I've been meaning to write on a few related issues which make the artist rendering above germaine. There are so many places we could begin this discussion,I think the easiest place to start would be with the percieved problem that troubles me.
As I've studied different cultures, political systems, economic philosophies and even the general attitudes and perceptions of the people I encounter, there are things that always strike me.First of all the human NEED to put all concepts into tidy categories which are(seemingly)easy to explain through common language.There seems to be an inate need to group these concepts into groups.You might ask what am I getting at here? Let me give you an example:we are all familiar with being asked on various forms to identify our ethnic background.One of the more curious options on these forms is the term "caucasian". Most are aware that this term is a sweeping generalization of anyone whom could be termed as so-called "white". As anyone with an Indo-European background should know, this term groups diverse people into a very generic category and is extremely disrespectful. People of English descent and people of Greek descent are vastly different ethnically and have diverse physical distinctions as well as immense cultural differences. What I'm getting at with this example is that as people we tend to accept terms which are inaccurate in an attempt to simplify the explanation of our world. The rpoblem is that along the way we are creating a fascade of experience.
Let me explain:Language as we now use it, does not give access to direct experience, it only highlights the complexity of meaning. I'll break that down a bit.Think of a friend whom has just lost his mother to cancer. What you don't know is that your friend had a very bad relationship with his mother and felt a real detachment towards her, so much so that her death had little effect on him.Not knowing this you hear the news and go to console him.You tell him that "you know how he feels" after all your mother had just passed on a few months ago. In this situation in an attempt to releive the perceived pain of your friend you have wrongly assumed that your feelings MUST be similar to his.But you in fact are dead wrong because you are confusing his concept of motherly experience to his.
I acknowledge to even deal with people on an everyday basis that one must submit to some degree to this vague notion of understanding one another but this brings me to the instrumental problem of which politics, religion and many of the other systems of belief nurture and thrive.
The lose of subjective thinking or blind devotion to dogma.This takes many forms and it has been around since the dawn of man.If you are a member to any church you partake to a certain degree in this, if you claim allegiance to any political party or candidate you fall into this category as well.Hell if you are a diehard fan of any sports franchise you also fall into this mess.
As we attach ourselves to these systems of meaning we in effect become slaves to them.You will find yourself defending positions that you normally wouldn't defend,giving benefit of the doubt to people for actions that you may chastise in others.In fact you become less of a person and more of a robot.Think about election time, more than likely you can remember a point in time when you started "bakcing" a candidate, at least in your own mind, if not outwardly.
When you make that connection to a candidate you are in many ways putting yourself on the line as well, you are saying this person represents me better than the other candidates.If that was all then the problem wouldn't be so bad, but what usually occurs is that the mindset becomes "This person I like best of all candidates and if anyone disagrees I will show them why they are wrong, and why the person they like is worse".
In this way we aren't being rational beings but trying to engage in semantic pissing contests with little to no original or critical thought.For example I always think my favorite football team has a good chance of winning the game even though the situation may logically dictate that they are likely to lose.Because I WANT them to win.So I look to play up the positives and play down the negatives...making sense yet?
Bringing me closer to the meat of my idea we shall look at our last two Presidents. George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama. Both men have had huge followings based on promises and dogma.Both were able to use this to their advantage to reach the oval office.Both seem to have huge flaws to their leadership abilities and decision-making prowess.Both are logically not qualified to have the responsibilities of which they were elected, why then were they elected?
Let me start with Bush, he competed in the Republican primary without an incumbant but took on a wide open field(very much like Obama did)he was able to create a message which people quickly began attaching themselves to it was called "compassionate conservatism". "As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."(1)
In this way Bush was able to take a popular message:Low taxes, Strong military, less government intervention, into a system which could be accepted by people with little knowledge of the specific goals of the administration. The country wasn't sure what it wanted and Bush was able to win a slim electoral majority,in his reelection he was actually able to solidfy his message and won by a convincing majority over his opponent John Kerry whom people seemed to identify with less than Bush.
In the case of Obama we see probably the most watered down platform of any major candidate in US history.Never before has a candidate been able to play on the fears and desires of a people than Obama.His stragety was perfect and he had friends in high places of the media.All he had to say was "HOPE" and "CHANGE" that was enough to get the masses together under an umbrella of worship.
I went to see Obama speak at UNR during the election season and it gave me stomach-retching goosebumps to see the way the people hung on his every word,the only thing I can compare it to was the atmosphere of a Hitler youth rally where the demagogue was creating emotion which his words were not logically portraying.
I'm an independant politically, I went because its important for me to see many angles of a problem but I was shcoked and chilled by the mindlessness of this speech.To be fair I went to the Sarah Palin rally and there were plenty of diehards there as well but nothing can compare to the absolute lunacy that I say at the Obama rally.
Back to the picture which began this discussion.What do you see in it? Can you see what I'm talking about? Can you see the utter stupidity involved in backing a person with that sort of zeal? The reason I used Bush and Obama is because they make great complimentary examples.They show the lunacy of both sides of the coin.The few of us in the middle that want intelligent and responsive politics must deal with people constantly defending the mistakes of these two horrible politicians, and at the same time doing the most destructive and terrible thing of all...losing their unique subjectivity and giving away their free thought so that they may pick up a banner and cover their eyes with it...
