Are You Not Entertained?

I still don't know whether to be angry or sad. Time named Taylor Swift as its Person of the Year.

Time has existed now for 100 years and named Someone of the Year since 1927; the first was Charles Lindbergh. Even after having switched over from Man of the Year to Person of the Year, its selections have reflected the gravitas of the times in which they've lived and their effects upon it. Some of the winners: FDR (twice in three years); Mahatma Gandhi; even Wallis Simpson, whose love for Prince Edward VII forced his abdication from the British throne, a Western scandal with no equal. And all three of them were named in the 1930s.

You don't have the like the people themselves, but it's pretty tough, until now, to doubt their impact. Ex- was named in 2017, for instance, and Newt Gingrich in 1995, and Joseph Stalin (also twice in three years). Each are rogues who broke down guardrails of political behavior; we are feeling that today.

But Taylor Swift? What has she done that has had a sufficient impact besides make songs I don't know? I'm sorry, but I don't feel it. You could, I suppose, compare her favorably with Lindbergh in terms of the reactions to their exploits (Lindbergh's foray into politics created a deep dive to isolationism when it appeared clear that the U.S. should seriously consider getting into the growing world war; that, however, was down the road a few years), but it takes no courage for Taylor Swift to perform. Her money is impressive; she is reportedly a billionaire now. But her effects are purely in escapism--and there, I think, Time is making a comment that I wonder is within its intent.

Within the celebratory, congratulatory article that appeared a quote from Swift herself to describe her benefits to the public at large. "Ultimately, we can convolute it all we want, or try to overcomplicate it but there's only one question [she continues in a booming voice]: Are you not entertained?"

The irony of that comment cannot be ignored. It is exactly why ex- still has a chance to be re-elected president, and it's the bottom of the discontent with Joe Biden. Biden wants you to look away from his personality and at the work of government, the competence of which has certainly improved since he's taken over. Ex- wants you to look away from anything he might do and look at him. His rhetoric is lulling his supporters to sleep, again; he's getting away with getting them to believe he cares about them--again.

But above all, look at Joe Biden and you aren't entertained in the least. He has little charisma. His presidency is always a work in progress and is never quite on display. Biden wants you to accept that no situation is perfect, that the best people can often do is cope successfully. He wants you to understand that settling somewhere in the middle is best for the polity and, barring absolute disaster, is the maximum he or anyone else can do.

That obscures the successes Biden has had--in warding off a recession; in bringing inflation down; in creating an impressive number of jobs. But those aren't exciting things. That's what government is supposed to do, even though the effort to accomplish those things have taken an extraordinary effort. None of it is entertaining. It's all lunchpail stuff.

People aren't drawn to that, though. By itself, competent government won't continue to win elections. It must advertise itself, brag a little about itself--especially against someone whose only calling card is bragging about things that aren't true.

Ex- will entertain you, first and foremost. He oozes charisma, though it is based on deception and lies. It's fun to go to his rallies and trash someone, anyone, who doesn't meet his requirements of absolute loyalty or whiteness. He is unleashed again, now with four years of experience to spin and twist and exaggerate and deceive. Just by saying so, he brings people under his rotten wing.

It is the underside of politics--the pied piper who entertains us while leading us off the cliff. The Atlantic magazine has recently run an entire issue about what will happen if he takes over again, what with four years of some information about how government works under his belt. It is chilling and dangerous for anyone who might object to another four years of abuse.

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the state can bar ex- from the ballot next November. Naturally, the ruling will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, more than half of which will be caught in their own trap of what they refer to as "originalism," because Colorado's ruling is based on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1865: Not exactly "original," but not grand spanking new, either.

 I don't think it'll fly. The U.S. Supreme Court has a procedural way out: It can say that ex- hasn't been convicted of having led an insurrection (yet), so since that hasn't been proven in court, no state court can make any restriction on him, a former federal official--yet. It must wait for the decision in ex-'s insurrection trial.

That puts tremendous pressure on Jack Smith, Special Counsel, and the court hearing that case but okay: That that showdown should matter that much is no surprise. Ex- is desperately trying to game that system with challenges that post nothing more than delays that would allow him to say, at some point, too-bad-so-sad, while Smith is trying to do the same to expedite the whole matter. Process is time spent, and that's ex-'s hole card. Meanwhile, the clock ticks--but for whom?

It provides us with macabre entertainment, though. We wait for courts to rule and determine when they will do so. Everyone's holding their breath for one reason or another. It's as if the Super Bowl is in some inexcerable overtime period, where everyone mills around the 50-yard line as we wait for someone to break out and end this thing. There is pushback to pushback.

It brings us to 2024, and whether we will be those who choose to be entertained or participants. We can put the latter off only so long, making the Taylor Swifts the objects of our attention instead of dealing with the ultimate determination of whether we really do prefer to govern ourselves, or turn over the reins to an unqualified (even after four years of self-serving indolence), uncaring monster. Whether a very messy democracy is still the way to wander forward, or the complete withdrawal of any responsibility to guide our lives. It is the choice we've dodged much of this year, pretending that it doesn't matter yet. The clock ticks.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark