The Training Wheels of Democracy

Once again, the seemingly disastrous atmosphere of the election has come back to cause strife. Blazing through homes and causing yet another uproar of political turmoil, those who once thought themselves free of the pressures of national transition find instead a plot twist that has both hope and anger brimming in equal measure. What's happened now? What could possibly be more frustrating than the events of the past month? In answer, all eyes turn to an outdated institution and the millions of dollars donated to a sudden reanalysis.

The Electoral College. One asks another on the street what it is and it is likely that they will not fully know. It is something that has simply always been there. High school students, history majors and appreciators, and most politicians will know of its origins, but a common fellow will likely know merely of its function. A function that stretches the definition of democracy, pushing the United States into a Presidential Republic that thrives under the guise of democratic process. Why, if democracy was such a significant portion of the foundations of the country, is such an institution in place? What makes it necessary? The answer is a logical one. Logical for 18th Century America, that is.

The first decades of the nation were rocky to put it lightly. The first colony to overthrow the glorious British Empire, the first to form away from the dictatorial pulls of demanding  European institution. Democracy, the Founding Fathers cried, the power of Enlightenment thinkers boosting them forward, is the answer to the troubles the nation has suffered under the monarchical rule of the house of Hanover. Everything will be well and good now that the public can vote for leaders, it would be simple.

But wait! What about the uneducated? The lack of communication? How will an effective leader be chosen if only a few will have the capabilities of choosing one?

What about slave owners and the dramatic population imbalance between northern and southern states?

There forms the basis of what now is such a standard that no one feels the need to question it. It is an appeasement to a population that existed more than a century ago. Pleasing southern populations and ensuring that the public would not select a leader without proper knowledge, the wise, all-knowing Founders established the Electoral College. Surely, with representatives proportionate to state populations, with the benefits of the three-fifths compromise thrown in to satisfy the demands of slave owners, the public will not have the capability to elect someone without proper credentials nor will there be uproar over supposed demographic bias.

The College did, in fact, satisfy the needs of the South and put at ease the mind of paranoid intellectuals. Until the end of slavery, the three-fifths compromise allowed a more equal balance between northern and southern interests, and while the public obviously got a say, voting itself was not a very popular action throughout the newborn states, as its importance was not quite as stressed. Not to mention the fact that many did not have the right to vote, as they did not own land, were enslaved, or were of the female gender. The times of universal manhood suffrage were not yet in existence and there were less citizens able to vote than there were those who could not. Based on this, a system that allows equality in voting seems logical, almost necessary. The late 1700s and 1800s were in need of such an assurance of democratic process.

However, jumping ahead to the 21st Century, with widespread communication, education, and the atrocious institution of American slavery existing only in textbooks, is the Electoral College really still necessary? No longer is there a grievance due to the existence of slaves making up the majority of the southern population, and compulsory school attendance has been implemented for decades. Suffrage has been extended to all persons over the age of eighteen and voting turnout is drastically higher than in the election of 1804. Why then, is there still this process that seems almost redundant and unnecessary. Are the citizens of the United States really so inept as to need an entire official voting body to make the official presidential decision? Mind, there is no specific strict law inflicting punishment for those electors who simply do not follow the desires of the public and vote as they please.

Without the Electoral College, the population issue would not be as significant. More people live in the cities, more votes will come from there. Less people live in the rural areas, their interests will be represented as such. The Electoral College is merely a proportion of the same numbers. Its existence now seems tedious. Education and communication are available, there is now an endlessly growing number of intellectually inclined who belief, just as the Founding Fathers, that they have a good grip on what society may need. They would most certainly be miffed at the idea of someone else taking and forming their decision after they took the effort to become so informed.

Simply put, the Electoral College was a beneficial institution of the past, providing a balance to a seemingly chaotic newborn nation. However, that newborn nation has grown and evolved, becoming more self aware (perhaps not entirely so, it would seem) and allowing general equal opportunity. It seems to be high time to take these training wheels off and let Americans practice the true principles of electoral democracy that had once been so desperately fought for. Perhaps then, will the chaos and ulcer-inducing pressures of election season be slightly easier to bear.

