I don't like to talk politics anymore. It's just not productive to do so in the United States right now. This is sad for me because I actually like politics and even carry a degree in political science. I wouldn't qualify myself as an expert on domestic politics, but I will say that I know more than most people on the topic and I am extremely well-versed in foreign policy.
I also avoid it because the saying is true: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and they all stink." With that being said, the current administration is an abomination.
The reasons why our current administration sucks ass are infinite, but the true defining moment is this:
WTF. So I'm guessing there are currently two types of people looking at this photo right now. First, the sane kind: if you look at this and automatically feel revulsion, disgust, and anger, those are the correct emotions to have. Second, if you see this and spontaneously vomit out a "Hell yeah, brother!" and subsequently get excited, you should probably stop voting immediately and maybe consider sterilization. This entire display, event, whatever, is abhorrent.
Or... am I just being a big wussy?
I wasn't sure how to answer my last question, so, like a good millennial, I turned to the Internet, which means I asked Google's very own Gemini. I tasked it to: “Convince me that a UFC fight on the White House lawn is a good thing.”
The AI spat out a beautifully orchestrated, fiercely institutional defense. It argued that hosting "UFC Freedom 250" on the South Lawn this June would redefine the "People's House" by embracing working-class culture, showcase the ultimate meritocracy, act as a global soft-power play of national energy, and break Washington's stiff traditionalism.
OK, Google. I hear you, but I don't think I can let this one slide. Let's address those points individually.
Redefining the "People's House"
I would definitely agree that D.C. has historically had a stick up its ass and really doesn't represent its mass constituency. Although, a fight on the lawn? I would argue that this is more akin to redneck politics and doesn't redefine shit. It just shows that America is bereft of class and caters to a male demographic in the 18–49 category. Most of whom probably fantasize about being in that ring but realistically would get their asses handed to them by a stuffed animal. I should know, I'm surrounded by stuffies and they are dangerous. (Please refer to my previous post about the terrorist giraffe for context.)
Also, according to WifiTalents.com, only 1.7% of U.S. adults reported watching UFC per 2022 survey data. Sure, I'll play devil's advocate for a second—more recent survey data from S&P Global Market Intelligence puts the number closer to 9% of U.S. online adults, putting it roughly on par with golf or tennis. But even using that more generous number, 9% doesn't exactly scream "People's House" to me. I would assume since MAGA has grown like a malignant cancer, so has UFC viewership, but I can't imagine that in a few short years it has eclipsed the halfway point of representing all Americans. This is a sham argument at best.
The Ultimate Meritocracy
OK, sure, meritocracy. A fine idea if this wasn't completely hypocritical. The current administration is full of nepo-babies, sycophants, and grifters. Many of whom come from great privilege, including the man at the top. To espouse the concept of meritocracy while exercising the exact opposite is insulting. If you want to base this off of the idea and not its execution, sure, but I'm not seeing it realistically portrayed at all.
A Global Power Play
This one is laughable. I would argue that this will actually diminish America's soft power abroad. We've cut massive amounts of foreign aid, kidnapped the leaders of foreign countries, started an illegitimate war (try and fight me on that one), and allowed the murder and incarceration of both foreigners and citizens domestically in the supposedly freest country in the world—and you're going to argue that a highly moderated cage fight is going to project power abroad? ¡HA! Do you want to know what really conveys true soft power and authority? Practiced morality, working productively with your allies, and—I don't know—maybe adhering to your own laws? Holy shit, this one is stupid.
Breaking Institutional Stridency
This may be the only point that I mildly agree with. Washington D. C. is exceptionally insular. The soft check on this is looking at real estate prices. Your average, tax-paying citizen has no access because they can't afford access. Would any person with at least two brain cells working overtime actually look at Washington and think, "Hmm, wow, they really ARE working in my best interest." I will fervently say that a fight on the lawn is not the way to remedy this. If anything, it is modern-day gladiatorial games diverting attention from the true problems facing the nation. "Look over here at these totally fun games, not over here at our cesspool of inequity."
Well, that was a fun exercise in futility, but I feel a little bit better. I think we determined that I am, indeed, a big wuss—but not because of this. If this is how we're going to celebrate 250 years of independence, we probably don't deserve another 250 without some real reflection and change. I hope you're as repulsed as I am, and if you aren't... go look in the mirror and slap yourself 250 times in honor of America and your own stupidity.
Dad out.