Infinite Appetite for Distractions
In the grand political spectrum, we have the Democrat party (Liberals) at the left and the Republican party (Conservatives) at the right. In between, and at the extremes, we have parties like the Socialist party, the Constitutional party, the Libertarian party, and even a few fantastical parties like the Ninja party and the Pirate party.
On the one hand, to the far left, we see the political agenda shift to a larger governmental control. More taxes, gun control, governmental health care, and maybe (depending on whom you believe) a loss of democracy. In short, Tyranny. That foul, foul demon that has become the descriptor for many a despicable government. The Conservatives like to throw that word at the Liberals. And they do it Liberally. (sorry. bad pun.)
On the other hand, to the far right, we begin to see a truly libertarian view. And, to the extreme right, anarchy. The arch-nemesis of tyranny. (Queue ominous music.) At this most extreme, the belief is that there shouldn’t be any government at all. Do what you want, when you want. No laws. The argument is that the people would become self governing and there would be no need for government.
Of course, each has it’s own failures. On the left, we know from historical facts that a truly tyrannical rule almost always ends in some sort of revolution. There can be no true tyranny, simply because there is always another tyrant that wants to rule. On the right, we know from simple behavioral study that pure anarchy cannot work. It is human nature for some to want to rule. So, even in a anarchical society, we begin to see tyrants on local levels and eventually we slide back to the other side of the spectrum.
So, based on that, where should we be? What should our political and societal beliefs be? How far right or left should our principles stand? In truth, I must admit that I have a leaning towards the beliefs and principles of the Libertarian party. One confusion that should be dispelled is that the Libertarian party is the same as a libertarian belief. Not so.
To me, there is no possibility of the ideals of either side of the spectrum. We, as Americans and as humans, deserve certain freedoms. At the same time, there are those whom cannot (or will not) rule and defend themselves and thus need some sort of governmental intervention. These are not mutually-exclusive. A balance must be struck such that the greatest amount of both are achieved.
The best example that readily comes to mind would be the eternal teeter-totter of the right to bear arms. Again, there are extremes. At the Liberal extreme, all guns should be banned and only the law enforcement (police and military) should have them. At the other side of the spectrum, it’s a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”, and as such, there should be no regulation whatsoever. Somewhere in the middle are those who believe that there are certain firearms that simply have no place in a civilized society. Where do we balance the issue? There is some truth to the argument that if we ban guns, only the law and criminals will own them. The counter-argument is that, if only the law and criminals have guns, the regular citizens will not have any way to defend themselves. The only possible result is higher taxes and bigger government to compensate for the needed extra law enforcement that would still be insufficient. On the other hand, if we refrain banning fire arms, the majority of the citizenry will be able to (at least moderately) defend themselves. To me, this is the more efficient and logical answer. It requires less regulation, and thus, less governmental cost. That translates into steady (or ideally, reduced) taxes. Accidental gun deaths may rise. However, I would argue that, at the other extreme, intentional gun deaths would most certainly rise.
One of the deepest cracks in the foundation of this country is the lethargic attitude of the people towards the leadership of the country. The smoothest talker of the moment gets a one way ticket to Washington and begins to make laws. Why are we lethargic? Some say we just don’t care. I don’t think that is it. Some say it’s a lack of education on the issues. Also, not it. With the Internet at the fingertips of so many, I don’t think an argument can be made for the people not being able to become educated on the issues.
Aldous Huxley (Brave New World Author), in his essay “Brave New World Revisited” (1958) noted that early free-press and universal literacy advocates “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” And even in 1958, he went on to note that
In the past most people never got a chance of fully satisfying this appetite. They might long for distractions, but the distractions were not provided. Christmas came but once a year, feasts were “solemn and rare,” there were few readers and very little to read, and the nearest approach to a neighborhood movie theater was the parish church, where the performances, though frequent, were somewhat monotonous. For conditions even remotely comparable to those now prevailing we must return to imperial Rome, where the populace was kept in good humor by frequent, gratuitous doses of many kinds of entertainment — from poetical dramas to gladiatorial fights, from recitations of Virgil to all-out boxing, from concerts to military reviews and public executions. But even in Rome there was nothing like the non-stop distraction now provided by newspapers and magazines, by radio, television and the cinema. In Brave New World non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature (the feelies, orgy-porgy, centrifugal bumble-puppy) are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation. The other world of religion is different from the other world of entertainment; but they resemble one another in being most decidedly “not of this world.” Both are distractions and, if lived in too continuously, both can become, in Marx’s phrase, “the opium of the people” and so a threat to freedom. Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in the calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it.
Fast forward 50 years and you get an even more extreme example. The internet, with it’s flashy websites and billions of blogs of information, is front and center. With the plethora of entertainment and information on the “web”, who can argue that there isn’t an abundance of distractions. And the end result? Lethargy towards that which does not interest us. If you have no interest in politics as a whole, there are innumerable avenues of distraction to make sure that you never have to pay any attention to it. And a majority of the people have done exactly that. They pay attention only when the result is something that directly affects them. Senior citizens pay attention dearly when the subject of Social Security comes up. Or Medicare and Medicaid. The youth of the country perk up when the subjects of job security and minimum wage come up. And the middle aged (career workers) pay most attention when the subject of taxes come up.
I cannot, and will not, make an argument for regulation or elimination of the internet. I am by trade a purveyor of the internet. I lend to the information and distraction. And in all honesty, I do not see a clear solution to the issue. Any one who actively attempts to eliminate the internet (or distractions in general) will likely be burned at the virtual stake. But, in some way, we must pull the public away from their distraction long enough to at least reset the path of the country. I say that because I believe that the direction we are headed (towards the tyrannical end of the spectrum) is not the direction we should go. There are those who would (will) tell me that I’m completely wrong and that the direction we are heading is the right one. Again, I would argue that they are wrong. The closer we get to tyrannical rule (we are still, arguably, a far piece from that), the closer we get to revolutionary usurpation.
The answer lies (at least partially) in a fiscal conservatism. Less taxes (not no taxes), less government (not no government), and overall less spending. It lies also in a social moderateness. There is a place for social programs like welfare and medicare and medicaid. However, the contribution to these from the government should be minimal, while the majority of the funding should come from the private charity sector. Arguments of a lack of private charity become unfounded when people begin to find themselves with more money due to a drop in taxes.
Again, I don’t see a clear solution. What I have just laid out is an ideal. And as long as we continue to fight amongst the parties rather than operate on a non-party platform, we will continue to boomerang back and forth between one side and the other. All the while, causing damage to our way of life. We need to eliminate the party affiliation. We need to stop pushing the uneducated (on the issues) and distracted to vote. All it does is muddy the water of the system and dilute the votes of those that take the time to educate themselves on the issues and come to a conclusion on whom to vote for. (Stop the yelling about voter exclusion. If they educate themselves on the issues, there is no reason that they shouldn’t vote.)
I think we’re seeing the beginning of a movement towards those ends with the tea parties and increase in activity at townhall events. My hope is that it can do enough to avert a sharp veer towards tyranny and towards a violent resolution.