While watching National news and the goings on in New York, New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, it dawned on me that state level politicians kind of parallel ‘whipping boys.’
For those who might be unfamiliar with the whipping boy system, I’ll try to cover it briefly.
Ages ago in a world ruled by monarchs and their divine right, teachers charged with raising and educating a young prince, certainly weren’t of a station to discipline one of royal blood when he would mis-behave. Still punishment was necessary so certain of the prince’s young playmates and chums were designated as ‘whipping boys’ and they would take the punishment for his mis-behavior. Out of sympathy for the poor lads’ sufferings, budding monarchs were better motivated to become more disciplined sort of by proxy. Anyway, it seemed to have worked.
In a similar way, we the electorate are unable to visit ‘discipline’ on lying politicians (and they all lie) once they assume office and must await the end of their term. In the meantime, we can see to it that certain lesser playmates and chums who are within our reach, suffer the brunt of our wrath because they are up for election today. By whipping his buddies, we can let our new prince know that we are displeased with his behavior.
This kind of sentiment seems to work itself into every secondary election cycle more or less. This time the voter frustrations seem to be both deep and multi-lateral. Disappointed Democrats, opposing Republicans and worried Independent voters are expressing such contempt these days for all politicians that the fresh air is likely to blow all incumbents, especially Democrats, clear off their thrones. The usual whipping boys seem to be getting some pretty harsh treatment this time around.
A question occurred to me while contemplating this and a giddy, fluttering feeling tickled my innards. How deep does this phenomenon really run? How truly frustrated is the public with politicians in general?
Could it be that having to ‘sit on our hands’ until the next big election is so tortuous that we are going to lash out at every incumbent upon whom we can exercise our meager punitive powers until that time arrives? even in local elections?
Most of us have experienced fleeting whipping boy moments when someone will lash out at us because they can’t get to the one they’re really mad at. It is only too human!
This is ‘the kicker’ where the tickling came in! I pondered the unlikely but still possible scenario of local incumbents suffering not only wrath caused by their own follies, but a spilling over of impatient rage caused by far away, Olympian level chicanery!
How much better could it get than a frustrated electorate ‘spitting on their hands’ and deciding to make whipping boys at all elected levels?
Wow! Visions of pillories dance in my head!
Don’t forget to vote!
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
S,
Ah, the dangers of reactionary and one-issue voting…
What was it that Tip O’Neal said? “All elections are local” ?
Your “whipping boys” thesis ignores local issues.
Using your metaphor , the federal system gives us not only a national “king”, but “state” and “local” kings Each is an independent actor on his own stage, and most often each goes his own way.
The national economy does have an effect on state economies. Voters often make a judgment on their governor by how well he has managed the state revenues. A slow or bad economy is a huddle for incumbents.
I do agree with one thing I got from your article. All politicians deserve a good flogging now and then. I mean the politicians, not their whipping boys.