The metamorphosis of a political party

[aubiefifty 17,492]

Sharon Kennedy: The metamorphosis of a political party

Sharon Kennedy

4–5 minutes

Many readers are familiar with Kafka’s novella, “The Metamorphosis.” It was my least favorite work by that author because I was too young to grasp its meaning. I thought it was disgusting. For those readers who’ve never heard of it, here’s a brief synopsis: A salesman awakens one morning and realizes he’s metamorphosed into a cockroach. He suffers various trials and is ultimately rejected by his family. Eventually, he dies of starvation. That, in a tiny nutshell, is the gist of the story without all the psychological, social and familial implications associated with it. Those implications have been debated since the novella was published in 1915 and will continue to be discussed in the classrooms of 2023 and beyond.

Kafka’s salesman, Gregor Samsa, was just an ordinary man. He wasn’t spectacular in any way. At first he was confused, dismayed and embarrassed by his transformation from a human being to a bug. He was angry, but given time he became accustomed to his new appearance. Although Kafka’s work was the idea for this musing, it’s not his story that intrigued me as much as how quickly we accepted the metamorphosis of a political party. Human nature is a fascinating study in contradictions. We’re capable of holding opposing dichotomies as true. On one hand, we cling to traditional values and on the other, we embrace the absurd.

In 2016, the GOP quickly adjusted to its new state of being. I’m not implying all extreme right-wingers became cockroaches overnight. That would be ridiculous and false. What I am saying is an ordinary salesman — much like Samsa — morphed into something abnormal but instead of being rejected, he was embraced. We might be disgusted by a lump of larva, but when it becomes a butterfly, we admire it. The same is not true of fly larvae, i.e. maggots, but that’s another story.

Much like the growth stages of an insect, the transformation of the GOP was gradual. The first stage might have repulsed us like larva does due to its sliminess, but given enough time the end result far exceeded anything we’d ever known. If fearless political contenders had crushed the MAGA movement in its early stage, would it have morphed into a group of dissentients that included elected representatives? Has the movement encouraged politicians and militant groups to unravel our capitalist republic?

The metamorphosis of a political party That position created a 15-minute tempest while his “dismantling democracy” statement was basically ignored.

It takes time for insects to reach their full potential. So, too, it takes time for the transformation of government to slip from one form to another. It’s a process most of us don’t have time to investigate. We’re busy trying to make ends meet, keep the kids off drugs, recover from natural disasters and countless other things. Who has time to delve into the inner workings of our republic when we’re struggling to maintain peace in our home and keep the family together? Almost nobody, and therein lies the rub.

Our leaders know we can’t be bothered checking up on them. If they do return our calls, we’re fobbed off as a nuisance. The metamorphosis is complete. The cockroaches are rapidly multiplying and posing serious threats to our republic. So where do we go from here?

— To contact Sharon Kennedy, send her an email at authorsharonkennedy.com. Kennedy's new book, "View from the SideRoad: A Collection of Upper Peninsula Stories," is available from her or Amazon.

 

 

for those that donot read this tubs says it is time to try something other than democracy. just wow.

[creed 1,728]

I have seen a shift in the republican party and it's one I don't like. 

To your last point concerning Tuberville's statement. Considering the democratic form of government we have currently. Can  you honestly say it has evolved to the point that it works for us? I think they mostly play politics to maintain  power to satisfy someone or something other than us normal folks. 

So maybe Tuberville has a point...i'd like to hear the alternatives.

[arein0 1,051]

16 minutes ago, creed said:

I have seen a shift in the republican party and it's one I don't like. 

To your last point concerning Tuberville's statement. Considering the democratic form of government we have currently. Can  you honestly say it has evolved to the point that it works for us? I think they mostly play politics to maintain  power to satisfy someone or something other than us normal folks. 

So maybe Tuberville has a point...i'd like to hear the alternatives.

I would start with requiring politicians to remove all forms of conflict of interest before they start their term. 

Require all political donations to be made public.

In short keep money out of politics.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

21 minutes ago, creed said:

I have seen a shift in the republican party and it's one I don't like. 

To your last point concerning Tuberville's statement. Considering the democratic form of government we have currently. Can  you honestly say it has evolved to the point that it works for us? I think they mostly play politics to maintain  power to satisfy someone or something other than us normal folks. 

So maybe Tuberville has a point...i'd like to hear the alternatives.

He is clearly suggesting we return to our original form of government, a constitutional republic. Only democrats think we need a true democracy where the wolves vote 2-1 against a sheep for what they will have for lunch. Thus the genius of the electoral system preventing full control by the cesspools of this country, overly liberal democrat east and west coasts and a few large cities sprinkled in. 

[arein0 1,051]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

He is clearly suggesting we return to our original form of government, a constitutional republic. Only democrats think we need a true democracy where the wolves vote 2-1 against a sheep for what they will have for lunch. Thus the genius of the electoral system preventing full control by the cesspools of this country, overly liberal democrat east and west coasts and a few large cities sprinkled in. 

Playing devils advocate, but why should any one person's vote count more than someone else's solely based on where they live? 

[jj3jordan 2,125]

2 hours ago, arein0 said:

Playing devils advocate, but why should any one person's vote count more than someone else's solely based on where they live? 

They don’t. Everybody gets one. When you get theoretical about populations sizes you would need perfectly balanced populations in every state for all votes to be completely equal ( as you see it). That will never happen so there will always be fractions of votes that count more ( in your mind) than perfectly equal. Where would you draw the line to say that Wyomings two senators count equal to New Yorks two senators. How close do the populations need to be to satisfy your need for equality?

[arein0 1,051]

20 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

They don’t. Everybody gets one. When you get theoretical about populations sizes you would need perfectly balanced populations in every state for all votes to be completely equal ( as you see it). That will never happen so there will always be fractions of votes that count more ( in your mind) than perfectly equal. Where would you draw the line to say that Wyomings two senators count equal to New Yorks two senators. How close do the populations need to be to satisfy your need for equality?

Why not use the popular vote to elect the president and keep the House and Senate the same. That way everyone's vote for president is equal regardless of what state you live in. It also eliminates the threat of gerrymandered maps, which both sides have done. And it keeps the checks and balances of the House and Senate.

[homersapien 11,812]

14 hours ago, creed said:

I have seen a shift in the republican party and it's one I don't like. 

To your last point concerning Tuberville's statement. Considering the democratic form of government we have currently. Can  you honestly say it has evolved to the point that it works for us? I think they mostly play politics to maintain  power to satisfy someone or something other than us normal folks. 

So maybe Tuberville has a point...i'd like to hear the alternatives.

"Other" being moneyed interests.

But this has always been the tension between democracy and oligarchy.  It's just become supercharged thanks to technology and the "Citizens United" SCOTUS ruling.

And I seriously doubt Tuberville had in mind reverting back to a purer form of democracy.  I suspect he was proposing to double down on oligarchy - or just plain authoritarianism - and abandon the ideals of democracy all together.

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,979]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I suspect he was proposing to double down on oligarchy - or just plain authoritarianism - and abandon the ideals of democracy all together.

Hell, let's put him in charge. To make it easier, instead of King we'll call him "Coach."