The Nutcase Across The Street
Reflections On American Politics
The Current Conflict
We live in a divided society – or so people keep saying. It is hard to listen to the news these days without somebody claiming that the United States is becoming increasingly polarized. Tales of riots and intimidation abound. ACORN protests AIG (1). Tea Party activists protest congress. Politicians continually demonize each other and their talking points are repeated by their supporters at home, school, the workplace, and the marketplace. The less stable among us fly small planes into IRS offices (2). George W. Bush has often been criticized for saying, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” when speaking of regimes that harbor terrorist groups (3), but it was former presidential candidate Al Gore who claimed the 2000 presidential election was a choice between good and evil when speaking about himself and his fellow citizen George Bush! (4) What are we divided over, and who is behind it? Republicans blame Democrats. Democrats blame Republicans. Independents blame the media. Traditionalists blame waves of immigrants and multiculturalist attitudes. Progressives blame the establishment and prejudicial, exclusionary attitudes. Capitalists blame the centralization of power and decision-making. Socialists blame the unequal distribution of wealth. Fundamentalists blame moral decay and the erosion of the role of religion in society. Some people blame everybody.
Whatever the source, this division is generally perceived to be a growing and worrisome problem. This, in turn, drives a growing pessimism of political affairs that only acts to deepen such strife. I have wondered for some time though, is it really? There is always bound to be some minimum level of strife because of the divisive nature of some of the issues we face today. Is there more than is to be expected or just the necessary amount? How much strife is there, and has it truly increased in recent years? How does one go about measuring strife? Finally, how big of a problem is it? Does it even matter?
To begin by answering the last question first, it does matter. It weakens the bonds of society. When one cannot trust others, we all suffer. Have you ever been friends with someone for years and then discovered that they were “one of them”? Did you wonder about their judgment after that? When political strife increases, political issues and our stands on them become more important. This drives apart friends and families.
To give an example, abortion opponents argue that terminating a pregnancy by aborting a fetus is no different than infanticide. As an opponent of abortion rights, if you truly believe that, how can you trust someone to babysit your kids known to support candidates that oppose protecting the unborn? Not seeing anything wrong with abortion, might they not also see nothing wrong with infanticide?
To give another example, capitalists argue that the government has no business regulating prices. “When a seller is willing to part with his goods for a certain price, and he is able to find a buyer willing to pay that same price, it is no business of the government to interfere with our fundamental freedoms by changing the terms of the deal to favor one or the other,” they say. To them, the minimum wage is akin to stealing. If as a capitalist, you truly believe that, how can you ever trust someone known to support candidates that vote for minimum wage increases? Would you lend them money? Not seeing anything wrong with price controls, might they not also see anything wrong with stealing?
Yes, you can spend time with these people. They might even be fun, but can you ever become close friends with these people? Can you trust them? Can they trust you? Will you ever receive true sympathy from them? Will they ever really understand you? Can you understand them? To understand and be understood are fundamental emotional needs, but personally I find that my concerns are largely misunderstood and ridiculed by those claiming to be my friends.
It was some time ago that I read What Triggers School Shootings? by Michael S. Kimmel and Matthew Mahler for a sociology class. According to the research, kids (and people in general) are more likely to react with violence when they feel that they are not even being listened to, let alone negotiated with, and when they have no other outlet. Just one true friend is usually all it takes to survive high school. Just one person who accepts you is enough to find the strength to ignore others. Reading this immediately reminded me of our current political situation. Our government and elected officials ignore us, doing what they please, and dismissing the legitimate concerns of millions as the ravings of a few fringe lunatics. They don’t listen. Even among opposition groups, the members are usually only united around a very few issues. True, long-term friendships are thus impossible. Given the immense numbers of important issues, this is a continual threat to the stability of these groups.
I keep finding that I don’t fit in anywhere. I am not a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian. I’m just frustrated. Judging also by the reactions I receive from others, and the way they treat each other, I’m not alone. Nobody fits in. We are all mad at each other. It is under just these conditions that violence becomes more likely.
