Support our troops [a]

It used to be that whenever you wanted to win an argument in political discourse, you just had to bring up Nazi Germany. It was the perfect catch-all; compare something to Naziism and it was instantly bad, even if you got the analogy and/or history wrong. So long reductio ad hitlerum, since 2003 the motivation for everything you see and read and hear is based on what is most supportive of our troops.

Sure, it's been an annoyance since day one. If you wanted to be patriotic and non-partisan, you just needed a 'Support Our Troops' emblem. It showed you didn't want Americans to die, but were too busy or stupid to deal with the issues that put them in harm's way.

Almost four years later, after the bumper stickers have faded and the slogans have become a kneejerk response to any discussion of politics at home and abroad, the ineffect of 'supporting our troops' has become lucid. The recent congressional discussions of a devastating and nonbinding resolution to reject the deployment of 20,000 more soldiers has shown that:

• Bringing our boys home will support the troops by removing them from the battlefield.
  
• Sending reinforcements will support the troops by increasing security in Iraq.

Wow, awesome, anything we do short of dumping our petroleum reserves into the Hudson Bay is in support of our troops. That's reassuring. I understand that 'Support Our Troops' is so hot right now, but maybe we'll one day realize that the maxim is:

1. Stale
2. Without argumentative consequence

But it's nice to know our soldiers have been logically separated from the intent to go to war. I recall a few decades ago the kids who were impressed into service were jeered and spat on for their unwilling participation in an unpopular war. But in this unpopular war, they're recognized as mere agents of a greater will. As it should be, people far above them call the shots.

We support our tools (ignore the negative connotation). Tools used by an administration for - whatever goal our involvement in Iraq currently is. And tools used by politicians and car bumpers to distinguish themselves as patriots.

Don't vote for the incumbent [a]

1. Our astronomical incumbency rate makes us look like idiots. For as much as you've complained about the government, you sure aren't voting like you want change.

2. They count on your complacence. No more, "see ya next year, Orrin."

3. All politicians deceive. Two things are required to be a leader on the state level and above. Money. Compromised integrity. Those are the oft-mentioned rules of the game. So you get to choose between the liar and the liar who's lied in public office.

4. The fraternal ruling class will dilute. The college of professional politicians will blur - just a little bit - into a government of the people.

5. Lobby groups and corporate puppeteers won't know who to buy. And with single-term bureaucrats, their money won't go quite so far.

6. Anyone can do it. The mechanics of the State are at the hands of trained professionals. The people you vote for just decide which professionals to listen to. Case in point: California's uneducated governor has been controversial at worst. His well-qualified predecessor was recalled.

7. More candidates and less corporate influence means a more diverse choice of leaders and policies. Our State is inbred. Ideas and people are recycled ad nauseum (hence, complacence).