A Show of Dinnertime Antics

There is one obstacle of every holiday, birthday, reunion, get together, or other significant even that everyone tends to revolve around. Either to avoid or actively prepare for, this component is so essential that it would seem as if the universe itself was working towards its perfect or disastrous outcome. There is no way around it, this looming barrier that has the power to drastically alter an evening. It is stress inducing. It is heart warming. It is the ever trying yet usually fulfilling occasion of family dinner. 

It's as if Queen Elizabeth II and President Barack Obama themselves are coming to the table with the amount of perfectionism that fills the air. Hours are devoted to appetizers, the main course, and a tray of desserts. Who sits where? Who likes what dish best? least? To have a meal go off without a hitch is the desired, almost demanded outcome for those who still crave the intimacy of the half hour in which this eating takes place. A fading staple of society, as many say, that must be protected before the future generations forget what it means to eat together entirely. 

Of course, with the rush to familial dining, there are the accompanying dramatics that create the underlying tension that many face on achieving such an event. Using the upcoming holiday of Thanksgiving for example, there seems to be an endless list of issues that create arguments between cook and guest, mother and daughter, or brother and sister. Currently, an argument sparks over the idea of a friend coming to dinner that is supposedly meant for family. Tomorrow, another will begin about not buying enough food and the proper amounts one should eat when attending another's feast. Come Thursday, the passive aggressive comments will be in full effect and the peace will be maintained on treacherously thin ice. Heaven forbid anyone who should bring up the election.

Dinner isn't all bad, though. There is the rare moment of coming together and the idea of good food to entice those of us who enjoy a proper meal. New achievements will be discussed, a sense of familial pride will blossom eventually, spreading out from under the piles of pettiness that have caused any preexisting tension. It may take til the last person has finished their dessert, but there will be a moment in which every guest is properly satisfied and content to move into gentler, more affectionate discussion. Nostalgia, warmth, and a unique camaraderie takes over from the pre-dinner nerves, irritation, and drama. 

It's comical, this idea of so many people being so worked up simply for the satisfaction of a meal well prepared that will be gone in a few minutes time. How odd it is to consider that so many devote hours upon hours for a brief moment of calm in the rushing, endless ways of modern society. It is, perhaps, one of the few things that show the emotional component of humanity that is often lost in the drive for success we all find ourselves caught up in. 

Whatever it is perceived as, family dinner will always be an anomaly of heightened feeling. An event that is both momentous and simple. A landmark of the foundation of kinship that has been carefully preserved by generations. A show full of dramatics that leaves one on the edge of their seat, anxiously waiting for the next argument to break out or the next unforgettable memory to be created. 

The Complexities of Truth

As Oscar Wilde once satirically stated, "the truth is rarely pure and never simple." Often there are contexts with layers upon layers burying what is true beneath piles of lies and muddled mixes between truths and falsehoods, preventing a simple clear answer from coming about on essentially anything.

Wilde's play, The Importance of Being Earnest, puts this statement into perspective in a comical way, showing the consequences of fiddling with the boundaries of truth and crossing the line into the realm of falsity. The misadventures of English gentlemen Algernon Moncrieff  and Jack Worthing are Wilde's way of presenting this fact to a reader, with the abstract concept of "bunburying" representing the act of bending truths to receive a more preferred outcome for a specific person. In this case, Algernon bends the truth to give himself a sort of entertainment, much to Jack's chagrin.

The play is just one simple example of this concept of bending the truth and muddling the line between lies and honesty. The work ends simply, with the trickery conceived by Algernon being resolved and all parties being generally satisfied, keeping up a comical tone and basic plot line. In reality, there is not often such a smooth resolution. The consequences of the convolution the truth have much greater repercussions than a simple mishap in marriage proposal. Once the truth is no longer clear, then pure intents are missed, and tension is created due to the contamination caused by falsehood.

