I just looked up the meaning of "shambolic." It's not the first time. My excuse for always forgetting is that I love the way it sounds, and my sense of what it ought to mean, based on the sound it makes, isn't quite right. And that's all I ever remember: that it doesn't mean what I think it ought to mean. According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, the official meaning is:
obviously disorganized or confused.
It's "chiefly British," and a relatively new word, the first known use having occurred in 1970. As for etymology, the dictionary only speculates that it's "probably from shambles." Therein lies my confusion, for I felt, or guessed, or would prefer that it's probably from sham, and that the meaning therefore pertains to trickery, dishonesty, a confidence game. A "shambolic bureaucracy" means only that it's confused, in disarray, whereas I always want to ascribe to it at least an undersense of corruption.
I was thinking of "shambolic" in connection with the recent vote in the Senate about forming a commission to investigate the January 6 riot at the Capitol. The vote was 54-35 in favor of forming the commission. The shambolic aspect of the vote makes its entrance when one learns that the side with 54 lost. There will be no commission. I imagine the third-world countries we lecture on the glories of democracy might be confused, which, if true, would be evidence of the shambolic essence of the filibuster rule.
The shambole only deepens when details are discussed. What could justify the side with 54 votes losing out to the side with only 35? It has to do, we are told, with the need for bipartisan support in order to move forward. The word "bipartisan" is often pronounced with quiet gravity, as if speaking the name of God in church. It's such a crock. The 54 votes for included the votes of all the Democrats who voted and some of the Republicans who voted. The 35 votes against came only from Republicans. Actual bipartisanship was thus defeated (by a Senate rule, the alleged purpose of which is to require "bipartisanship"). The side with only 35 votes imposed its narrow partisan agenda on the bipartisan majority. In the interests of bluntness, we might as well just say it: the Republican side is guilty of political crimes and, like criminals everywhere, would prefer their crimes not be investigated. The poor rubes who believe the Big Lie rioted at the Capitol and are now being investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department. But the Republican politicians who lied to them will not be investigated. Something called "bipartisanship" requires that they get a pass. I like the adjective "shambolic" but it's too pale to describe such a farcical sham.
Comments