Political strife also has the effect of curbing information flow. To make the best decisions, we need the best information. Sometimes others know something we don’t and we know something they don’t. This is why open discussion and information exchange about politics is so important, but when division and anger sets in, many withdraw from discussion completely and become private about their beliefs. Some become discouraged about the whole political process and drop out. This leaves the rest of us talking only with people we agree with, creating an “echo chamber” of ideas, and stunting our education. This is a very dangerous situation. It allows corrupt politicians to play off our fears and mislead us. It also increases strife, feeding back into the divisions and deepening them.
As people drop out and become ever more cynical, fewer people are left doing the work of self-government. With fewer people keeping tabs on our political elites, the more out of control they will become. Corrupt officials are more likely – I believe – to act badly when they perceive that only few care. Don’t stop caring!
In extreme cases, of course, strife and alienation breeds militia groups that threaten to overthrow a divided government. We aren’t there yet, but we are headed in that general direction. I may not be happy with the current political system, but I would prefer not to initiate its violent overthrow. Revolutions often end badly, causing chaos as rival groups vie for dominance, with the new regime often times being worse than the old one.
Revolutions become much more likely when the elites make up the rules as they go along, live by a different set of rules, or are believed to have the whole system rigged. In today’s current political climate, even the very institutions used to mediate conflict are disputed. States’ rights advocates are quick to point to the tenth amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government to only that which is explicitly stated in the constitution. Legislators pass laws deemed unconstitutional by many. The president wages wars without congressional declaration. Was the September Fourteenth resolution a declaration of war? People disagree. It is no longer even enough to leave the interpretation of the law to the Supreme Court, because the role of the court is itself disputed. “Activist” judges legislate from the bench. Even scientists can give no final verdicts that are not then challenged by scientists of differing political persuasion. Global warming, evolution, nuclear energy, and medical marijuana are only a few of the scientific controversies of the day. Finally, when election results are disputed, widespread rebellion cannot be far behind. When it is perceived that the other side is not even following the rules of deliberative engagement, some will see no other alternative but violence.
Clearly then, there is potential for great problems, but is this situation avoidable – or merely an inevitable consequence of events beyond our control? In the following chapters I hope to explain this in greater detail. For now I will simply say that you already know the answer. Rather than sticking to their own messages, politicians and activists seem to feel a need to misrepresent the messages of others, insult them, and in some cases completely destroy them. This is not necessary. It is a deliberate act that alienates whole sets of voters while misinforming followers, and therefore sets the electorate at odds with itself, unable to have a civil debate on issues alone.
As for my final question as to whether strife is on the increase, I have yet been unable to determine the answer. There seems to be no universally agreed upon way of measuring strife among sociologists. My personal impression has been that there has been an increase, but obviously I experience only a small part of the world like everyone else; it could merely be a statistical fluke. This is especially so in my case, since a large part of my experience is listening to opinion show news analysts who continually claim to see an increase in strife. When it comes down to it, we don’t really know, but it seems likely.
It is in this current climate that various “tolerance movements” spawn. Politicians will decry our deepening divisions and present themselves as “moderates” that can “work with the other party” and “compromise”. If you listen closely, however, they always seem to find someone to blame for causing our current divisions, and they often accuse those merely exposing the ugly truth of being among those driving the division. The issue of divisive politics has itself become a divisive issue!
Take political talk show host Glenn Beck for example. Some would characterize him as one of those driving us apart with his constant criticism of Washington politicians, but those who actually watch his show know one of his primary threads of discussion is how those Washington politicians drive us apart by bringing up minor issues so they can collude together on much bigger things while we are distracted. In other words, he criticizes others for being overly critical. Beck often encourages us to get along better and be more tolerant. He is clearly non-partisan. He doesn’t support any one party. He may pick on Democrats more often, but this is likely because they are still in power, and tend to be slightly worse by his standards anyways. The point is: his standards are constant.
Jonathan Haidt (Department of Psychology, University of Virginia), is a leader of a different sort of tolerance movement. Drawing from his theory of moral foundations, developed with Jesse Graham, he states that our political attitudes derive in part from our moral values, which in turn derive from our genes. Since there are so many conservatives, he argues, these genes must have been selected for because they endowed them with some advantage. For this reason alone, we (speaking to liberals) should at the very least listen to them. Haidt has also launched a pledge at civilpolitics.org to model civility in our lives and value it as a criterion for electing candidates.
