[dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter] noun –
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
notice that nowhere in the definition does it say that one must be evil, inhumane, and an otherwise horrible person in order to be a dictator.
[byoo-rok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies. –
government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials.
again, notice that nowhere in the definition does it say to thwart the flow of progress.
it’s hard not to think about how much a pain in the ass our government has become lately, what with michelle bachmann imitating sarah palin and members of congress whining yet again about having to work with the other party like they’ve got cooties. in fact, it’s enough to make me want to bury my head in the sand and pretend i’m an ostrich. or better yet, fall off the grid entirely. except that i rather like watching TV on occasion, so that’s not really an option.
the idea behind being a dictator isn’t a bad one. just like the idea behind socialism isn’t a bad one. but, like socialism, it just doesn’t work. it’s probably got something to do with the cliche absolute power absolutely corrupts, which is a shame. because if this country were run by a dictator, here’s what might happen:
1) stuff might actually get done. we wouldn’t have to hear about the long, drawn out fights over the debt ceiling and whether it should be raised or lowered, if the government were really going to default on all its loans, or the inability of the government to even pay its electric bill, much less medicare, social security, and unemployment pay.
2) anyone with any thought of unseating the current ruler would be automatically beheaded. now, i know this is a rather unpleasant practice and frowned upon by the majority of the civilized world, but hear me out. we would no longer have to hear rudy giuliani talk about his role in holding the city together after the 9/11 attacks. or how sarah palin can see russia from her house.
3) lobbyists would be unheard of. in other countries that don’t have dictators, there are no lobbyists. yes, their political parties still fight like crows over a single crust of bread, but they’re probably doing it because they like to, not because they’re being pressured by outside forces who’ve been promised huge government contracts. or who have incriminating photos of that lost weekend on the jersey shore with snooki and the situation.
4) we don’t have to vote every two years. no more wading through legal mumbo crap that no one can actually understand, no more ads that don’t really tell you anything about the candidate, just that the other person is really vile and do you really want someone like that making decisions that will affect your children’s future, no more electoral college versus the popular vote.
5) the aforementioned bureaucracy would cease to exist. this ties in with #1, because there’s no more department heads, memos, TPS reports, and red tape to go through. just one signature (the dictator’s) and it’s done! everyone wins!
yes, our founding fathers designed our government to look the way it does because they’d just escaped a monarchy that didn’t care about much more than filling its own coffers and imposing its will upon them, whether they liked it or not. and if you look at other dictators through history, i don’t think you’d be able to find one who would be considered benevolent. but really, would a dictatorship be so bad?
maybe we should just have robots run the country. or maybe monkeys. i think the monkeys could do just as good a job as the people in washington are doing right now.
*image via everythingandnothing.typepad.com