The article below was written as a special article seeing that I am on a blog break until next week. But I did want to write about the election in a timely fashion.
Having recognized that January 6 Insurrection has only begun on that date, each election year in the present and near future will only be a major source of anxiety for me and for some others I have corresponded with. I am afraid that what some used a riot to accomplish will now use elections and laws to finish. What began and could come to fruition is a Trump conservative coup of the government.
Such would not bother George Carlin if he was still alive today. Why? It is because he viewed the politicians who are elected as a reflection of the voters. After all, those politicians were born and bred in America and were educated in American schools, universities, and churches. And they worked in American businesses and were elected by American voters. But most of all, Carlin said the following about the kind of character we could expect of elected politicians (click here for the source):
'This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck.'
And perhaps it is the possibility that our politicians reflect who we are as Americans that is the most ominous sign that we can get from the election if Carlin is at least partially right.
The two characteristics that we should be able to see in ourselves as Americans if this year's Midterms and the 2024 general election go south are our selfishness and ignorance. Selfishness and ignorance should not be too hard to point out when looking at the political advertisements we see on TV. Advertisements for each major political party calls candidates from the other political party 'extremists' and 'radicals.' And without even asking the question of being radical or extremist compared to what. These commercials have already firmly implanted in the minds of many viewers and readers that those who are radical or extreme must be a threat and thus opposed without considering any evidence.
Our preferences indicate how observant Carlin was in calling American voters selfish and ignorant. Those preferences can be partially but significantly indicated by 3 comparisons in what we choose. The comparisons are our preference for either reality or simplicity, sharing or being selfish, and looking to collaborate or seeking to control.
Reality or Simplicity
The above choice involves how we see the world and what is happening around us. Of course, when candidates rely on pejorative labels like 'extremist' or 'radical,' then it is easy to see how such ads play to those who prefer to see what is wrong in those who have different views. This is especially true in those who are authoritarian followers. That is because such people are driven by fear and thus respond to fear-mongering.
What the pejorative and laudatory use of labels do is to give simplistic, all-or-nothing descriptions people. The recipients of those labels are portrayed as being all good or all bad. The truth is that most, if not all, of us are mixed bags. We do some good and we do some bad. Just like our favorite professional athletes, sometimes our political approaches or politicians succeed and sometimes they fail. Some times our politicians act honorably and sometimes they don't. And the same applies to each of us. Thus laudatory and pejorative labels show a preference for simplicity than reality.
In addition, many prefer to have a simplistic view of our issues. Take inflation for example. While some want to scapegoat the spending policies of President Biden for the inflation we are experiencing. The problem with blaming inflation solely on President Biden is that inflation is a global problem. And our inflation rate is similar to that of being experienced by other western nations.
In actuality, inflation has a been caused by a number of factors set off by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Has Biden's spending contributed to inflation? Possibly. After all it did introduce additional money into the market. And certainly Covid financial aid could have could have been given out with more discrimination. But where would many people who lost their jobs during the pandemic or who are from the lower economic classes be without government aid?
A very similar approach taken to inflation is being taken to crime by some. The reality is that crime rates are determined by several factors. And some kinds of crimes are caused by factors some of which are different from other crimes. Thus, the tough guy "law and order" approach of mass incarceration, though relieving the immediate fears of those who enjoy economic privilege, does not adequately address society's problem with crime. But again, those who prefer simplicity to reality are prone to scapegoating someone or some group for our current crime rates.
Likewise, the abortion issue is where we see the preference for simplicity over reality. Those who believe that abortion is only about women's rights or solely about the rights of the unborn show a preference for simplicity over reality.
Another issue that is often dealt with in simplistic terms is racism. Many want see racism solely as an individual's personal problem. Many of those same people believe that racism was adequately dealt with with the Civil Rights reforms of the 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr did not take that approach. In 1967, he called the earlier era of his work a 'struggle for decency' while his then latter work focused on gaining real equality (click here for the source).
In addition, some candidates are being grossly misrepresented in commercials that take comments and positions grossly out of context and do not show what these candidates are really advocating. The misrepresentation is deliberate and it takes an informed person to determine where the misrepresentations are taking place.