Yet another sort of tolerance movement is the so-called “coffee parties.” Starting on Facebook.com, this movement encourages people to meet together over coffee to listen to and try to understand each other. I discovered it as I was writing this book and had already attempted something similar with people I knew. Although some among them would try to make them opposed to the “tea parties,” claiming that those in the tea parties are the ones trying to shout down debate, I believe the two movements are complimentary. The tea parties are about getting Washington to listen to us, while the coffee parties are about us getting to listen to each other. Those in the tea parties recognize that politicians collude to divide us and the more the government controls, the more there is for us to struggle with each other over. Thus, the tea parties are as much about unity and tolerance as they are about lower taxes and smaller government.
This is the time we need true compromise, but not the variety of compromise wherein nobody gets quite what they want. This only breeds contempt and merely “buys time” while perceived injustice continues, putting off conflict for another day. What we need is the sort of lasting compromise wherein everybody gets exactly what they want. To be fair, there may be some issues on which no such compromise is possible, but far too often when such compromises are presented, they are rejected because those in power cannot afford to lose the issues of division they use in their campaign platforms.
I will give two examples. Embryonic stem cell research has great potential for generating all sorts of medical breakthroughs, but getting the stem cells requires destroying the embryos. Some see this as a form of murder. Understandably, they are against supporting such practices – even through taxes. Allowing private companies to conduct this research legally is bad enough, they reason, but the government taking money from the rest of us against our will to support such practices is much worse. Can there be an acceptable compromise? Yes. In 2001, President Bush issued the rule to restrict federal funding to creating new stem cell lines (5). Bush never stopped private sector funding. He never stopped state funding. He never stopped federal funding for research on stem cell lines already created. Since the life-or-death decision has already been made for these embryos, it made no sense to him to restrict research on the stem cell lines, which should have been able to replicate indefinitely. Bush gave both sides exactly what they said they wanted. Conservatives didn’t want more people to be killed in their name with their money. Liberals wanted more research done for health improvement purposes. Everyone should have been happy. What happened?
Democrats could not afford to lose a powerful issue to use against Republicans and would never give Bush any credit for solving anything. They called Bush’s order a “ban on stem cell research”, when it was nothing of the sort. In the meantime, the ridiculous right criticized Bush for not doing more, inventing the questionable argument that funding any sort of stem cell research encouraged killing more embryos. Sometimes, you just can’t win.
President Bill Clinton was caught in a similar trap. Patriotic homosexuals have long wanted to serve their country in the military, but many in the military were understandably concerned that there might develop certain social problems in the military subculture, possibly even damaging combat readiness and morale. President Clinton instituted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Homosexuals could now serve as they had always wanted, but as long as nobody discussed sexuality, nobody would know who was who. Thus, there could be no resultant social problems. Clinton gave each side what they said they wanted. Was he hailed as a hero? Of course not. Homosexual activists insisted on serving openly and the right used this issue to paint Clinton as a far left loon trying to destroy the family.
Also in this current climate, I see conspiracy theories proliferating. These feed on and feed into our fears of and distrust of government. Some distrust is healthy, to prevent opportunists from taking advantage of us, but too much distrust destroys the very foundation of society. Obviously, when my government is up to no good, I want to know about it so the problem can be dealt with, but I need real evidence. Acting without proof may hurt good people who are exactly the ones we want in government keeping an eye out for real conspiracies. Conspiracy theories are not helpful. Stay away from them and ask for solid proof.
I have several problems with every conspiracy theory I have ever heard. First, the evidence for them is usually no stronger than the evidence supporting the official version of events. While there sometimes appear to be holes in the official story, the holes in the conspiracy theory are usually larger. Second, any evidence brought against a conspiracy theory is always claimed to be yet another part of “the coverup” by authorities. When there is no way to disprove a theory even in principle, it ceases to be a theory with any merit. Third, witnesses that support the official version of events are usually dismissed because of some spurious connection to entities involved, giving them a perceived motive to contribute to the coverup. The thing is: those who spread conspiracy theories often also have something to gain. It could be as simple as wanting to make the opposing party look bad, or simply wanting to sell more books – about their conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it could be merely a distraction to hide an even larger conspiracy – or, I might think so if I were prone to such thoughts. Finally, most conspiracy theories leave me feeling powerless. To pull off a coverup of this magnitude, I reason, would take forces so powerful that I cannot even begin to think how one might discover the truth of whether this theory is correct, let alone act on it to carry out justice. Why even tell people then? It only makes them worry when they can do nothing about it.
