Truth! As if it were politic.
Article 6
So, why am I accusing every last one of us for the lack of relationship and listening in our politics? To answer that, we'll have to backtrack, and despite my not being much of a wordsmith, a couple of definitions (I'm an engineer, not a sociologist or psychologist, so, beyond my writing, no one looks to these definitions).
"Narcissism" is misused, from a technical-psychological point of view; specifically, it is quite different from "very selfish, self-centered, bullying, etc." For instance, it requires a diagnosis to determine its presence, and so none of us should throw out, "2016 is clearly a narcissist." Defined, "Narcissism" is when a person does not perceive that other people are of the same ontological category as themselves. Essentially, You and I are Objects to a Narcissist. Personally I doubt this uniquely describes 2016; at the same time, to varying degrees, every one of us carries this as a character flaw.
Tellingly, we all express our inner narcissist when we drive a car or hear a report concerning people being lit on fire for the sake of my 401k. Narcissism is on a 10-point scale, so for instance, driving road rage is a 4, barbecuing nameless people a 5, and a problem to society 8+. With that driving to a barbecue being episodic, considered 'normal,' while 8+ is typically continuous and a mental disease. Curious, my use of definition, placement so precariously? No, just coincidentally, part of politics.
One might question my supposition concerning 2016; given my effusive fondness, that I would personally dig him out of a Fifth Avenue killing. Rather, one should assume that I'm using his iconic status to reveal a new definition, "Aristocratic-Caste." Wherein there is a social hierarchy, caste system, implicit in all our thoughts and feelings, largely borne in one's subconscious identity (I'll unpack all of that in upcoming writing). I am not an object to those Aristocrats, just naturally beneath them, while also above others. For 2016, this is Especially True. He is even less of a wordsmith, and by all accounts, considers aristocratic-caste to be his identity, rightfully attached to his family name. Then again, all of us have our version of social hierarchy. So kicking against the prevailing assumption would, at its best, disallow barbecues.
We'll now see how a revealing faux pas during a political campaign, "basket of Deplorables," shows all sides of this issue. An effective technocrat is rightfully in charge, but lacking the superficial carriage of status, they must artfully assume a pleasant persona, meekly voicing aristocratic opinions. And referring to others as "Deplorable" is neither artful nor meek. On the other hand, an opposing aristocratic-caste candidate could have said, "deplorable fucking bitches." Easily going unnoticed and more than likely roundly applauded. I think we can all agree "Deplorables" is deplorable, moving from categorizing to objectifying. Whereas, referring to that basket of people as angry voters. Who, despite themselves, have misplaced their gag reflex, touches on the truth. But deplorable, No! That is, have you met those people? They are very nice people, whom I would trust with my children. I've never met a deplorable, but have to admit, if I do, I'll barbecue that son of a bitch, given a chance, or drive his ass to Fifth Avenue where I can get some help.
A curious pathology, that loss of gag reflex, outwardly appearing to merely be a tribal ritual. It includes a unique physiological adaptation, wherein the frontal cortex trades places with the brain stem. Essential to swallowing spin that even a python would disgorge. More importantly, inhibiting one's vocal cords, so only the correct noises are released. Plus an interesting psycho/social familiarity is evidenced; very like a pheromone interaction, wherein a hierarchy of noise is distinguished and supported.
At this point, I don't think any of you would be surprised if I now entertained the virtues of tribalizing, that socially acceptable lobotomy. Then quickly wandered off in a Waldo Emerson direction: "For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind." At the same time he might point out, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Seeing that you're already reading, you could continue on, finding Emerson uniquely describing our problem and typically alludes to a solution. Yet he also tends toward utopian minded oratory and not nearly inclusive enough.
Certainly, tribalizing is here to stay, as it is anchored in identity for most people. Likely due to it feeding thoughts and feelings like none other; one's tribe, seemingly the right answer on every occasion. And highly inclusive, that is, very much like a cult. I am curious though, tribalism vs. caste & narcissism, chicken or egg? An interesting question mark, this life.
I think it should be obvious that everything I'm talking about starts at a very early age. And then continues into our educational system, roughly, a system designed to allow for tribes, while taking everyone in that Emerson direction. As I see it, quite practical if it leads to strong individuals working together (a positive spin, which ignores the various faces of segregation). Yet leading a horse to water only works if the horse agrees, and you have to know in what direction that water lies.
Having lost all sense of direction, we've gone in circles with a thirsty horse, and worse, we've taken to beating a dead horse. Just ask any high school student: typically they are either disengaged or barely maintaining their sanity. Hardly surprising, seeing's how their ill conceived bridle was installed at the wrong end of the business. That is to say, rarely a trace of "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." Or "All life is an experiment. The more experiment you make the better." Unfortunately, Emerson's advice addresses a thirst that is mostly ignored. Leaving young adults to wonder off into an arid environment to explore, "not much of anything." Often leading to noncommittal experimentation that delivers one to a consequence laden but meaningless existence. For the fortunate few, sedated within a tribe.
It's often said that politics starts at the school board level, and if you're reading between the lines, what is politic in our politics starts at the playground level. Better yet at home, as parental involvement is the only certain statistic of improved school outcomes (and not school choice*). In other words, a depth of relationship and listening, optimistically, leads a child away from the negative side of this American way. I believe we all start out knowing in our bones the positive side to all this, so it requires a lot of dry beatings to form our American way. For instance, concerning politics, youth naturally recoil as they encounter our political system. The substance of enthusiasm draining out, in time leading to a bipolar reaction, either meaningless circling or self righteously applied beatings (e.g., a youtube school board meeting).
That right wing's emphasis on school choice,* is nothing more than a means to further their real aim, reinstituting segregation to the American Way! A strategic effort, for instance, a diminished support to families in need and education in general. Labeled as fiscal accountability, "Ultimately helping the country move toward a better America." I would have to agree, they are using inexpensive methods to keep the poor in their place. That is until you add in the staggering costs of childhood poverty. Not to mention, that segregationist approach to things undermines the vitality of the nation, kicking a vital resource to the gutter (and that was just the fiscal argument).
I believe you would have to engage in some noncommittal experimentation to envision, "Anything we're doing gets at the core of the problem!" As I see it, even our best efforts provide evidence of our underlying problem. Easily, a book is required to surface this underlying issue, "intimacy," standing outside of convention while revealing way too much. In the meantime, I've surfaced elements of our politics' problematic behavior, but mostly ignored the root cause. Illustrating for you,
Government: relationship is the baby, and politics is the bath water.
Guess which one is being thrown out?
Then again, all too often we find legislators discretely lifting out floaters for delivery, after tastefully voiding even the politics, in any meaningful sense.