“People are clustered into paranoia peer groups because then they can be more easily and predictably swayed.”
— Jaron Lanier
Pondering the first of the 2020 Presidential Debates.
And it was a shit show.
I have zero desire to dig into what was said — or more accurately, what was shouted over — during that debate, but instead I want to dig into how that conversation played out and how it’s a prime example of everything that’s fucking wrong with our culture today.
What we witnessed was a theatrical display of how it’s virtually impossible for Right and Left to engage in civil discourse. Granted, the point of these debates isn’t for the two candidates or parties to align on issues or reach compromise. The point is to inform us, the voting public, what their position is on key issues.
We didn’t get that. We got a lot of speaking at each other, not to each other. Frankly, what we got was even worse than that.
When we look at this debate for what it is, our utmost example for political discourse today, we have to acknowledge it as problematic. And if you don’t see it that way, you’re part of the problem. You may want to visit one of those sit-here-on-the-couch-and-tell-me-about-yourself kind of doctors. Pronto.
If the two men competing for leadership of this nation can’t practice civil discourse, how on earth do we expect different from members of our community; from ourselves?
I have a theory. Now I know folks can get a little tinfoil hat-y with their theories, but my theory is simply that we’ve allowed for the “Fear of Otherness” to settle into the bones of our culture so that every which way we turn, we willingly opt ourselves into smaller and smaller factions, further separating ourselves from each other.
We choose teams.
And teams divide us.
While I’m not talking sports here, sports fandom can do well to lend some depressing examples of just how dangerous team alignment can be. I mean, have you ever been to a tailgate at an SEC/ACC football game? And, soccer hooligans? Those were (perhaps still are) a thing.
Story time: I’m a Boston Red Sox fan. And, I lived in Manhattan for a handful of years. You see where this is going. I once rode the D train home from The Bronx after a Yankees/Red Sox game. I was razzed and ridiculed for one hundred and twenty seven city blocks. It was all in good fun. In fact, I was invited out for drinks with the group that was the loudest of the bunch. No big deal.
However, another night, standing outside the Barrow Street Ale House, a guy had to be restrained by his friends because he wanted to beat the living shit out of me…because I had on a Red Sox cap.
So again, not talking sports here, but the analogy works well in comparison with our social and cultural associations. Many of these “teams” we’ve become a part of are not by our design. They were simply assigned to us. We don’t choose where we’re born or the color of our skin, for example. But many social associations we do choose, or at least participate in the choosing. Our religion or lack thereof, our friends, our sports teams, and our political party or leanings, for example.
Mindful people operate within these associations with some level of empathy, understanding, and acceptance of those outside of their group. We certainly may proffer playful jabs when our sports teams compete, but it’s in good fun. Mindful people listen to and engage with opposing ideas — after all, it is said that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” But mindfulness of opposition and, more so, acceptance of opposition are seemingly rare qualities.
We are seemingly constantly programmed to hate the Other.
In his book, Shop Class as Soulcraft, which I highly recommend, Matthew B. Crawford admonishes the common trend among “thought workers“ — or office-type workers — to create and promote teams and teamwork. Again, he lands on the notion that teams are innately in opposition to one another. Instead of teams, what Crawford suggests is the concept of crews. If we look at the construction of a new building, which is easy for me as my town is under constant construction, you’ll see many unique crews, landscaping, electrical, structural, flooring, roofing, etc. working together toward the end product of a functioning office or apartment building. And, within those crews, you’ll find even more factions of sub-crews.
Crews may not always agree, and they may actually even dislike one another, but the work drives forward to an agreed upon outcome.
Unlike teams.
I don’t see a lot of unfinished buildings, but I’ve been a part of, or privy to, plenty of unfinished team projects.
A bigger issue when it comes to matters of political discourse, and perhaps why we are so team-minded to begin with, is that we’ve allowed far too much personal liberty to be politicized. Our bodies, our races, our sexualities, our creeds, and other personal alignments have no place under scrutiny from anyone other than ourselves, let alone a governing body. Having allowed for these types of issues to become politicized, to separate us, has essentially shutdown any hope for resolute political discourse.
Actual political matters can, and should, be debated, and I firmly believe middle ground can be found. How tax dollars are collected and used. How we care for our planet. How we maintain and provide clean water to our people. How we feed and shelter our vets and our homeless. How we educate our children. How we provide and pay for higher education. How we maintain peace and protect ourselves. How we afford and obtain medical care. HOW WE CAN GET AWAY FROM BEING RUN INTO THE GROUND BY MONEY-HUNGRY CAPITALIST OVERLORDS…I digress
These are all political topics that, while we may not all agree upon the whats and hows, what we can likely all agree upon is that they need solutions.
To solve these problems would require our being on the same team — or at least working together as a crew. Instead, we’ve chosen — consciously or circumstantially — to be divided. Instead of Us, the people, (you know from that often cited document, The Constitution), versus Them, those who’ve corrupted our government through, and via, financial gain, and so what we’ve allowed for is entropic interpersonal in-fighting.
We are simply spinning our wheels, screaming ourselves red in the face at one another.
Meanwhile, the real enemies of the state — our mutual enemies — are out there buying themselves another yacht and masterminding sex trafficking multi-level marketing schemes (…an Epstein jab), or, more commonly, raping our land and people via dog-eared legislation, stripping both of everything valuable and leaving us fighting among ourselves (and footing the bill) in the wake of it all.
It’s OK to disagree. It’s OK to feel strongly about a thing. It’s OK to strongly oppose another thing. But it’s also OK to chill the fuck out and listen to someone who feels a different way. It’s OK not to react to that opposition with vitriol and violence.
We are robbing ourselves of the experience and insight of Others by being so fucking belligerent in our stances that we can’t shut the fuck up and listen to anyone who thinks differently.
This behavior is poisonous. We should all be mindful of this. And then we should all join together and stomp a massive fucking mud-hole in the asses of these white collar criminal fucks who’ve stolen our land and government from us.
Or, something like that.
“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation.”
— Malcolm X