Sharing or Being Selfish
One might notice that most of the political ads appeal to the immediate needs of individuals without regard to greater needs. Taxes is such an issue. Those who promise to indiscriminately cut taxes are also advocating at least one of the following: increasing the deficit and/or the cutting of government programs especially those needed by the vulnerable.
Likewise, appeal to gun rights is almost solely about some projected taking away of one's guns. What is missing is how the current penchant for legalizing the carrying of handguns without permits can easily increase in gun violence and violent crime. In fact, in one attack ad that attempts to associate the current rise in crime on the Democrats, it shows gang members shooting at people in public. But doesn't allowing the carrying of hand guns without permits potentially add to that kind of crime.
But we also need to include here that access to elective abortions appeals to the individual without regard to how it affects others. For not only are lives of unborn children taken with the legalization of elective abortion, a certain ethic of dehumanizing human life for the benefit of one group is promoted.
But we also have to note there are times when abortion is not an elective procedure. On this matter, we need to let input from the medical community to determine when election is being done to protect the life of the mother. In addition, we need to recognize that if we are going to require that women who became pregnant from rape or incest to carry the unborn to birth, then the government must also provide the necessary help and resources for those women who are required to give birth to children conceived in such horrific circumstances.
Another area in which there is a choice between sharing and being selfish is in the area of environmental regulations. Do such regulations cost people jobs? That is possibly the case. However, the long-term and even short-term costs of allowing polluting the environment or contributing to climate change on the general public both here and around the world are far more weightier than the loss of some jobs--some of which is due to the mantra that corporations must maximize the ROI for investors.
Looking to Collaborate or Seeking Control
Polarization has led to certain group to seek exclusive control of the government. The current polarization is, in large part, the result of the decades of demonization of non-conservative politicians and political ideologies by right-wing media stars such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. And of those three, the person who has most effectively pushed the demonization of non-conservatives is Rush Limbaugh.
With the demonization of non-conservatives came certain traits that are inherent in authoritarian personalities. One of the most prominent traits is the employment of a black-white worldview. In addition, showing hostility and aggression toward those who do not hold to traditional beliefs or practices is also a part of authoritarian personalities.
But along with the promotion of those traits comes the arrogant assumption by Leftists, Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians is that their own ideologies were omniscient in that they have nothing to learn from the other ideological positions. And so the emerging belief that one's group's ideology had everything to teach the other groups and nothing to learn from them has led to the demonization of others and the current seeking of exclusive control over the government--that statement borrows from a phrase used by Martin Luther King Jr.
We should say something about arrogance; it is most often based on ignorance. The belief that any human's ideology is sufficient enough to adequately address all of our problems is one that revolves around the worship of one's own group and/or pet theories. Humans are not capable of omniscience and that is true regardless of the existence of God.
But there is another issue involved in this choice between looking to collaborate or seeking control. That is issue is democracy. Inherent in a democracy is a certain egalitarianism. Inherent in democracy is a self-restraint that prohibits one from seeking their own interests at the expense of denying equality for other people. Denying equality for other people, even when it is the will of the majority was called oppression by Thomas Jefferson.
The belief that we can reduce democracy to that of majority rule comes from the Free Market's influence on our society. For with the Free Market comes notions of competition leading to conquest. If Democracy had a significant influence on the Free Market we would see less income and wealth disparity because there would be a desire to have a more, but not complete, equitable distribution of wealth.
This combination of the promotion of authoritarian traits, the arrogant assumption of the omniscience in one's own ideologies or even leaders, and the ignorance of what what democracy is about has led to the preference of many to want exclusive control of the government for their leaders rather than to choose those who are looking to collaborate because one understands that one's own theories and ideologies are, though useful, limited and thus inadequate by themselves to address people's need especially in an ever growing interdependent national and global economies
Elections
So when it comes to the Midterms, we will see what grades that not only our politicians receive, but what we the people deserve. Will we choose leaders who favor simplicity, appeal to our selfishness, and look to gain exclusive control over our governments? Or will we elect leaders who embrace reality with its complexities, the sharing of wealth, and the sharing of power which is inherent in seeking to collaborate? The problem here is that with some of our choices, there are no candidates who adequately accept reality, who appeal to our morals and desire to share, and who want pluralism in our government. In that case, we will have to choose the lesser of available evils.
No comments:
Post a Comment