But if we stick with this terrible airplane metaphor, let's step backwards in time a bit. We've all boarded the plane and the cabin door is closed. This particular airline allows its passengers to choose its pilot and co-pilot (they're a team you see). There are two options presented to you. Okay, technically, depending which row of the plane you're sitting in, you may have multiple pilot choices, but only two of them are from well-recognized pilot organizations, so everyone just sort of generally agrees, for better or worse, that one of them will fly this plane. Option A is a pilot with decades of flight experience in multiple areas of commercial aviation, but she's kind of a nerd, comes off as a bit too assured of her own victory, and no one really likes her that much. Option B has never flown a commercial jet before, but he's certain he's going to be great at it because he owns a fleet of limos and was on a mediocre TV show for a while, even though he doesn't know any of the pilot lingo, has never paid his pilot's union dues, can't tell the difference between the lavatory and cockpit doors, and seems to think that his whims negate the existing air traffic control infrastructure. Also, he promises not to let foreign people on the plane (even though they're already there), might try to join the mile high club with all the women on board (whether they're interested or not), makes fun of the guy in the wheelchair who needs assistance getting on board, elbows his way past a uniformed service member, and shouts over anyone who questions whether he's even qualified to or capable of flying a plane.
Everyone on the plane is given the option to vote (vast oversimplification here, just bear with me). About half of them just decide not to bother, I mean, really, they'd have to get up out of their seat and walk down the narrow aisle to drop a name in a hat, and who wants to deal with all that hassle? Everyone kind of just assumes that the experienced pilot is going to fly the plane anyway, so a few people vote for the other guy because they think it's funny, or because they don't like the middle eastern guy in the seat next to them, or maybe they just really really don't like the other lady. So somehow, more passengers decided to pick pilot B fly the plane. Or, more specifically, because of a quirk of the voting system, more rows of passengers, regardless of the number of people in them who actually voted, picked pilot B, even though, curiously, more individual people picked pilot A, they just all happened to be clustered together in a most densely populated rows. Either way, I have no idea why anyone would deliberately vote for a pilot who's never flown anything like a plane before, but I'm willing to listen to your rationale!
If you've ever complained that your flight costs too much, the schedules are inconvenient, planes don't fly to the destination you really want to go to, security is too rigid and/or too lax, your seat is too small, what used to be a free meal now costs $5 for a box of junk food, or that there's a screaming baby on your flight, your pilot has little to no control over these things! Sure, he can crash the plane into the ground in an inferno of bad decisions, but his ability to control all aspects of your flight experience is pretty limited. You need to talk to the aircraft engineers, TSA personnel, airline agents, etc, and if they won't listen, replace them with someone who will instead of just throwing your hands in the air and complaining and/or settling for your predicament. (In case my metaphor has gotten a bit too strained, what I'm trying to say is that the president's ability to effect positive change on your life is fairly small without the cooperation of congress, and even your local government. Sure, the president may be the most powerful single person in the government, and his actions or inactions can have very real and very serious consequences, but most substantive change has to come from the legislative branch. Despite a very low approval rating for congress, We The People keep electing the same representatives that make us so irritated in the first place. Quick, someone find me the non-canonical definition of insanity.)
All that said, normally, I'd like to think that the support structure of the airline system does a lot to prevent a pilot from crashing. There's a co-pilot for a reason, as well as built-in safety systems, independent maintenance crews, etc. But the other strange thing about this metaphorical airline is that after choosing a pilot, the pilot gets to pick a lot of his own support people. And if all of those support people also have no idea what they're doing, or are actively trying to defeat the safety systems, the plane probably still won't crash, but it's likely to be a very uncomfortable and turbulent flight. But what about the aforementioned co-pilot? Surely he could save the day! Yes, co-pilot Pence is certainly a more qualified pilot than captain Trump, though how much Trump might relinquish any amount of control is anyone's guess. And then there's the fact that this particular co-pilot is more interested in flying backwards in time than to our planned destination. Less "crash and burn", more "separate but equal." I guess what I'm saying is, pick your poison carefully. I certainly hope AirTrump doesn't crash, but skimming the safety pamphlet section on bracing for impact seems like it might be prudent. Good luck America!
No comments:
Post a Comment