SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!
I don't believe that Rick Larsen eats babies!
I don't believe Patty Murray is a Nazi!
I don't believe Dino Rossi killed a man just to watch him die!
I don't believe Susan DelBene is a Romulan spy!
I don't believe Dave Reichert bathes in the blood of his enemies!
I JUST WANT TO WATCH THE EFFING NEWS BEFORE WORK! I HATE YOU ALL!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Us v. Them, over and over again
It never even occurs to me to actually write in my blog. I'm not sure why, really, since I muse on things constantly - it's just that if I'm not actually talking to another person, I don't feel overly compelled to express them. Plus I have the feeling that my own standards of clarity and cohesion would make the process more of a trial than a pleasure, and take far more time than I'm likely to want to devote to the process. I suppose that the next time I'm thinking about something, I'll try to find a handy keyboard and see if I can't bang out something.
This morning I was thinking about the pervasive importance of "same" and "different" when it comes to human psychology. I can understand where it comes from a social evolutionary perspective: as humans became increasingly reliant on intelligence rather than physicality to survive, individuals became far more vulnerable than communities, and the Us vs. Them mentality strongly promotes bonding and cooperation in a group. The thing that I find so fascinating is the ubiquity and power of this tendency throughout our history. It seems like group identity has been one of the primary (or perhaps THE primary) constant when it comes to human interaction on any scale. Be it a sense of identity based on religious principals, geography (from the level of villages to nations), language, race and ethnicity, philosophy, age, sex, or any of a seemingly unending list of attributes and beliefs, people are constantly aware of who is one of Us and who is one of Them.
The correlate of the sense of bonding and belonging between members of the former is the sense of fear and animosity towards the latter. It is the essence of group conflicts of any level; it would be impossible to imagine a war that wasn't based on the idea of "same" and "different" because it is the definition of war that two self-identified groups enter into a conflict based on a shared value, whatever it may be. Perhaps Col. Hunter Gathers expressed it best in The Venture Brothers: "The minute God crapped out the third cave man, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them!"
It seems like the struggle to overcome - or at least to master - this basic principal of our nature is itself a defining aspect of our struggle to be a more mature species. In politics of any level you can hear the constant attempt to both respect and honor the group identities that we admire (e.g., culture, patriotism, faith, community) and to decry and denigrate the group identities that we see as detrimental (e.g., racism, sexism, distaste of the poor). The fundamental inconsistency is that these are all based on exactly the same ideal; "cultural pride" becomes "racism", "patriotism" becomes "jingoism", and "community in faith" becomes "religious intolerance".
None of this is new; as I said, it seems to be a fundamental aspect of our evolutionary history. The positive aspect of this struggle is that it does push us to be more mature as individuals and in our respective groups. It is of course easier for people who have the luxury of a first-world lifestyle to muse on the evils wrought by the "us vs. them" nature of humanity; the more stress a person is under, the more powerful the drive to form protective alliances and groups becomes, and for good reason. I think that's the best argument for the immense respect we should have for groups that have managed to maintain tolerance and compassion even when under incredible stress. The very existence of the Buddhist religion in Tibet is all but miraculous.
This morning I was thinking about the pervasive importance of "same" and "different" when it comes to human psychology. I can understand where it comes from a social evolutionary perspective: as humans became increasingly reliant on intelligence rather than physicality to survive, individuals became far more vulnerable than communities, and the Us vs. Them mentality strongly promotes bonding and cooperation in a group. The thing that I find so fascinating is the ubiquity and power of this tendency throughout our history. It seems like group identity has been one of the primary (or perhaps THE primary) constant when it comes to human interaction on any scale. Be it a sense of identity based on religious principals, geography (from the level of villages to nations), language, race and ethnicity, philosophy, age, sex, or any of a seemingly unending list of attributes and beliefs, people are constantly aware of who is one of Us and who is one of Them.
The correlate of the sense of bonding and belonging between members of the former is the sense of fear and animosity towards the latter. It is the essence of group conflicts of any level; it would be impossible to imagine a war that wasn't based on the idea of "same" and "different" because it is the definition of war that two self-identified groups enter into a conflict based on a shared value, whatever it may be. Perhaps Col. Hunter Gathers expressed it best in The Venture Brothers: "The minute God crapped out the third cave man, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them!"
It seems like the struggle to overcome - or at least to master - this basic principal of our nature is itself a defining aspect of our struggle to be a more mature species. In politics of any level you can hear the constant attempt to both respect and honor the group identities that we admire (e.g., culture, patriotism, faith, community) and to decry and denigrate the group identities that we see as detrimental (e.g., racism, sexism, distaste of the poor). The fundamental inconsistency is that these are all based on exactly the same ideal; "cultural pride" becomes "racism", "patriotism" becomes "jingoism", and "community in faith" becomes "religious intolerance".
None of this is new; as I said, it seems to be a fundamental aspect of our evolutionary history. The positive aspect of this struggle is that it does push us to be more mature as individuals and in our respective groups. It is of course easier for people who have the luxury of a first-world lifestyle to muse on the evils wrought by the "us vs. them" nature of humanity; the more stress a person is under, the more powerful the drive to form protective alliances and groups becomes, and for good reason. I think that's the best argument for the immense respect we should have for groups that have managed to maintain tolerance and compassion even when under incredible stress. The very existence of the Buddhist religion in Tibet is all but miraculous.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I wish I could be a Whig - or - Glenn Beck ruined the word "Conservative"
Life is very hard for us Independents at the moment. "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal!" isn't a very effective rallying cry these days.
Assuming that there are two poles in politics – left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, etc. – I would like to still believe in the existence of a bell-curve in relation to Americans' relative association with either side. Unfortunately, it increasingly seems like what is emerging is more like a valley – people are piling up near each of the extremes, leaving as few individuals in the middle as there are on the bleeding edges.
My hope is that what is actually happening is what has been the case many times before, which is that the people near the extremes tend to be the ones who get the most attention; they scream the loudest, say the most outrageous things, and generally make themselves more of a spectacle then the majority of people. You don't generally tell your spouse about the 10,000 competent drivers you encountered on the way home from work, you tell them about the two jackasses who cut you off. The difficulty is trying to remember not to extrapolate that to "people around here drive like maniacs".
If there's one positive thing that could be said for the political atmosphere of the 80s and early 90s, it's that "Conservative Democrat" and "Liberal Republican" weren't immediately seen as oxymoronic.
Assuming that there are two poles in politics – left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, etc. – I would like to still believe in the existence of a bell-curve in relation to Americans' relative association with either side. Unfortunately, it increasingly seems like what is emerging is more like a valley – people are piling up near each of the extremes, leaving as few individuals in the middle as there are on the bleeding edges.
My hope is that what is actually happening is what has been the case many times before, which is that the people near the extremes tend to be the ones who get the most attention; they scream the loudest, say the most outrageous things, and generally make themselves more of a spectacle then the majority of people. You don't generally tell your spouse about the 10,000 competent drivers you encountered on the way home from work, you tell them about the two jackasses who cut you off. The difficulty is trying to remember not to extrapolate that to "people around here drive like maniacs".
If there's one positive thing that could be said for the political atmosphere of the 80s and early 90s, it's that "Conservative Democrat" and "Liberal Republican" weren't immediately seen as oxymoronic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)