Some people suggest that every politician is in on the same monster secret conspiracy to control us all. They believe that all politicians lie and that none of them truly believes what they run on. As for me, I am much more likely to see mere stupidity than malice. I recognize that for a politician to get elected, a sizeable number of people must believe his/her lies. It is possible that some of those followers will become the next generation of politicians. If it is possible for followers to believe, it is also possible for leaders to believe, and so it is possible that not all politicians are misleading us deliberately. At least, so I like to think.
Thus, I pay little attention to such ideas, but many of my friends do. This prevents us from having a reasonable discussion about moral/political values, a subject that in many ways defines all of us in how we live our lives. That they cannot give a solid reason why they believe what they do, only serves to make me doubt their sanity. How can I eat with them, ride with them, or go into business with them with those kinds of doubts? Fortunately, their insanity seems to be only partial. Conspiracy theories, then, divide us further. Stay away from them.
Just to be clear about what I mean by conspiracy theories, not everyone labeled a conspiracy theorist deserves the label. Again, I will use Glenn Beck as an example. Beck often looks at connections between people as a clue to what they might have in mind. That SEIU leader Andy Stern has met with Obama regularly (6) and former special advisor for green jobs Van Jones was a self-described communist (7) are matters of historical record. Glenn makes no claims of conspiracy. As he says, he is “just asking questions” that any good reporter would of our elected officials. In fact, Beck makes some of the same warnings about conspiracy theories that I do, and it was Van Jones that himself was a “9-11 truther” (8). Glenn Beck may be high-strung and prone to worry, but he is no conspiracy theorist.
With current conditions as they are, including high unemployment, political turmoil, and conspiracy theories out of control, militias start to look very tempting. Again, watch out! Obviously, our constitution allows citizens to own firearms and to peaceably assemble. The states have the right to form militias for their protection. Just be careful who you’re dealing with when you join. The last thing we need now is more infighting.
Perhaps worst of all is the temptation to give up trying to reach people. Sometimes people need some time to mull things over before agreeing with you. This is even harder if they first have to accept that everything they have ever been told is a lie. You don’t know what people are thinking and you don’t know who is hopelessly lost. Don’t give up. That is how the enemies of democracy win. Democracy is impossible when the people don’t communicate. But remember, while reaching out to others, stop and listen yourself. You may learn something important.
This is the time we need to communicate more, not less. This is the time we need to pull together. This is the time we need to ask all the questions we can to understand all sides of the issues. For lasting solutions, this is the time we need to start understanding each other.
Whatever the source, this division is generally perceived to be a growing and worrisome problem. This, in turn, drives a growing pessimism of political affairs that only acts to deepen such strife. I have wondered for some time though, is it really? There is always bound to be some minimum level of strife because of the divisive nature of some of the issues we face today. Is there more than is to be expected or just the necessary amount? How much strife is there, and has it truly increased in recent years? How does one go about measuring strife? Finally, how big of a problem is it? Does it even matter?
To begin by answering the last question first, it does matter. It weakens the bonds of society. When one cannot trust others, we all suffer. Have you ever been friends with someone for years and then discovered that they were “one of them”? Did you wonder about their judgment after that? When political strife increases, political issues and our stands on them become more important. This drives apart friends and families.
To give an example, abortion opponents argue that terminating a pregnancy by aborting a fetus is no different than infanticide. As an opponent of abortion rights, if you truly believe that, how can you trust someone to babysit your kids known to support candidates that oppose protecting the unborn? Not seeing anything wrong with abortion, might they not also see nothing wrong with infanticide?
To give another example, capitalists argue that the government has no business regulating prices. “When a seller is willing to part with his goods for a certain price, and he is able to find a buyer willing to pay that same price, it is no business of the government to interfere with our fundamental freedoms by changing the terms of the deal to favor one or the other,” they say. To them, the minimum wage is akin to stealing. If as a capitalist, you truly believe that, how can you ever trust someone known to support candidates that vote for minimum wage increases? Would you lend them money? Not seeing anything wrong with price controls, might they not also see anything wrong with stealing?