This concept, while stunting for a progressive society, is, unfortunately, a staple of how many live their lives. How many people do you know willingly and openly state a simple truth? The world revolves around the game of self preservation and the most popular cheat is the benefit of dishonesty that thrives under the ruse of candor. Why would anyone risk being honest when their reputations, entertainment, and success could be at stake? If the rest of the world is dwelling in a world of falsity, then what benefit is there to being in the minority of those who rise above and state the truth and nothing but the truth?

Perhaps one should consider the rarity of having the trait of true candor. It would definitely create a distinction from many of their peers. But this road, like many of the purer variety, would be immensely more difficult to thrive on. Perhaps, for the more cynical variety of people, one should simply manipulate the system even more so than it is being controlled already. Is there a way to state the truth in a way that appears complex but is in reality comically simple? Realistically, there are few "pure and simple" scenarios in which one could go about living honest or dishonest lives, as each attempt at either result in discussions such as this: complex and somewhat confusing.

To change society into a world of truth would, regrettably, require even more convolution to resolve the numerous entanglements most people find themselves in. The energy needed to achieve this would be infinite. To create an entire new frame of thinking is to unhinge centuries of deception, foolery, and self preservation, and would definitely fail to sit well with those who have worked to achieve their definition of greatness. That leaves the equally unsettling reality of living in a world of complex truth. If society's way of thinking can't change, then how can one adjust their lifestyle to achieve some sort of true honesty? Can one truly succeed and be satisfied with themselves by simply going along with the twisted ways instilled by generations of pretense or are the consequences too great? Can society truly succeed at being great if this false truth exists? Perhaps consider consulting Oscar Wilde for his opinion, it, at least, seems honest enough to provide clear insight.

Conrad and Darkness: Themes of a Masterpiece Novel

There is a specific class of literature that accomplishes both complexity and brevity in a way that provokes deep thinking without slipping into the abyss of senselessness. These pieces compact layers upon layers of perspectives, thoughts, actions, and emotions until there is not one but several themes that a reader can ponder or even create for themselves. 

Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is approximate 70 pages filled to the brim with harsh commentary on the dangerous travels of old seaman Marlowe down the Congo River at the height of the age of Imperialism. Every page presents lines on the state of specific characters who represent states of human society, creating one large picture of the consequences and perspectives that society has as a result of various group's actions. The symbols and motifs throughout the novel itself offer dramatic insight in a dark yet snarky way that show Conrad's thoughts and ideas about the state of humanity as a whole.

One of these such symbols is ivory and the white traders that are stationed along the river. With the most significant of these persons being one Mr. Kurtz, the central focus of Marlowe's travel downstream, the idea of more ivory equaling more power and success directly reflects those who hunger for money and power in any society. The upper elite continuously battle for larger income, expansive territory or business, and widespread reputation, a parallel that Conrad portrays with Kurtz's success and other businessmen, like the manager's thirst to become bigger, better, and more efficient. Throughout the novel, the thirst for ivory and the continual obsession to obtain it captures the minds of many, as Marlowe observes, and creates a sense of tension that persists through til the end of his travels. 

This symbolism connects to a larger idea Conrad portrays throughout the work: the idea of darkness representing the unequal and violent state of society. Through Marlowe's recount of his experience, the idea of darkness is constant, with not only the people but also the surroundings being described as dark or monstrous. This is yet another, larger parallel by Conrad, connecting these descriptions with the state of the world at the time, with heavy negativity and inequality a large part of common life. At the end of the novel, outside of Marlowe's story, the narrator ends the work with their current ship sailing off into the darkness, drawing the idea full circle. Not only did the darkness exist in Marlowe's story, it continues to prevail in the present, with the elite still violently oppressing the common people, and greed, lust for power, and violent ambition dominating the actions of many. This ending leaves the reader to think not only on the events of Conrad's novel but also the state of their society, here in the 21st Century. 

The novel leaves endless questions and possibilities open for hours upon hours of discussion. What was the true meaning? Was Marlowe's story real? Was Marlowe or the narrator himself even reliable? There seems to be no correct answer, just the continual repetition of the effects of darkness, both literally and figuratively.