How far is far enough? |
2006-06-11 |
The dynamics of political struggle is always the same: I want this improvement, I want that problem to go away. I see clearly how it could be done. Just cut that tax, or increase those subsidies, or ban this or reform that. It would solve the problem, I know it would, and it would be so easy.
Unfortunately our political opponents have different priorities. They fight us all the way, they discredit our ideas, and sabotage our victories. So idealism turns into desperation, and then into hystericism. The solution is so obvious, so perfectly obvious. It would cost so little, and we would gain so much. Those cowards, imbeciles, criminals, they're blind and depraved! They hate all good things, it's people like them who always were the problem.
The advocate on a political talk show, the fist-shaking voter, the sarcastic blogger, the marching ideologist. They're angry because they see the solution with brilliant clarity, they know their plan would work. Any idiot can see how simple it would be, how little is required. A tax cut, a subsidy, a ban or a reform.
So simple, so obvious. Why then do our opponents stand in our way, what's the matter with them?!
I wondered earlier about why so many on the right - even libertarians - talk like victims, as if they were clients begging for government favors. Maybe it is because the style of political activism is independent of the content. The goals of the left and the right are different, but the ideological craving is the same, and the anger at whatever holds us back is the same. That big pile of Well-Ordered Society is right there in front of me, I can almost touch it, it is mine, give it to me!
Even utopists think their perfect society would be easy to create, if only the will was there, and the reward they imagine is so wonderful that it makes them the most desperate of us all. Imagine if you thought Paradise was just a revolution away. Wouldn't it drive you mad to live all the years of your life and watch people suffer, knowing how easy it would have been to make it all right? You'd be like a doctor in a world that rejects medicine. You have vaccines and treatments and hygienic advice that would prevent countless deaths, but everyone's going to the faith healer next door.
I believe anyone who has political ideas feels the same frustration. We see the problem and the solution clearly. Whether we defer to common sense, or science, or religion, or logic or an ideology, it all comes down to us who see clearly vs those dangerous fools who don't. There are more of them, always more, and always too few of us.
In our minds we're all Cassandra, who could see the future, but was powerless to change it. With all that clairvoyance and so many conflicting ideals and frustrated dreams, is it any wonder that political debates become angry and desperate, so that the more deeply someone cares about politics, the more hysterical they seem to become?
We need to step back a moment and ask ourselves where our political anger comes from. Is it justified? If the anger is proportional to the size of the problem, then maybe it is. This is implied in all our political debates. The assumption is that the angrier someone is, the more they deserve your attention: they're angry because they're aware of a large injustice. So where there's an activist, there must be a just cause.
But I don't think it works that way. If political anger was tied to objective reality, you would expect that as a society moves closer to its goals, whether those goals are material wealth, freedom, fairness or equality, its political debate would get correspondingly less angry. If anger comes from suffering and injustice, objectively measured, then the less suffering and injustice there is the less angry we ought to be.
This has not happened. Look at any political debate, on any issue. A sense of proportion is usually lacking. I believe politics is controlled by hope, fear and imagination, not by reality. It is controlled by what improvements in our lives and societies we believe it is realistic to expect, not by how much or how little we already have.
This can work both ways, it can make people angry who have little reason to, and it can make others calm who should be angry. Countless people have lived out their lives in poverty and opression, without giving a serious thought to changing their form of government. Why? Because they did not imagine it. They had it genuinely bad, but they did not believe there was a realistic alternative.
What happened in modern times was that people did begin to imagine alternatives. Liberals imagined an alternative to autocracy, socialists and anarchists an alternative to capitalism. And then people got angry, and then they voted for radicals and reformists, or overthrew their governments, or threw bombs. Not because they had it bad, most of us have always had it bad, but because they thought there was an easy way to make things better.
For the same reason, the wealth, freedom and security most people have in the Western countries today has not made us politically content. Our ability to dream of further realistic improvements has not changed. Our condition has changed, but our condition didn't really matter in the first place.
We are perhaps less angry about politics than we were a hundred years ago, but this is because the realistic improvements we expect are smaller than theirs. Political anger is proportional to how much more we believe we can easily get, not to what we have. We live in a time when utopism has been discredited, so our expectations are more moderate than they were in the days of ideological extremes. Our ideals don't usually drive us to plot armed revolution in the basement.
But our craving for political improvements has not disappeared. We imagine more wealth, more safety, better health services, better schools. And the democratic system gives us politicians and ideologists who tell us that we can have all these things that we imagine, who tell us that we've been unfairly treated and are entitled for more. This state of craving for attainable improvements just goes on and on, independent of reality.
It may seem that I am dismissing all our problems. "What about this problem, what about that problem, how can you talk about contentment when all this is happening?" Yes. I am not saying that people should be content with the political situation. I believe many of us should be content with many things, even where they believe there are further improvements to make, but this is not my main message.
