"Life is Not a Popularity Contest"

These title words of wisdom were uttered to me countless times throughout my childhood, usually as justification for "standing up for my own beliefs" (i.e. those of my parents) or as cold comfort when I didn't get invited to some cool girl's birthday party.  This philosophy seemed counter-intuitive to my ten-year-old self, as it does today.  If life's not a popularity contest, how can some of its most stressful, important aspects (job competitions, the maximization of instances in which fun can be had, etc) be accounted for?  Being a nice person alone may allow you to develop meaningful relationships, and without downplaying the importance of good friends and significant others, kindness and meaningful relationships will very rarely get you the job you want or the social network you desire. Survival in the world outside of the places we turn to for comfort at the end of a long day revolves around popularity contests.  To deny that this is true simply naivety and/or wishful thinking.  In order to thrive in the world of work and large scale social events (especially work-related social events) one must hone a social savvy that when boiled down to its most basic elements involves temporarily morphing into the person your colleagues want you to be.  

There is no occupation that is more of a popularity contest than that of an elected official in a democratic country.  The entire idea behind a democracy is that politicians speak for their constituents by making decisions based on the will of the people.  Thus I found it rather odd when George W's farewell speech included the line (I paraphrase) "I made decisions based on I thought were best for the country, whether or not they were they were popular with the public".  Obviously the Bush administration in general is no stranger to unconstitutional policies and philosophies, but this phrase in particular struck me as not only unethical and unconstitutional, but also entirely incapable of succeeding in its intended purpose (which I assume was to somehow justify the trainwreck Bush's presidency has become).  

One might argue that Bush and his cronies were privy to information not available to the general public that forced them to make unpopular decisions.  If this is true, so be it, but why on earth would Bush want to draw attention to the secretive nature of his administration, whose lack of effective communication with the press was one of its most widly criticized blunders?  Furthermore, are we simply supposed to take his word for it that such measures as Iraq and torture at Guantanemo prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil?  If this is true, why not make the public aware of foiled plots so they are able to re-build their trust in you?  He's basically saying that Americans should be thankful and support him because no attacks happened after 911.  By that logic, Bush and FDR should be tied for the ranking of worst president ever, as the only two attacks on the US happened during their presidencies. 

Sigh... is it Tuesday yet?