportion and cognizance of the important challenges that confront us. By your logic, we should beat a kid who is caught playing “war” with his friends because such punishment would set an example and the world would have no option but to start getting along and promoting peace.

            The list of initiatives I listed in my sarcastic reply are all things which are critical to the survival of our nation. None of them will result from putting all of our efforts into impeaching Trump, regardless of what a chilling message it would send to the kleptocratic autocrats in power. Replacing that Congress with progressives truly representing their constituents and the interests of everyday Americans would, thus reversing the direction of the country and pointing the way for deep and meaningful reform. Your approach is symbolic and mine is game-changing.

            Do what you want. Put your irons in whatever fire you choose. Just don’t delude yourself or enjoin others to participate in your magical thinking. It is distracting folly to propose that the enormous energy and time spent toppling the orange autocrat will make one whit of difference in the critical matters which truly shape the future. As I’ve pointed out in several articles … e.g. http://jdrachel.com/2017/02/09/asymmetry/ … a truly progressive Congress can “isolate and immobilize even the most belligerent president.” But this Congress will just continue to loot America for the ruling class regardless of who is in office, Pence, Ryan, or the Tooth Fairy.

          • dale ruff

            Keep it real. My personal views were a response to your sarcasm, also an example of ad hominem, followed by “very tacky but consistent with your over-wrought and irrational thinking.” Ad hominem in epic form, my friend.

            I did not say we should only impeach Trump but pursue that among many other efforts, with the agenda of teaching politicians that they will be held accountable.

            My thinking is assumed magical based on the unwarranted assumption that my only suggestion is impeaching Trump, far from views I have expressed.

            Your response saddens me.

          • Sad is bad. Cheer up!

          • dale ruff

            Sad is appropriate when a friend goes off the deep end. I am hardly argumentative but I feel a duty to challenge untruths.

            I have clearly stated impeaching Trump is only one of many measures to make leaders accountable. You have again misread me in order to argue.

            My point is simple: among the many measures (changing the Constitution to make it democratic, electiing progressives, ending gerrymandering and taking Big Money out of politics, we need to hold leaders accountable through fair elections with all votes equal and all votes counted, and then if they take office and offend, thru impeachment.). That is a comprehensive effort, with impeachment a necessary but not sufficient part of the whole struggle for a democratic Republic.

            If you want to argue, tell me where my entire program is wrong. I don’t want to argue. I want to form a consensus to create a democratic form of government.

          • Your point is good. Your goals and values are admirable — I’ve never questioned that — and I never said your entire program is wrong. How could I? All that you’ve listed is on my list of necessary reforms. I too feel a duty to challenge untruths. I have done so and you apparently find my challenge wanting. So you go on and on about what? … I have no idea. Regime change in Congress is fundamental to accomplish everything you say you see is necessary to reform the system. What “untruth” are you challenging here. Read the article above, which recommends a method for giving voters a clear and decisive choice — which I call “candidate contracts” — and offer some constructive ideas either to enhance my proposal or replace it with something better. Please!