we tolerate their whims.

we buy the tickets and line the streets and press our faces to the glass of their lives like children outside a bakery. we argue about them at dinner tables. we vote for them, pray for them, forgive them things we would not forgive our neighbors. we name buildings after them. we build the pedestals ourselves, with our own hands, then marvel at how tall they stand.

this is not naivety. that is the first thing to understand. we are not confused about power — we are avoiding it. there is a meaningful difference.

the confusion would be forgivable. the avoidance is something else.

what we call power and what power actually is have never occupied the same space for long. the figure at the podium, the one whose name fills the chyron, whose photograph appears above the fold — that person is a surface. a managed, curated, occasionally brilliant surface, yes. but a surface nonetheless. the decisions that alter the shape of ordinary life rarely trace back to the face we associate with them. they trace back to rooms we were not invited into. to conversations that left no record. to the quiet, patient work of people who understood long ago that visibility is liability.

they do not want the parade. they want the outcome of the parade.

emperors were managed. kings were managed. the ones who grasped this early survived longer than those who believed their own myth. the ones who forgot they were performing — who started to think the crown was the source rather than the symbol — those are the ones history remembers as cautionary tales. hubris, we call it, as though it was a character flaw rather than a structural trap. the trap being: if you believe you hold the power, you stop noticing who is actually holding it.

but this essay is not about them.

it is about us.

because we built this. not passively, not by accident, not because we were outmaneuvered by cleverer people. we built it because the alternative — the true alternative — requires something most of us have quietly decided we are not willing to give.

the alternative is to look directly at a system with no face and hold it accountable. and you cannot hold fog accountable. you cannot vote out an architecture. you cannot shame an institution into feeling something. so we do the thing humans have always done when confronted with a complexity that exceeds our tolerance for it: we find a face. we put it at the front. we give it a name and a biography and a scandal or two to make it feel real, and then we relate to that — to the symbol — as though the symbol and the system are the same thing.

they are not the same thing.

they have never been the same thing.

and some part of us knows this. that is what the sigh is about. that low, tired recognition that passes through a room when something goes wrong and someone says they really don't care about us, do they — that is not revelation. that is remembering. we remember, briefly, and then we choose again. we choose the face over the architecture. we choose the story we can follow over the truth we cannot easily hold.

this is the co-authorship no one wants to claim.

the ones who actually move the world do not need us to see them. in fact, they require the opposite. they need our attention to stay where it is — fixed on the spectacle, absorbed in the theater of governance and celebrity and outrage and election cycles. they need us to care, passionately, about the performance. every election argued about at the dinner table. every scandal that trends for a week and vanishes. every leader we love and then hate and then replace with another one who will eventually disappoint us in the same structural ways for the same structural reasons.

our attention is not incidental to the system. it is the system.

and they are watching through the eyes of the ones we are watching.

patient. unelected. unnamed. largely unbothered by our outrage because our outrage, too, is part of the design — it exhausts us, it divides us, it keeps us looking horizontally at each other instead of upward, or rather, inward, toward the architecture itself.

we will not fix this today. this essay is not that optimistic, and you should be suspicious of any essay that is.

what we can do — what perhaps we owe ourselves — is to stop pretending we don't know. to retire the performance of surprise. to look at the face at the podium and understand what we are actually looking at: a surface, held in place in part by our willingness to treat it as the source.

we built the pedestal.

we can at least stop marveling at the height.

Thanks for reading The Eccentric Vox! This post is public so feel free to share it.