Archer the Narcissist

Sterling Archer is the main character from a popular animated TV show. I intend to show that he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is going to be a mock interview of Sterling Archer using real quotes from him from the show.

Me: “Mr. Archer, do you know why you are here to see me today?”

Archer: “You're looking for the word, 'yes'?”

Me: “Yes.”

Archer: “Then, yes.”

Me: “Mr. Archer, you have people that care about you that think you might be a little... narcissistic.”

Archer: “Woodhouse!”

Me: “I don't know. It's possible he is one of the people that thinks this.”

Archer: “What? He thinks he's people?!?”

*Note: lacks empathy, check.

Me: “Well, Woodhouse is a person, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “I'm going to pain you dearly Woodhouse, when I peel all your skin off with a knife, sew it into Woodhouse pajamas and then set those pajamas on fire!”

*Note: really, really lacks empathy.

Me: “That's not appropriate Mr. Archer. Why are you so angry at Woodhouse?”

Archer: “Because how hard is it to poach a *expletive deleted* egg properly?!? Seriously, that's like Eggs 101.”

*Note: tendency to be interpersonally exploitative, check.

Me: “Perhaps you should move on from being mad at your breakfast.”

Archer: “There's not enough liquor and therapy in the world to undo that.”

Me: “It seems that you perhaps are feeling insecure. Are there aspects about yourself that you want to change?

Archer: “Do you see me rocking this chiseled slab of hard man body?”

Me: “No. You aren't my type, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “Hey, I am everybody's type!”

*Note: excessive need for admiration, check.

*Note: believes that others are envious of him, check.

*Note: shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes, check.

Me: “That's pretty funny, Mr. Archer.”

Archer: “Because I happen to have perfect situational awareness.”

*Note: belief that he is “special” and unique, check.

Me: “I see. Have you thought that perhaps you don't have perfect situational awareness?”

Archer: “I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you, buddy.”

Me: “Okay. So why do you think you are so special?”

Archer: “Hey, we're out there risking our lives every... many of the days!”

*Note: grandiose sense of self-importance, check.

Me: “Did you know that the people around you just want you to be a little nicer to them?”

Archer: “I thought they just wanted my hair so their scientists could unlock its luxuriant fullness.”

*Note: Preoccupation with fantasies of beauty, check.

Me: “Mr. Archer, do you realize that in the couple of minutes that we've been talking that you've shown yourself to be eight of the nine criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder? You only need five in order to be diagnosed as such.”

Archer: “DANGER ZONE!”

Utah Caucuses

I really wish I had paid more attention a week ago because I completely ignored all the signs and didn't participate in the Utah caucuses. I would have really liked to go to the local Republican party caucuses and tried to voice my opinion to the majority party... oh wait... I'm not registered as a Republican, so the rules say I couldn't have gone to that caucus. In fact, I'm not registered as a Democrat either; I am registered as unaffiliated. I have this crazy notion that I should vote for the person that represents my ideas and values the best and not just vote along party lines. I know, weird. Well, I could have gone to the Democratic party caucus because that caucus is open for anyone! So I could have participated in an event that would determine who would get the Democratic delegates in the least Democratic leaning state in the nation... Hmm. Now I'm starting to get demoralized. Well, what if I decided to register as a Republican for the next round of caucuses in 2014? If I did that, then I could have a voice amongst people that didn't want to hear it in the first place and give my opinion to a delegate that wouldn't listen too it. “Oh, he's one of those liberal Republicans!”

I'm really trying to figure this out. It seems that the Utah Republican caucuses cater to the minority of the majority and ignore the majority of the minority. The attendees of the Republican caucuses represent a minority of the majority party and don't let those that are part of the minority party attend. On the other hand, the Democratic caucuses let anyone attend so they can make a futile attempt to vote for a Democrat that is at best a long shot. Whoa. So confused...

Of course, there are lots of things that confuse me. For instance, why is it that with today's technology we only have the option of in-person caucuses that only happen on one day at one time? With only two tenths of one percent representing all of the population (delegates), perhaps there are other avenues to explore? You can register to vote online, so why not have a mass representation system that allows the maximum number of people to put in opinions about political candidates online or at a voting booth? Is it wrong for me to want more people to have a voice and for a nominee process to more accurately represent the wishes of the majority? Yet another conflict between traditional systems and systems that work better in today's world. Oh, like the electoral college! You mean, someone can win an election even when they didn't?

