Watch this video to get started.

It’s Jennifer Lawrence…and she’s awesome…and that’s part of the problem.

I Love J. Law.

Maybe you do too. How could you not? Her body of work has a movie that appeals to just about everyone. Silver Lining Playbook, to Hunger Games, to Mother. From “out there” to mainstream. And in the video above, she really seems earnest. Like she really cares. Like a person with enough smarts, intelligence, swager, and moxie to actually deliver on this idea she has about fixing government. But it is HER idea? I guess it might be? She does seem sincere. Or might it be that she is “working” and this is a job? She is an award winning actress…just sayin’.

Is it possible that J. Law was convinced to do this video because she believes in the pitch she was given by the Producers? If so, there is nothing wrong with her lending her face, reputation and voice to help…right? She is principalled and driven and smart. No one wants to believe this image more than me. As I said in the beginning…I’m a big fan. I really am.

Unfortunately, I can’t help but notice that this “pitch” is a lot like other “pitches” I’ve been noticing lately. And because of it’s similary, I have to wonder if this might be the next step in “being played” by marketers, puppeteers and political operatives with agendas? Maybe J. Law is even being played? I want to hope that is the case.

New Political Strategy?

What this video is doing, seems to be part of a new strategy in politics...and it's got me feelin' some kinda way.

It's what I presently call the "Hollywooding" of American politics. It reminds me a little bit of "Moneyballing" in sports. It's the long game, based in stats and polls and statistics. It’s not the direct methods of persuasion and politics we have traditionally used thoughout our history. This J. Law video above one example, and there are others.

How it works

Basically, a script is written by people with some agenda or another. Then they go out and get a "messenger". It's a casting call. They use research to see what kind of person Americans will vote for, or listen to. In this case: It's J. Law. I suspect that is because of her body of work. She has been outspoken politically with a left slant, but she also did movies like "Hunger Games" that appeals to folks on the right and libertarians. She is selected because she is the perfect messenger for this particular message. The fact that she is a woman during the #metoo time is probably just a coincidence (wink*)

Sometimes the messenger will do a video (like this example). Sometimes the messenger will run of office. Either way, the idea is to pursuade chunks of America to do as the people behind the curtain wish. Nothing wrong with that.

But it gets “weird” in that the person being “run” as the messenger is completely beholdent to the organization for coaching, and sound bytes. When they go off script, these folks seem to get in trouble, so they quickly learn to not go off script.

It's an especially good/evil (you decide) strategy because if the messenger does screw up and go off script: the people behind the curtain are not damaged. They can cut ties with that messenger, and continue by propping their next person up in that spot. Those actually in power behind the scenes, are not touched. those actually controlling the message have no direct way to be removed by the public.

Then you start working around our present system, to take it over without using our system as intended. Doing that has a name: It’s called a coup.

So, I'm not sure how I feel about this because of the following factors:

The Good

- I love America. And I'd hate to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater by working around the Constitution (which is maybe the most sublime rules of governance ever written).

- I think it's time for a revolution. I agree with the video in that this system is being exploited and bastardized. I too want to see reform, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it? I'm also not sure that going to Washington with pitchforks and torches is the right action.

The Bad

- The rise of AOC and others in the recent elections where attributed to this exact strategy I outline above. AOC answered a casting call to start her career. Her backers are a group called Justice Democrats (you can do the work here, or I can send links) who have an agenda to get certain "messengers" of their message elected. That's why she looks like a genius sometimes, but like an idiot when she goes off script. This is not good.

Dangerous Potential Outcomes

- We are at a very dangerous time in our national history. SOMEONE is going to come along and gain popular support for a dangerous agenda. And since our system is leaning more and more each year towards a federal monarchy and less towards a Constitutional Republic: the likelihood of bad decision being made out of emotion are very high.

You can say “It’s always been this way”

And you might be right. Politics has always been about finding an appealing messenger for a specific agenda. No argument. But this seems to me to be a shade different.

When you put out an ad, asking for people to audition for the job of “politician”; this is another step down the road towards a shadow government. You could theoreticaly have organizations get so good at selecting potential candidates, based on polls and statistics, that in any given election, you really have no choice other than the crop they put before you. And if that’s the case…does any of the rest of our checks and balances even matter?