I am, by undergraduate degree, a scientist; a social scientist, in fact. I deal with data different from that of physicists, chemists, medical scientists, etc.; nevertheless, I use the same scientific method as they. I also have two postgraduate degrees, so I know something about research. And I have a smattering of training in statistics, so I know how to test the data I discover through research. I also know how to check out the conclusions drawn by others, and can usually recognize a red herring.
The
upshot is that I’ve learned that I don’t really know much of anything
absolutely. I gather a preponderance of evidence that creates a level of confidence
in what I think I know. Bottom line: everything I do or say is based upon faith:
trusting the process, whether I’m researching human behavior or a passage from
the Bible.
In
recent years I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the proliferation of belligerent
partisanism in our culture, especially as demonstrated in the level of
animosity on social media—what amounts to a pooling of ignorance and a glut of
misinformed (or outright Uninformed) opinion and counter opinion (Hey, somebody’s
gotta’ be wrong!)
I’ve
tried to determine when, where, and how the hostilities began, hoping to find clues
to how to bring some sanity to 21st century humanity. I’ve reviewed what
I think I know, and I’ve done research (not nearly enough to justify another
doctoral thesis), and I conclude it’s not a new reality. Man’s inhumanity to
man[1]
is as old as, well, humanity.
Partisan
animosity enveloped the Continental Congress during the composition of the
Declaration of Independence and on into the early years of the nascent United
States. One need only recall numerous duels: Aaron Burr vs. Alexander Hamilton,
Andrew Jackson vs. Charles Dickinson. Even some women got in on the action.
Some
blame social media. I find no convincing evidence of that; although, some data
suggests that social media has brought to light what already existed below the
surface of social awareness. Social media basically is a dip-stick that measures
the mood and attitude of our rampant partisanism.
I
do, however, locate a significant “flash point” in America’s political mood
swing toward angry intolerance. 1968 was a year not easily forgotten by those
who lived through it and were politically aware. Riots triggered by Vietnam
protests erupted in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. All this and the Vietnam
conflict itself were brought into our living rooms via television. Public
awareness was raised to unprecedented levels, and essentially never receded,
although it remains tribally opinionated.
But
the event that effectively drew the line in the sand happened four years later
in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters in a Washington,
DC office complex called Watergate. Implicated in the break-in and subsequent
cover-up attempts, President Richard Nixon resigned, and the GOP has been out
for revenge ever since. “Worse than Watergate” became a go-to claim every time a
political opponent was caught with his hand in the cookie jar:
·
Chappaquiddick
(“Bridgegate”) (Democrat): “Worse than Watergate”
·
Rigged
Public Opinion Polls (Republican): “Worse than Watergate”
·
The
Keating Five (4 Democrats and 1 Republican: “Worse than Watergate”
·
Iran-Contra
(Republican): “Worse than Watergate”
·
Whitewater
(Democrat): “Worse than Watergate”
·
Bush’s
Iraq Coverup (Republican): “Worse than Watergate”
I
could go on. And on. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. The die was cast at
Watergate, and American politics—and the public’s perception of politics—descended
into hell.
Revenge
and counter-revenge so consume the major parties that constructive legislation
is a pipe dream. The overwhelming appearance is that destroying a member of the
“other” party, or blocking every legislative effort of the opposition takes
precedent over the good of the country.
Truth
no longer is based on evidence or documentation, but rather on party
affiliation. We just don’t care if our
guy or gal is guilty!
Ideology
takes precedent over humanity, and any level of compromise is seen as a total
surrender of values. (Values? There’s an oxymoron for ya’!)
I
have a few Libertarian friends (and I cherish their friendship), and I don’t
agree with them that “government” is de facto evil and bad. Government
is a tool: no better or worse than those who wield it. But I find it very
difficult to deny that the current state of our government totters on the brink
of practicable counterproductivity. At best, it is distracted and ineffectual.
Those few idealistic souls who enter the Senate or the House with hopes of
making the world a better place soon are devoured by the corrupting influence
of politics. In its present state there is little hope of constructive,
positive, helpful legislation.
Rather
than being a tool to actualize “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” the government
has become an end in itself.
But
see, here’s the thing: we the people are caught up in the same vortex of self-destruction.
The evidence I’ve collected suggests that instead of being a tool to produce
the ideals of democracy, the government has become just like social media: a
dip-stick to measure American culture. And what it measures is the residue of the
“Me” generation.
Will
Rogers said there are people in congress who shouldn’t be allowed to play with
matches. Well, who put them there? Congress has become a mirror. Do you dare
look into it?
That’s
the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
[1] Quoted from Robert Burns’ poem, “Man
Was Made To Mourn: A Dirge”, 1784. Burns’ statement may have been a paraphrase
of an earlier source, viz., "More
inhumanity (to man) has been done by man himself than any other of nature's
causes." Samuel von Pufendorf, 1673.
No comments:
Post a Comment