Notorious
MANY of the people associated with this administration indicate that notoriety is a qualification needed to join.
Look at them, many of them are controversial on their own. One doesn’t have to enumerate them for the public’s identification. They are so notorious, the reader knows many of them. They’re household names, but in an undesirable way.
Why is this so, that the people hired by this administration have checkered pasts? Aren’t there more qualified, or at least less controversial, people around?
I give credit to a former Cabinet secretary who refused the then incoming president’s offer of a post in his inner circle. (By the way, watch out for that guy, I can see him as a potential key player in the next presidential election. I’m not particularly a fan of his, primarily because he reeks of being “too Establishment,” but he’ll figure in the vetting of potential candidates.)
Are the notorious people in this administration drawn to this leader because they’re notorious, or are they appointed because the leader is notorious?
Birds of a feather flock together. Does this president attract controversial and notorious people because he, too, is controversial? And, to extend the logic, does he like notorious people because he can relate to them?
It makes sense that similarly disposed people, in terms of their morals and life philosophies, attract each other. Thus, it’s understandable that people who are fans of strong man-type leaders also are pre-disposed to authoritarian tendencies. An admirer of this leader even idolizes Adolf Hitler. Mein Gott!
And vice versa, that a leader who favors shortcuts in governance and law enforcement would also hire people whose consciences aren’t bothered by the lack of due process in the government’s transactions.
This doesn’t bode well for our democracy, whatever is left of it. Fragile and fading as it is, our democracy is in peril. Here’s a leader who announces every time he has an opportunity that he would prefer that the built-in checks in our Constitution against abuse of power by any of the three branches of government be disregarded so he could do as he pleases.
He expresses impatience and annoyance over the built-in provisions of the Constitution that bar any of the three branches of government, especially the executive, from having too much power over the other branches.
Is it a surprise, then, that the leader surrounds himself with likeminded people, people who disdain due process, people who prefer shortcuts in doing business, and people who keep quiet about actual and potential abuses of power?
Look at the Cabinet. Some of the Cabinet secretaries had been upright people in the past, quiet and competent professionals who had stood out in their respective careers and professions. And yet, once appointed in this administration, they’ve lost their voices and silently accepted the crude, cold-blooded, and cold-hearted character of this administration.
Look at the people who’ve gravitated around the leader, in and out of government. Surely, there are many others who not only are better qualified, but also better representatives of the good nature and character of the Filipino people. Is this the best that we have, are these people the best that our nation can offer?
If this is so, then it’s terribly disappointing.
Tantrum Ergo. Those who openly express dissent on social media over what’s going on in the country manifest moral courage. What is moral courage but the willingness to put one’s safety and even life on the line to fight for one’s convictions. There’s very little to gain personally in this endeavor; indeed it’s risky business. The easiest thing to do is to just go along or even sing hosannas to the powerful. But patriots take risks all the time.