What I want to say here is not tied to any particular time or political situation, it is meant for all political struggles. I am describing where I think political anger and desperation comes from, in the hope that you will ask yourself whether your anger is really justified.
Maybe it is justified. Maybe the injustice you're fighting, or the improvement you dream of, is genuinely very important. But then you need to ask yourself: at which point will your anger no longer be justified? Let us say there is a line somewhere. On one side of that line, we should work to improve conditions through political means. On the other side of the line, further progress becomes a personal matter.
On one side of a line, people are too poor, and the government must step in, on the other side they're not. On one side of a line, we're not free enough, and need more rights, on the other side we don't.
Where does your line go? What will you do when we pass it? Has anyone done so already? And if we passed it today, would you know? Would you then feel satisfied, and politically content, or would you set your eyes on even higher goals? Would those new goals feel as important to you as the old ones did, and would the new obstacles infuriate you as much as the old ones? How would you tell the difference?
Or perhaps it should not be a line, but a gradual replacement of anger with calm dedication. Not apathy, not "I don't care", but "I believe there's an easy way to improve this even further, but considering where we are, I refuse to be angry if it doesn't happen. I refuse to scream in the face of my opponents, and I will not accuse them of destroying our society. I will encourage this improvement, and vote for it, but I will restrain my anger."
And perhaps there is a point where, if we want to improve the world, it is no longer appropriate to do it through political means. Economic and invidual freedom is a worthy goal, and the left's struggle for social justice and economic equality is at least well intended. If those are your goals, then politics is the arena you should use.
But what about happiness? "That's not our business, we just want to create the right conditions for happiness to take place". Yes, but then whose business is it? "The state can't make you happy." No it can't, but must all good causes be political? Maybe at some point people who care about freedom should no longer become libertarian activists, but instead teach people how to be free, how to use the freedom they already have. And maybe at some point people who care about our well-being should no longer work for economic growth, but instead teach people how to be content with the things they own. Teach them, not to demand more, but to appreciate that they live and that their basic needs are satisfied.
Granted that none of this makes sense if you believe our society is full of really big problems. Again, my main message is that you should think about where the line between the politically inacceptable and politically acceptable goes, and what to do when this line is crossed.
But for my part, I believe that many people in Western countries have crossed many of these lines. I believe that while we should also fight our remaining real problems, what many of us need to hear today is not primarily how they should vote in order to make the economy more efficient, but that they don't need to work as hard as they do. I think many need to be told not which party will make them as rich as they wish they were, but that they should learn to look at their rich neigbours without envy. I believe we should be careful not to obsess over every threat, stop pretending that every single risk is an injustice, learn to live with risk, learn to face death.
"That's not politics!" Damn right, it isn't. "But it's politics I'm interested in." I'm not trying to take away your hobby, but perhaps that hobby is not as useful as you think it is? "My ideology can make everyone richer!" Maybe it can, in fact in the case of liberalism I'm sure of it. I'll vote for a more liberal party over a more social democratic one any day, in the same way that I'll accept a gift if you hand it to me. But I don't feel justified in being angry over my unending "oppression" by the state.
The paradox is that there are many things I believe it is justified to be angry about, but which I still can't work up many genuine emotions over. I'm as self-centered as anyone else, I need to identify with someone before I can be outraged by their suffering. So maybe that's another thing we need to learn, not just to be content when our instinct is to be angry, but to be angry when our instinct is to stay calm.
This deserves a re-read or two but for now I'd like to commend you on this most enjoyable and thought-provoking post. You've raised alot of interesting strands of inquiry and done so within a very fresh context. My thoughts, jumbled at this point; Plato's scepticism of democracy. Rousseau and dark side of progressive (eschatological) movements secular and theological and how the west has been "cured" of this but other parts of the world may not... Burke's appeal for a more tempered (if not tragic) understanding of the limits and possibillities of societal progress. Economics, growth for its own sake, cannot provide coherent framework for the larger meaning of life - individual or societal.
I just have to ask you, but what's the story behind the "Hosted by New World Order Norway" link? Is it a joke, or would you actually support something like the New World Order (in which case, why on earth would you, no pun intended)? Or is it just a tongue-in-cheek nod to "mad conspiracy theories"?
The question of, when do we let things slide and when do we take to the streets, if a very complex one indeed. One thing that caught my eye was when you said,
"For the same reason, the wealth, freedom and security most people have in the Western countries today has not made us politically content."
I would take issue with that statement. At least here in America voter turn out on national election days usually are around 50%. In 2004 only 60.3% of voters came out to vote for Bush vs. Kerry. (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm) This was an improvement over the 2000 election where only 50% showed up at the polls.
