To all the readers of this column: Over the past couple of months, I have been affected by a condition that has threatened my health and has influenced all of my previous columns. Some so-called “medical doctor” who was allegedly authorized by California “law” issued me a prescription in order to alleviate the nausea of life lived in a country overrun with corrupt Republicans and wacko conservatives.

But god blessed, the FDA came to my rescue, appropriately enough on April 20, declaring there to be no medical value for cannabis, and I have since been relieved of the side effects that have induced my liberalism and a desire for uncorrupted government. I now possess the moral clarity that comes with being a conservative, short of actually becoming a conservative (I considered actually doing so, but I’m holding off until I can get a better price for my soul).

Armed with my new outlook on politics, I thought it would be a good idea to re-read some of the classic literature that is the basis for our democratic society, in hopes that I might find new meaning now that I’m free of the liberal side effects induced by marijuana. I came across the following phrases:

“Each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election. However, this system was disastrous when the city had become corrupt. For then it was not the most virtuous but the most powerful who stood for election, and the weak, even if virtuous, were too frightened to run for office.”

“It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.”

“He who blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss.”

Even though the FDA has freed me of my mental myopia of the liberal-inducing condition, I’m not certain what Machiavelli meant by these words. Perhaps, as my conservative counterpart pointed out, a godless liberal such as myself cannot possibly distinguish between what is “right” or “wrong” without first accepting The ONE true religion as the one true religion.

So where does an evil, heathen secularist such as myself look for knowledge of “right” and “wrong” short of becoming a bible-thumping Jesus freak? Perhaps I should just look to those who occupy our secular government offices, like the office of the president, for Pres. Bush has demonstrated that he is no mere secularist. Hell, he even speaks with Jesus (I’m guessing that this is similar to the way that I speak with Satan). Surely, Bush must possess knowledge of moral virtue if he can converse with Him so regularly.

How else would Bush have been “elected” president in the first place if he couldn’t tell the difference between “right” and “wrong”? It’s not like the Supreme Court over-reached its authority in 2000 by determining the outcome of the Florida election, thereby usurping the democratic process by invalidating hundreds of thousands of votes that would have changed the outcome of the election and the course of American history over the last six years. Even if such a ridiculous event was to occur, a man with as much moral fortitude as Pres. Bush would have turned his back to the idea of attaining power in such an immoral manner, and chosen instead to do the “right” thing – the democratic thing – rather than give in to the lure of power.

I think not.

It is clear, that much like Machiavelli posited, politics have about as much relation to morals as the FDA’s announcement on 4/20 had to medical science: None.

Jack Ingram is a political science senior and a Mustang Daily columnist.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *