about "The Best Comic Strip Ever!"

The characters in my strip, set in Africa's Western Rift Valley, are: the Foolish Pride of lions (Leon, the haughty and lethargic King of Beasts; his queen, Leona; and their cub Lionel, an unpromising heir to the throne); Secretary Bird, a liason between the Royal Court and the rest of the animals; cerebral, man-imitating Ape, a reader of the Substandard; peevish Rhinoceros; harmless but senseless Ostrich; Crocodile, resident of the much-frequented Watering Hole, and his dentist, Crocodile Bird; Honey Badger (alias Ratel), the "Meanest Animal in the World", and his one associate, Honeyguide; Mumbo the elephant, a descendant of Jumbo and a butt of jokes about his weight and the size of his ears and nose; Duncan the dung beetle; ill-favored and unwashed Warthog; the craven, henpecked male and shrewish female hyaenas, both of them foul-smelling and perpetually at war vs. the lions; the mistaken-identity-plagued zebras; slow and superannuated Tortoise; Oxpecker, a companion of large herbivores; Hugh the chamaeleon; and walled-up Mrs. Hornbill.

The Best Comic Strip Ever!

If you "click" the present cartoon, whizbang technology will take you to the "The Best Comic Strip Ever!" Archive.

02 February 2012

Uncommon Commentary #241: Since the USA Isn't a True Democracy Anyway, I Suggest that We Call it a "Dumbocracy"

As I see it, the closest thing to a perfect government that can be attained, prior to the prophesied Thousand-Year Reign of Christ and the Saints, would be one in which the titular head of state would be the highest-ranking ecclesiastic in the land; the actual ruler would be appointed by the head of state, and subject to removal from office by him at any time. (The head of state could delegate this authority if he considered himself too busy to make such decisions.) The power of the ruler, whom one might call a prime minister or a chancellor, would thus be checked by the potentiality of his dismissal.
My ideal regime would not be theocracy. (I don't know what it would be called—therefore, since it’s my brainchild, I suggest the name “domanism”—, since, so far as I know, there has never been an example of it; indeed, there probably never will be. It might be realized in some country where people still keep an open mind about politics, but not here in the USA, where it's a secular heresy to suggest that our method of governance is anything but the sole legitimate one, and where, because of the founding of the USA on a political rather than an ethnic basis, radically altering the Constitution would likely be seen as eliminating our "national" raison d'ĂȘtre.) In fact, along with prisoners, minors, and others clearly unfit to hold office, the top ecclesiastic would be the only person who would not be eligible to serve as prime minister or chancellor or whatever. (It would not be what we incorrectly call "democracy" either, but more on that next.)
My reason for designating the top church official as the sole elector is that such a person is more reliable than anyone else for choosing a wise leader, and I'm afraid that it now ought to be evident to the well-informed that we the people can no longer be entrusted with such a responsibility. To give just one example of why I think so: Shortly after the catastrophic 2008 US elections, I read the results of a public-opinion survey, according to which respondents considered the Democratic Party to be "center-right." It seems to me that our political system, in which the public select politicians to represent them, is viable only if the voters are astute enough to elect the best candidates for high office; when the populace is so deluded that it views as "center-right" a party which had never been more thoroughly dominated by leftists, how can anyone believe that what we call "democracy" still works?