Yes, you can spend time with these people. They might even be fun, but can you ever become close friends with these people? Can you trust them? Can they trust you? Will you ever receive true sympathy from them? Will they ever really understand you? Can you understand them? To understand and be understood are fundamental emotional needs, but personally I find that my concerns are largely misunderstood and ridiculed by those claiming to be my friends.
It was some time ago that I read What Triggers School Shootings? by Michael S. Kimmel and Matthew Mahler for a sociology class. According to the research, kids (and people in general) are more likely to react with violence when they feel that they are not even being listened to, let alone negotiated with, and when they have no other outlet. Just one true friend is usually all it takes to survive high school. Just one person who accepts you is enough to find the strength to ignore others. Reading this immediately reminded me of our current political situation. Our government and elected officials ignore us, doing what they please, and dismissing the legitimate concerns of millions as the ravings of a few fringe lunatics. They don’t listen. Even among opposition groups, the members are usually only united around a very few issues. True, long-term friendships are thus impossible. Given the immense numbers of important issues, this is a continual threat to the stability of these groups.
I keep finding that I don’t fit in anywhere. I am not a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian. I’m just frustrated. Judging also by the reactions I receive from others, and the way they treat each other, I’m not alone. Nobody fits in. We are all mad at each other. It is under just these conditions that violence becomes more likely.
Political strife also has the effect of curbing information flow. To make the best decisions, we need the best information. Sometimes others know something we don’t and we know something they don’t. This is why open discussion and information exchange about politics is so important, but when division and anger sets in, many withdraw from discussion completely and become private about their beliefs. Some become discouraged about the whole political process and drop out. This leaves the rest of us talking only with people we agree with, creating an “echo chamber” of ideas, and stunting our education. This is a very dangerous situation. It allows corrupt politicians to play off our fears and mislead us. It also increases strife, feeding back into the divisions and deepening them.
As people drop out and become ever more cynical, fewer people are left doing the work of self-government. With fewer people keeping tabs on our political elites, the more out of control they will become. Corrupt officials are more likely – I believe – to act badly when they perceive that only few care. Don’t stop caring!
In extreme cases, of course, strife and alienation breeds militia groups that threaten to overthrow a divided government. We aren’t there yet, but we are headed in that general direction. I may not be happy with the current political system, but I would prefer not to initiate its violent overthrow. Revolutions often end badly, causing chaos as rival groups vie for dominance, with the new regime often times being worse than the old one.
Revolutions become much more likely when the elites make up the rules as they go along, live by a different set of rules, or are believed to have the whole system rigged. In today’s current political climate, even the very institutions used to mediate conflict are disputed. States’ rights advocates are quick to point to the tenth amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government to only that which is explicitly stated in the constitution. Legislators pass laws deemed unconstitutional by many. The president wages wars without congressional declaration. Was the September Fourteenth resolution a declaration of war? People disagree. It is no longer even enough to leave the interpretation of the law to the Supreme Court, because the role of the court is itself disputed. “Activist” judges legislate from the bench. Even scientists can give no final verdicts that are not then challenged by scientists of differing political persuasion. Global warming, evolution, nuclear energy, and medical marijuana are only a few of the scientific controversies of the day. Finally, when election results are disputed, widespread rebellion cannot be far behind. When it is perceived that the other side is not even following the rules of deliberative engagement, some will see no other alternative but violence.
Clearly then, there is potential for great problems, but is this situation avoidable – or merely an inevitable consequence of events beyond our control? In the following chapters I hope to explain this in greater detail. For now I will simply say that you already know the answer. Rather than sticking to their own messages, politicians and activists seem to feel a need to misrepresent the messages of others, insult them, and in some cases completely destroy them. This is not necessary. It is a deliberate act that alienates whole sets of voters while misinforming followers, and therefore sets the electorate at odds with itself, unable to have a civil debate on issues alone.
As for my final question as to whether strife is on the increase, I have yet been unable to determine the answer. There seems to be no universally agreed upon way of measuring strife among sociologists. My personal impression has been that there has been an increase, but obviously I experience only a small part of the world like everyone else; it could merely be a statistical fluke. This is especially so in my case, since a large part of my experience is listening to opinion show news analysts who continually claim to see an increase in strife. When it comes down to it, we don’t really know, but it seems likely.
