20
Jul
09

douchebag (n.)–The Emocratic Tool

Originally published in The Occidental Weekly:

Voters often complain about the absent alternative to America’s rigid bipartisan political system. Amidst this outcry comes the issue of representation. Most nonpartisan parties cite the under-representation of political interests and concerns in defense of creating alternate parties. Indeed, these alternate parties are under-represented because they barely made so much as a blip in the radar during the latest election. Of all the alternate parties there is one group that is more overlooked than any other. This party is unusual in that it is under-represented, yet also encompass America’s largest demographic. This political group is known as none other than the Emocratic Party.

Contrary to popular belief, Emocrats are neither specifically left, right, nor centered in their ideology. They come in a variety of packs ranging from the socially liberal to the fiscally conservative. What they do share in common is political dissatisfaction and inaction. An Emocrat will complain about whatever political policy is at stake. Whether it be an economic measure or state proposition, Emocrats will always voice their opposition. They’ll whine and shout, but refuse to march for their beliefs or volunteer for a grassroots organization. In spite of this, an Emocrat typically won’t even vote and prides himself in this decision.

An Emocrat considers himself a member of the non-voting elite for his political apathy. He’ll believe in the futility of change in the face of rigid bipartisan politics and consider himself enlightened because of it. In the rare instances that Emocrats do vote, they slap “I voted” stickers on their chest, and pride themselves in doing something that they were supposed to do to begin with. In the rare instance that an Emocrat votes for a partisan candidate, he immediately believes that his vote has some declarative value. College Emocrats are a different category in themselves and typically congregate at small liberal arts colleges. They’re politically-minded, but complain about their school’s isolation. The thought of reaching outside of the school and volunteering with other political groups off-campus never occurs to them. When it does, they dismiss it, because solving their problems would actually require work. They’d much rather drink, attend a Lupe Fiasco encore, or cry in the dark over an A- in a DWA course. As a result, any non-Emocrats of importance transfer to other colleges out of frustration.

If there’s one thing that annoys College Emocrats more than politics, it’s the media and student publications. They have an endless stream of grievances and complaints concerning these publications, but rarely work up the impetus to write letters to the editor. For the College Emocrat, these publications are either too liberal or not liberal enough. Not once does it ever occur to them to take the initiative, join this publication, and alter the inner workings from within. Other larger university publications are more exclusive and scarcely offer the creative freedom of small liberal arts newspapers, but this doesn’t matter to the College Emocrat, because he is never satisfied. Then again, joining these papers would actually require some labor and effort, and this scares College Emocrats more than anything in the world.

Oddly enough, despite their fear of letters to the editor, College Emocrats enjoy blogging and trolling. To them, a blog is nothing more than a sophisticated version of an angst-ridden Livejournal. College Emocrats typically comment on the articles of student newspapers using anonymous aliases. Anonymity is preferred because being held accountable for their vapid ideas terrifies Emocrats.

At first glance, this would render pundits and other journalists indistinguishable from other Emocrats, except on a professional level. After all, isn’t that what journalists and pundits do on a daily basis: whine and complain? Fortunately, this isn’t the case. Ordinary journalists and pundits value the mass media as an interconnected collective, but acknowledge their own irrelevancy in journalism as individuals.

The Emocrat lacks so much political mobility that it’s doubtful that he’ll ever have his voice heard. True Emocrats reject the very fact that politics is fundamentally about compromise. It is because of this that Emocrats are never satisfied and stake this as their source of idle apathy. What the future has in store for the Emocrat, none can say. The Emocrat is a tragic paradox because deciding to lift themselves up would eliminate their essence of character.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “douchebag (n.)–The Emocratic Tool”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: