Writing in an era before political correctness, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels described unwarranted faith in electoral politics as “parliamentary cretinism.” Stricken by this disease, politicians and their constituents imagine that “the whole world, its history and its future are directed and determined by a majority of votes.”

Under the influence of this chronic disorder, American citizens seem to lose all memory and reason, falling for the same confidence games every four years. This time it will be different, we tell ourselves. This time, elections will bring about meaningful political and economic change.

So, when Barack Obama announced hope and change, many on the anti-war left flocked to his banner. And yet, under his tenure, we saw the continuation of Bush’s policies, including the bombing of civilians in Pakistan, Guantanamo Bay’s tenth anniversary and the expansion of indefinite detention.

That is not to say that Mitt Romney would be much better. Just as Kim Kardashian is famous for being famous, Romney is electable for being perceived as electable. Nobody likes Romney, sure, but because he’s a shameless opportunist with no scruples, he’s clearly the perfect candidate. Of course, then, Romney is more than willing to mum the war-mongering of his opponent, writing in a Wall Street Journal editorial that we must “prepare for war” with Iran.

Among the major candidates, only Ron Paul claims that he would stop the state-sponsored slaughter of people overseas. But even if we believed peace was in Paul’s power, his domestic policies would be almost as disastrous. If elected, Paul would roll back civil and reproductive rights, cut social spending and eliminate environmental protections and labor laws.

A recent Pew opinion poll found that 31 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism, and yet our only presidential options are a conservative moderate and a Republican. These candidates represent a very narrow range of the political spectrum because all of the real decisions have been made long before the ballots are cast.

Even if there was a genuinely left-wing candidate in the race, their ability to effect change would be restricted once in office. As President Obama’s marginalized universal healthcare plan shows, the entrenched interests of the capitalist class will always win over the leftist ambitions of an upstart politician.

Yet we are already being told by Democrats that we must fight for Obama, that he is the only thing standing between us and utter ruin.

This is the second stage of the parliamentary disease: If politicians are all-powerful, holding the salvation or damnation of the country in their hands, then the people must be helpless at their mercy.

Indeed, this is what most of the election coverage would lead us to believe. Pundits and newscasters render the American voter as impulsive, petty and stupid, driven to distraction by the latest gaffe or chain e-mail. If the American people sat down to have a beer with its favorite candidate, the media seems to suggest, it would quickly lose the thread of conversation.

The Occupy movement has shown us otherwise. Countless general assemblies revealed an American public capable of serious debates outside of the logic of our bipolar party system. Instead of squabbling over horse race minutia, occupiers asked fundamental questions about inequality and privilege.

Just as importantly, the occupations demonstrated that political action is possible outside of the voting booth. Through civil disobedience and the re-appropriation of public space, the Occupy movement changed the terms of public conversation without the guidance of elected officials.

And, if this movement expands, it will be capable of even more. As Occupy Oakland’s Boots Riley points out, “politicians are controlled by whoever controls industry. If we want to control the politicians, the people must make a movement in which we control industry through strikes, shut downs and militant unions.”

Certainly, we should vote. Federal elections are an innocuous enough pastime. But we cannot let them distract us from the real work of achieving democracy and social justice.

JORDAN S. CARROLL is a PhD student in English. He can be reached at jscarroll@ucdavis.edu.

It’s that time of the month.

No, not THAT time, you pervert.

Rather, that time of the month we court the “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” topic of sex. I use air quotations because I just overheard a girl yell out, in mathematical terms, an account of a certain late-night dalliance –– “subtract clothes, divide legs, add a bed and pray there’s no multiplying.”

To say that sex is even remotely taboo for Generation Y is like saying that you haven’t fantasized about French maid foreplay or a bar bathroom hookup.

Today, we are reveling in an overt form of carnal freedom that forces one to cough over explicit lyrics in a family car. While chivalry clearly rests in peace, intercourse is enjoying a renaissance the Byzantines couldn’t have kept up with.

But Warren Jeffs, polygamous sect leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), may be taking this whole “free love” movement too far.

It seems that while Jay-Z has “99 problems but a bitch ain’t one,” the opposite is true for Jeffs, with his family of 79 wives and 60 children.

Jeffs’ international debut was marked in May 2006 when he made the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List for avoiding prosecution on charges of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls. After a bureaucratic dance with state courts that lasted from August 2006 to 2011, he was accused of incest, sodomy, rape and child bride marriages. This summer, Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years and a $10,000 fine for sexually assaulting two 12- and 15-year-old girls.

He has recently been in the news for imposing outrageous rules on FLDS members, despite being locked up.

To be clear, this Warren guy sounds like an A-class creep. His lifestyle is his own choice, but raping your nephew since he was 5 and your niece since she was 7 is a tad too edgy for me. At the same time, when I read a USA Today headline, “Cult leader Warren Jeffs acting a lot like Jim Jones,” I promptly equated Jeffs to the American rapper, not, as the author intended, the leader of the 1978 mass suicide of 909 Peoples Temple members.

In a skewed sense, Jeffs did lead a life the media so celebrates –– flocks of women, excessive fertility and devoted fans. I don’t want to get too close to Jeffs, physically or otherwise, but aren’t most of us similarly tending towards polyamory these days?

Our little black books may not have pages full of Fundamentalist Mormon women’s phone numbers, but nevertheless we do rely on the occasional booty call. From hooking up with that dude back home or that chick across the hall, college students are unabashedly providing the powder to blow up a casual relationship culture.

Adam and Eve would be stunned by how far we’ve taken their Garden of Eden shenanigans … down the corridor to the library stacks and upwards to the Mile High Club. Even more so, generations before ours are horrified by this regression away from a single romantic endeavor.

Ever since I can remember, I have denounced monogamy.

Dating, especially at a young(er) age, is a highly depressing concept; you and your partner consciously know that breaking up is a pending task, almost like that item on your checklist you itch to mark off before you’re done.

Facebook stalking, buckets of ice cream and soggy tissues are inevitable matters of time. Yet, despite the facts, we enjoy the momentary high that is having a significant other. The alternate option is, of course, to keep a score sheet with your closest and closet freak friends by tallying up those dirty deeds!

But in all seriousness, maybe both the lovey-dovey and noncommittal types would at least agree upon psychologist Dean Simonton’s reasoning that “quality is a probabilistic function of quantity.”

It isn’t about having a better ratio of hits to misses. Rather, where the mediocre might have a handful or so experiences, the more successful have had numerous.

Whether you’re in a relationship or being a floozy, know that experience provides perspective and is, sometimes, the light necessary to shine a sexier path.

Looking for a few husbands or wives? Contact CHELSEA MEHRA at cmehra@ucdavis.edu to join the growing mailing list.