It is in this current climate that various “tolerance movements” spawn. Politicians will decry our deepening divisions and present themselves as “moderates” that can “work with the other party” and “compromise”. If you listen closely, however, they always seem to find someone to blame for causing our current divisions, and they often accuse those merely exposing the ugly truth of being among those driving the division. The issue of divisive politics has itself become a divisive issue!
Take political talk show host Glenn Beck for example. Some would characterize him as one of those driving us apart with his constant criticism of Washington politicians, but those who actually watch his show know one of his primary threads of discussion is how those Washington politicians drive us apart by bringing up minor issues so they can collude together on much bigger things while we are distracted. In other words, he criticizes others for being overly critical. Beck often encourages us to get along better and be more tolerant. He is clearly non-partisan. He doesn’t support any one party. He may pick on Democrats more often, but this is likely because they are still in power, and tend to be slightly worse by his standards anyways. The point is: his standards are constant.
Jonathan Haidt (Department of Psychology, University of Virginia), is a leader of a different sort of tolerance movement. Drawing from his theory of moral foundations, developed with Jesse Graham, he states that our political attitudes derive in part from our moral values, which in turn derive from our genes. Since there are so many conservatives, he argues, these genes must have been selected for because they endowed them with some advantage. For this reason alone, we (speaking to liberals) should at the very least listen to them. Haidt has also launched a pledge at civilpolitics.org to model civility in our lives and value it as a criterion for electing candidates.
Yet another sort of tolerance movement is the so-called “coffee parties.” Starting on Facebook.com, this movement encourages people to meet together over coffee to listen to and try to understand each other. I discovered it as I was writing this book and had already attempted something similar with people I knew. Although some among them would try to make them opposed to the “tea parties,” claiming that those in the tea parties are the ones trying to shout down debate, I believe the two movements are complimentary. The tea parties are about getting Washington to listen to us, while the coffee parties are about us getting to listen to each other. Those in the tea parties recognize that politicians collude to divide us and the more the government controls, the more there is for us to struggle with each other over. Thus, the tea parties are as much about unity and tolerance as they are about lower taxes and smaller government.
This is the time we need true compromise, but not the variety of compromise wherein nobody gets quite what they want. This only breeds contempt and merely “buys time” while perceived injustice continues, putting off conflict for another day. What we need is the sort of lasting compromise wherein everybody gets exactly what they want. To be fair, there may be some issues on which no such compromise is possible, but far too often when such compromises are presented, they are rejected because those in power cannot afford to lose the issues of division they use in their campaign platforms.
I will give two examples. Embryonic stem cell research has great potential for generating all sorts of medical breakthroughs, but getting the stem cells requires destroying the embryos. Some see this as a form of murder. Understandably, they are against supporting such practices – even through taxes. Allowing private companies to conduct this research legally is bad enough, they reason, but the government taking money from the rest of us against our will to support such practices is much worse. Can there be an acceptable compromise? Yes. In 2001, President Bush issued the rule to restrict federal funding to creating new stem cell lines (5). Bush never stopped private sector funding. He never stopped state funding. He never stopped federal funding for research on stem cell lines already created. Since the life-or-death decision has already been made for these embryos, it made no sense to him to restrict research on the stem cell lines, which should have been able to replicate indefinitely. Bush gave both sides exactly what they said they wanted. Conservatives didn’t want more people to be killed in their name with their money. Liberals wanted more research done for health improvement purposes. Everyone should have been happy. What happened?
Democrats could not afford to lose a powerful issue to use against Republicans and would never give Bush any credit for solving anything. They called Bush’s order a “ban on stem cell research”, when it was nothing of the sort. In the meantime, the ridiculous right criticized Bush for not doing more, inventing the questionable argument that funding any sort of stem cell research encouraged killing more embryos. Sometimes, you just can’t win.
President Bill Clinton was caught in a similar trap. Patriotic homosexuals have long wanted to serve their country in the military, but many in the military were understandably concerned that there might develop certain social problems in the military subculture, possibly even damaging combat readiness and morale. President Clinton instituted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Homosexuals could now serve as they had always wanted, but as long as nobody discussed sexuality, nobody would know who was who. Thus, there could be no resultant social problems. Clinton gave each side what they said they wanted. Was he hailed as a hero? Of course not. Homosexual activists insisted on serving openly and the right used this issue to paint Clinton as a far left loon trying to destroy the family.