The Senate Filibuster

 The senate filibuster is a necessary measure in today's political climate which could very well be reformed under the correct circumstances. The current debate takes on the form of keeping or abandoning the filibusters, but other options exist. Both sides of the debate have some legitimate arguments as well as some irrelevant arguments. I will explore both sides of this topic and then will present alternatives to just “yes” or “no.”

Thomas Geoghegan wrote The Case for Busting the Filibuster in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th Edition (McKenna& Feingold, 2012, pg. 116). In his argument, Geoghegan mentions that the filibuster, specifically, the procedural filibuster, gives too much power to the minority and causes too much easy obstructionism. He writes that the simple majority should be how it works and allowing the filibuster gives room for too much pork in bills.

On the other side of this issue is Robert Byrd (McKenna & Feingold, 2012, pg. 121). Byrd brings up several examples as to the good the filibuster has done. One example of which mentions a court-packing bill pushed by FDR in 1937. After heated debates in the senate and a traditional filibuster, the bill was revised to better promote checks and balances for the judiciary. Byrd also characterizes the importance of giving a strong voice to the minority due to many of our principles being dedicated to equality.

Both sides make compelling arguments. Unfortunately, which side of the debate the political parties tend to gravitate towards depends on whether or not they can filibuster. When Republicans have a minority, the filibuster is widely accepted by the party in general. When Democrats have a minority, the filibuster is widely accepted by the party in general. In other words, support from the parties on filibusters is historically hypocritical.

With American ideologies, it is important for the majority to rule, but it is also important that the minority has a voice. The filibuster is intended to give a voice, but the procedural filibuster does not elicit debate or consideration; it elicits pork being added to bills. Without the filibuster, controversial bills could pass without any proper debate and consideration. The mere threat of a filibuster also mediates presidential nominees so the nominees are usually not too extreme on one side or the other.

With such strong arguments and counterarguments, perhaps a compromise on the issues is in order. To start, a filibuster should not be procedural. It ought to allow a debate on the issues as to better present the evidence or importance of a bill (or lack thereof). Pork could be addressed by simply disallowing it from being added to a bill. Without the option of pork, senators do not hold out in order to better their own positions, but rather they would hold out based on specific grievances they have on a bill. It becomes a talk of how to make the bill work rather than how to bribe to get votes. With these two modifications, compromise and negotiation directly on a bill is much more likely. With these two modifications to the filibuster, better and more rigorously considered legislation can go through and the checks and balances system returns to a healthier state.

This is not the only possibility, however. Under the right circumstances, the filibuster could be completely abandoned and simple majority rule in the senate could happen once again. The right circumstances, however, are very difficult to achieve. For starters, more than two parties would have a big voice in the system. We would need at least a third party that holds a significant number of votes in the senate. This hypothetical third party creates an additional check in the legislative process and inherently eliminates most of the pork put into bills. It eliminates the pork because there are simply too many contenders to deal with to effectively garner votes through bribery.

Being that there are already alternative parties that do not have a significant voice, something else in the system needs to change in order to get significant contribution from these parties in congress. Alternative parties do not have the money to get much of a voice, though. This then points to the need to have public financing for political parties (a la most of the democratic world besides the US). So, if there is public financing that is distributed evenly across three or four parties, then there is an increased likelihood that alternative candidates will get elected in a meaningful amount.

The trick then is to get politicians to follow what is best for the country and not what is best for their own personal pocketbooks. If money is significantly involved as it is now, then public finance for political parties will never happen. There are also complications in how to correctly distribute the money from public financing, but, as mentioned previously, there are many other examples in the democratic world as to how to do this. This is a problem that has been tackled numerous times by numerous countries, so no need to reinvent the wheel.

If no such drastic measures occur, then the senate filibuster needs to remain in place as to allow for a correct mechanism of checking and balancing. In our current political climate. Some modifications could happen to aid in creating a more stream-lined and fair process that better recognizes true debate on issues rather than upholding the principles of bribery through the use of pork. This would require some compromise and some meaningful dialogue in the senate, however.

References:

1. McKenna, G., Feingold S. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, 17^th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
2. O’Connor, K., Yanus, A.B., Sabato, L.J. (2011). American Government: Roots and Reform, 2011 Ed. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education, Inc.