Famous People and Democracy

Tonight I went to listen to Susan Sarandon talk about why Bernie Sanders is the ideal presidential candidate. I'm very happy to have gone, without a doubt. But I took some beef with the idea that Bernie represents "change" and "acceptance," considering that the whole point of this rally was—like every other rally—to persuade people to vote for him. For instance, his campaign used the social currency of celebrity to convince supposedly intelligent voters of his potential. I respect Susan Sarandon a lot, sure, but I don't know what makes her more of an expert on gun control than, say, any unknown legislative staffer. I would have been way more comfortable had she acknowledged that she was there to use her fame and influence to win votes. There was a lot of Hillary-bashing, too, which was disappointing considering how "positive" a campaign Sanders has been touting. In short, the whole event should have been more honest and transparent about how it functioned.

Maybe more than anything, this event made me realize that it's not necessarily the candidates who are screwed up, but our entire political system. I don't believe that Bernie Sanders can single-handedly fix that. None of the candidates can. People do seem to embrace the idea of a democratic overhaul, which is inspiring. Democracy is an incredible system; we just have to do it better. And that "better" will take a really long time, probably longer than any of us are alive. But consider how much time we dedicate to the (admittedly important) process of scrutinizing our candidates—I spent ten minutes alone just writing the above paragraph, so I'm just as guilty as everyone else. How much better could our country be if we instead spent even half that time looking at the flaws inherent to the democracy within which those candidates function?

Humble proof for the nonbelievers