Also in this current climate, I see conspiracy theories proliferating. These feed on and feed into our fears of and distrust of government. Some distrust is healthy, to prevent opportunists from taking advantage of us, but too much distrust destroys the very foundation of society. Obviously, when my government is up to no good, I want to know about it so the problem can be dealt with, but I need real evidence. Acting without proof may hurt good people who are exactly the ones we want in government keeping an eye out for real conspiracies. Conspiracy theories are not helpful. Stay away from them and ask for solid proof.
I have several problems with every conspiracy theory I have ever heard. First, the evidence for them is usually no stronger than the evidence supporting the official version of events. While there sometimes appear to be holes in the official story, the holes in the conspiracy theory are usually larger. Second, any evidence brought against a conspiracy theory is always claimed to be yet another part of “the coverup” by authorities. When there is no way to disprove a theory even in principle, it ceases to be a theory with any merit. Third, witnesses that support the official version of events are usually dismissed because of some spurious connection to entities involved, giving them a perceived motive to contribute to the coverup. The thing is: those who spread conspiracy theories often also have something to gain. It could be as simple as wanting to make the opposing party look bad, or simply wanting to sell more books – about their conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it could be merely a distraction to hide an even larger conspiracy – or, I might think so if I were prone to such thoughts. Finally, most conspiracy theories leave me feeling powerless. To pull off a coverup of this magnitude, I reason, would take forces so powerful that I cannot even begin to think how one might discover the truth of whether this theory is correct, let alone act on it to carry out justice. Why even tell people then? It only makes them worry when they can do nothing about it.
Some people suggest that every politician is in on the same monster secret conspiracy to control us all. They believe that all politicians lie and that none of them truly believes what they run on. As for me, I am much more likely to see mere stupidity than malice. I recognize that for a politician to get elected, a sizeable number of people must believe his/her lies. It is possible that some of those followers will become the next generation of politicians. If it is possible for followers to believe, it is also possible for leaders to believe, and so it is possible that not all politicians are misleading us deliberately. At least, so I like to think.
Thus, I pay little attention to such ideas, but many of my friends do. This prevents us from having a reasonable discussion about moral/political values, a subject that in many ways defines all of us in how we live our lives. That they cannot give a solid reason why they believe what they do, only serves to make me doubt their sanity. How can I eat with them, ride with them, or go into business with them with those kinds of doubts? Fortunately, their insanity seems to be only partial. Conspiracy theories, then, divide us further. Stay away from them.
Just to be clear about what I mean by conspiracy theories, not everyone labeled a conspiracy theorist deserves the label. Again, I will use Glenn Beck as an example. Beck often looks at connections between people as a clue to what they might have in mind. That SEIU leader Andy Stern has met with Obama regularly (6) and former special advisor for green jobs Van Jones was a self-described communist (7) are matters of historical record. Glenn makes no claims of conspiracy. As he says, he is “just asking questions” that any good reporter would of our elected officials. In fact, Beck makes some of the same warnings about conspiracy theories that I do, and it was Van Jones that himself was a “9-11 truther” (8). Glenn Beck may be high-strung and prone to worry, but he is no conspiracy theorist.
With current conditions as they are, including high unemployment, political turmoil, and conspiracy theories out of control, militias start to look very tempting. Again, watch out! Obviously, our constitution allows citizens to own firearms and to peaceably assemble. The states have the right to form militias for their protection. Just be careful who you’re dealing with when you join. The last thing we need now is more infighting.
Perhaps worst of all is the temptation to give up trying to reach people. Sometimes people need some time to mull things over before agreeing with you. This is even harder if they first have to accept that everything they have ever been told is a lie. You don’t know what people are thinking and you don’t know who is hopelessly lost. Don’t give up. That is how the enemies of democracy win. Democracy is impossible when the people don’t communicate. But remember, while reaching out to others, stop and listen yourself. You may learn something important.
This is the time we need to communicate more, not less. This is the time we need to pull together. This is the time we need to ask all the questions we can to understand all sides of the issues. For lasting solutions, this is the time we need to start understanding each other.