[Derp4CP] Electioneering

Day 3,141, 10:49 Published in USA USA by Paul Proteus

Obviously this is a reaction to Derphoof's article, which if you haven't read, you should read posthaste.


Mood Musik

Goodbye Blue Monday: Election Edition

Alright so, it's been a while. Not literally, but in a less obvious way. It's been a while since I've written something that I wanted to write. It's been a while since I've written anything worthwhile. Not that this article is going to be revolutionary. Aramec is correct in discerning my aims, but hopefully this time I can expand the scope. After all, Hadrian is back, perhaps media deserves some effort again. The title perhaps gives away my intentions, however, let's start abstract:


We'll get there. Also savor the 5 year old graphics.

What makes a POTUS great

We've grown accustomed to mediocrity. We have good presidents every so often, but as our population dwindles, we have fewer each year. It takes less and less to be elected President, and in turn we expect merely competence, when we could, and absolutely should, demand something more. When Frost was President, when Vanek was President, when any number of the people worth remembering were President, the game felt elevated, temporarily no longer static, but alive. Great Presidents achieve this effect through different methods, but every leader worth a damn has given everyone in the eUS some hope of fun in a game which increasingly is unwilling or incapable of delivering any semblance of fun on its own. Who, recently, has given us that? Israel tried to run a eUnited States from a bizarro Universe where it was still 2013, and expected his cabinet to actually put effort into their work, and it was electrifying, regardless of how you feel about his decisions, I can actually remember that month. Aramec achieved that something through a massively accessible and dynamic domestic program, something which is infinitely more valuable than anyone seems to recognize, and which has confusingly never been replicated. Finally, we have leaders who shine through quiet competence, like Tyler. Still, while Tyler has exemplified leadership through example, we have blinded ourselves to the limit of this approach, and have begun the fetishize "quiet" to a degree that has harmed our understanding of both leadership and competence. Recently, we've seen articles indicating that seeking fun is at the cost of competence, and that leaders who value the community somehow must be less able than those who do not. To do so catastrophically misses that there can be no "competence" in leadership without equal engagement, particularly in the deserted and wrongly maligned media. I say this out of no malice, a similar critique was leveled at my own failures of leadership, however, three Presidential articles in a term is unacceptable. The WHPR can never replace direct engagement, nor is it institutionally designed to do so. And when, of three articles, one is a joke, and the other appears to be somewhat of a foreign policy blunder, it becomes depressing. Presidents who are direct with media can feel like a breath of fresh air, but Presidents who refuse to engage are directly responsible for accelerating the apathy that pervades our online society.


I mean, at least it's something.

So,

What it means to be a leader

Clearly leading in a social game involves more than a rudimentary understanding of mechanics. That should be assumed. There are certain things we expect from our leaders. To start at perhaps the most basic level, we expect competence. A good President should never publicly err, act rashly or appear weak. This, however, is the easy part: building a team that will work well together, making the executive's will clear and unified. These are tried and true methods that have been executed to different degrees of success for years. And we value these things because, well, it's embarrassing when the system doesn't work. When our allies and enemies control the media, and the international narrative, it's embarrassing. When every executive is forced to reverse course on USAF, it reeks of unforced errors and indecision, and it's embarrassing. To want to avoid this, to chase competence, is an understandable reaction. However, in our quest we have led ourselves in the wrong direction. When Israel compares his favored candidates to Vanek, it is a compelling argument. Vanek undisputedly was a once in a generation President. However, what's easy to forget is that Vanek actually wrote articles. A ridiculous amount. They're concise, but also expertly control the discussion, and contain exactly the information that's needed. What we forget is that being "good" at any aspect of this game, even being a generational talent, simply isn't enough. It's not nearly enough. Presidents who cannot communicate, with Congress, with their cabinets, but especially with the general populace, not only are limited, but they cannot lead. Hell, even communication isn't enough. We've let ourselves become accustomed to the bare minimum. Being able to communicate is not the mark of a great leader, it's the mark of a fairly well evolved mammal. And it certainly isn't a box to be checked on the path to greatness. What should be increasingly clear, based on even the most rudimentary evaluation of the evidence, is that great leaders don't react to events, they create them. Great presidents are the players who can build narratives, through media, but through actions as well.

We need a hero


...just for one day

This is getting long winded, so I'll begin to circle back towards the conclusion. It's rare that a President actually upsets the status quo, and it's rare that we have a President that can be considered anything close to great. It's even rarer, as our best players continue to leave us, to have a chance to actually feel excited to cast a vote. But now, we have that chance. This election, we have a candidate not only worth voting for, but worth playing for. To me, that's a fairly big deal.

And that candidate, is Derphoof.


"When I am king, you will be first against the wall"
-Radiohead, but possibly also Derphoof


Now, everyone knows who Derphoof is. That's not an accident, Derphoof has done a lot. He's done a lot a lot. When I was bumbling around in the Oval Office, it was Derphoof in the Secretary of State chair making sure everything didn't go off the rails. That was a long time ago, and since then Derphoof has helped shape this eCountry. Now, in the process of educating himself, there's one thing Derphoof hasn't been, and that's President. And that's a damn shame. Not for Derphoof, but for the rest of us, because Derphoof is exactly the kind of leader I'm talking about. Derphoof is competent, that much is clear, but what's even more clear (and, in my view, convincing) is that he's not quiet. Anyone who doesn't understand Derphoof's skill with a pen probably is illiterate, or lives under a particularly depressing rock. Either way I'd invite them to check out Derphoof's paper and skim through the highlights. It's worthwhile. What Derphoof promises isn't just something different, it's something better. It's not just a Dioist America (though it certainly is that), it's an America that cares and is worth caring about. Those who criticize that entirely miss the point, or perhaps they are an integral part of the point.


Also he's not a heretic, so that's a pretty big plus

What's crystal clear, to me, however, is that there aren't enough candidates like Derphoof, and there aren't enough players like Derphoof. To return to the beginning of this article, I don't write nearly enough, in part because there aren't nearly enough players to make this game worth writing for. Derphoof is one of those players. To not vote for him is to rob the eUS, and yourself, of an incredible opportunity. An opportunity to make something.

tl;dr I'm voting for Derphoof and so should you


Let's make something. Together