an idea to mull over

I had an insight today, perhaps. I was discussing "The Da Vinci Code" with a co-worker, and I said, "I dont see what the Religious fuss was all about. Whether he was married or not, they're still the same Words of Wisdom."
She responded that it did make a difference, because as it stands now, Jesus is Divine (which apparently you cant be if you have kids)(which stands to reason, I guess; I certainly question my own wisdom in doing so, sometimes).
I said that it shouldnt matter who he was, but what he said. She said, no, it's who he was that matters.

So now I wonder if this explains the 30% or so of people who still doggedly cling to the notion that George Bush is not only doing a good job, but is a great President. Because maybe, like the co-worker, they dont pay attention to the Words, but just see the Authority, and that's all they need. It doesnt seem to matter whether it's Jesus, or Lord Bush; they are Right, because they are in a position of Rightness. (Need I add, that co-worker is a conservative?)

Personally, I am stunned by this revelation. The idea that the Person gives validity to the Words, rather than the other way around, strikes me as so absolutely antithetical to the American Way, that I am still having a hard time comprehending the attitude in someone who was born and raised here. On the other hand, it explains a great deal about how the BushCo, and the Republican Party, manage to maintain their positions of leadership, despite a growing list of lies, scandals and outright crimes: their base belives that The Person gives validity to the Action.
This also explains why Democrats are so easily dismissed by these people, since the same attitude works in reverse. Nothing "Liberals" do can be OK, because Liberals themselves are not OK. The Person gives validity (or NON-validity) to the Action.

Whatever happened to the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"?

When Authority is considered to be basis for Rightness, this can only lead to one end: Might Makes Right. And, yet again, this is another phrase that could be applied quite easily to the current Republican leadership. They have the majority, and show no interest in compromise or statesmanship. They are winner take all, and piss on the loser.

It also, I suspect, will lead to an Aristocracy. It may have already come to that, considering the number of children (or other family) of famous people, who are themselves famous despite having no discernable talents (like Paris Hilton, or George Bush). We cannot allow this state to continue. American has never actually been much of a meritocracy, but it has at least tried to be. Now I'm not even sure that this is true anymore. Here's a definition for you:

Aristocracy: A privileged social class who own a large share of a society's wealth, prestige, educational attainment and political influence acquired mostly through gift or inheritance from a long line of privileged and cultivated ancestors. And a form of government in which the state is effectively controlled by the members of such a class.

Does this sound a bit familiar?

When this is the political state in America, it will be dead (or at least buried). Right now, I think that we're sitting at the bottom of a hole, six feet deep, looking up at a bunch of guys in suits holding shovels full of dirt.