V. On the Degradation of Discourse in American Politics, with Brief Remarks on the Current State of Affairs in Our Nation.
Originally Posted to Facebook.
Some have so confounded truth with politics, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas, they are not only different, but at odds with one another. Truth is reality, used to POSITIVELY promote our collective knowledge, politics NEGATIVELY segregate us by suggesting or questioning conclusions based on our understanding of the truth. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a uniter, the last a divider.
[On this 235 anniversary of the publication of Common Sense, join my Facebook Page and help restore Common Sense in America]
Truth, in every state is a blessing, but politics, even at its best state is reason and common sense; in its worst state an intolerable outlet for lies; for when lies are disseminated by those in a position of importance, which we might expect in an uncivilized society, our adversity is heightened by needing to debate these fallacious lies.
Politics, like a drug, is a badge of lost innocence; success has often been built upon the exacerbation of strife amongst the people. For were the impulses of all politician's conscience clear, uniform, and indisputably truthful, we would need no elections for office; but that not being the case, we finds it necessary to have campaigns, surrendering up a part of simple common sense to furnish the environment for debate and discussion of issues; and this we are induced to follow in prudence to decide out of two politicians, which will be our representative in government. WHEREFORE, the defense of security, freedom, and the pursuit of a better tomorrow being the true design and ends of politics, it unanswerably follows, that whichever politician appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of politics, let us suppose that an individual in a small community has an idea to improve the lives of the neighbors. He goes to the members of the community, asks for their approval for a plan, and assuming the community is in support of the idea, the individual moves ahead. Perhaps the idea begins well, but down the road, another member of the community has suggestions to improve the idea. If the first individual is fixated on his proposal and is not open to suggestions from this new individual, the second individual will go to the members of the community and ask for their approval for his new plan. If he receives approval, then the community will let the second individual move forward with the revised plan, while the first individual is asked to step aside. This peaceful transference of power by the wishes of the people is the foundation of our form of government.
Now let us suppose the first individual becomes upset that now the second individuals is in charge - after all, it was the first individuals plan that was revised. If the first individual could not offer a way to improve or change the second individuals revised plan and offer a better alternative to the community, he might use backhanded means to subvert the success of the second. This can come in forms of working against the interests of the community by sabotaging the second individuals plan, spreading lies about the second individual, or offering favors to friends for the support of a man, not an idea. The first individual might look for allies to achieve his ends, or in the search of money, offer favors to those who offer financial assistance. All of these means are destructive to the pure motivation of political action, working for the betterment of society, yet they have become commonplace in our political culture. When truth and lies are debated as if either can be correct, propaganda can be easily used to manipulate a confused society.
What motivates a politicians or organization to engage in these destructive tactics of politicking revolves around unnatural beliefs or out-of-control business motivations, based not on a search for increasing productivity, ingenuity, public good, or to satisfy a public need, but to pander to those believers in the mythological or to increase profit for profit sake. Profit can be good; religion can be bring comfort and direction. The challenge is that both need a strong helping of common sense to bring those focused on that thinking back to the reality that the rest of the world lives in. One has no right to impose their extremist goals on the rest of society, even if they have the power to do so.
Many in the extremes of a religious society and those most engulfed in profiting from multi-billion dollar businesses will do a great deal of extremist actions to achieve their ends - more worshipers and more profits. Simple reason plays little or no role when these decisions are made. If we accept that some religious leaders and certain businesses treat the public as a child would ideally treat a parent, why not describe them as children; though they might be members of society, profiting and begin active, they represent nothing more than children getting their way. When violent, fearful and hateful rhetoric rises, the public becomes inflamed. The consequences are clear. We know if we light a match, it will burn. This is why we don't give matches to children.
Simple answers are not available today as they were 235 years ago — abolishment of corporations or restrictions on religion will serve no goals other than an escalation of our societal problems. What we need more than anything is a pursuit of a better direction, where dangerous speech is called what it is, where lies are called lies and not debated, where truth is accepted, and where differences of opinion can be discussed amongst civilized people looking to find the best answer to the problems. We need not only discuss the easy issues, but the hard ones. We can no longer sweep disturbing realities away in the hopes it will go away; we have great societal dilemmas in America that need to be address with reason, common sense and a spirit of rebellion - not violent rebellion, but rebellion against some accepted problems in society. We need to start addressing what is really important in society in a pursuit of humanity and love.
Perhaps the sentiments expressed above are not yet sufficiently fashionable in some forums as to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, raising at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom, but tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.