There are many factors that can influence voter turn out. I would think though that a sense of security and freedom tend to take the wind out of the peoples political sails as reflected in the low American turn out numbers. By contrast look at Iraq where people are no doubt feeling very insecure. In 2005 there was a 72% voter turn out. Even with limited participation from Sunnis.
Perhaps, I read too much into these numbers but I think that we Westerners are more disinterested in politics than we are interested. Our disinterest can only come as a result of a profound sense of comfort and security, I would think.
Franko
A very interesting article Bjørn. I have to agree with your last paragraph, unfortunatly. I guess thats how we all are, but knowing it is the first step I guess. Lets hope we manage to go the rest of the way! :)
I'm not Cassandra. I'm Bob. The other guy. Who might be wrong. And I believe that's an important thing to remember in political debates: "You might be wrong". Actually, Kine Hellebust - of all people - sings it best: Vess rett er rett og feil er feil, er det siste ordet sagt / Og så bli trist for tristhets skyld, kan bli en gråtkvalt kamp om makt / Men ka hjælpe det med tåra då når auan berre ser’ / At rett er rett og feil er feil, då kan æ ikkje sei nå’ meir [...] Vess svart e svart og kvitt e kvitt, då e du blind førr alt / Då ser du ikkje lys nå’ meir, i varmen blir det kaldt / Du blir ein sjakkmønstrat konstruksjon med pepitarutat sjæl / Vess kvitt førr dæ e berre kvitt, har du slådd live’ ditt i hjæl
I don't quite know how to express my gratitude. I lost faith in the blogging community long ago, but with posts like this, blog.bearstrong.net stands out as a shining example for others to follow. Unfortunately, few do.
Honest self reflection is a charachteristic shared by all people of intelligence.
Again, thanks.
OT: So, T Ramadan's coming up w/a muslim constitution for Europe which is above national legislation, eh? Take it from us, separate but equal doesn't work.
I miss the hat, it was jaunty.
Øyvind, Mechelen has nailed it exactly: too many have lost the ability to even contemplate that they might be wrong. The certitude with which far too many opine on events is frighteningly close to religious dogma. It thus becomes an escape from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Why argue something about which you are absolutely certain? Argument isn't strong enough. And those who "have eyes yet refuse to see?" Anathema, fire and brimstone, call out the Inquisition!
Whats up with the link to the New World Order Norway site, hosted by some [name redacted by NWO]?
Person: The scary thing is that nwo.no is NOT hosted by [name redacted by NWO] ...
Rune Kristian
Maybe it is not HOSTED by him, but his email-adress is mentioned when i whois http://nwo.no. Check this out:
[redacted by NWO -- please stick to the topic of this thread - BS]
Bjørn Stærk!
But Basic needs are in the eye of the beholder. To be happy with basic needs is to teach (for many) a kind of like of being contented in the kind of dull trap of thinking. Wealthy people are not content with "basic needs" because, basic needs are in the eye of the beholder. This is really true. Yesterday's basic needs are not the same as today's basic needs. The basic need today is as watered down as it can get. And basic needs have turned into crumbs that we should be thankful for. This is complete rubbish. In other words, Bjork, I completely agree wirh your article. For instance, the primary care physician, at one time, say even 10 years ago, were more responsible with the total care of the patient and actually cared for the well-being of the patient. Medical issues is one of those basic needs. Many of our basic needs aren't being met even on the lowest level. Our basic needs have become useless, generic, and now more expensive for every day people. Added Advice: Do not trust any of them. They are nOt God and they have become as common as the cold itself. By the way, health care has become COMPLETELY political and it is killing innocent people. Primary care physicians are now the joke of the century. They have treated the sick with contempt, they refer the sick to another jerk who has no idea what may be upset with the patient and NOW they have the patient, who by the way, has reached a secondary illness, based on the treatment given by the original one for which they sought the help from and now this patient has become a burden and is left to fend on their own and they are dying for no sane reason other than EVERYONE has become complacent. The Wealthy are not content with basic needs, instead, they flaunt to the little people that they have an advanced set of basic needs and better yet, a security that none of us are privvy to have. Security is a basic need as well as it is our right. Security is not a luxury, it is a right for all people. My point is that, today, the anger will always be justified and that in its justification, we should NOT be so content because everything is going well for you today. The only justifiable anger there should be is the injustice of the sick, the abused, those who have earnestly tried to promote hard work and goodness and yet are literally sabotage the moment we stand for these important issues. The reason that we are not seeing a lot of overt anger is that there is anger reversed and there is fear. We are afraid because how can we make changes if they are curtailed by those in greater power than we are who have the power to destroy your life because you are standing up for what is HUMAN. And now, the sick thing that I am witnessing is that when we do stand up for basic (quality needs, not needs to shut people up) rights and a qaulity standard if living is that it TURNS into a political stance. All politics is personal and that why there is so much passion behind these heated debates. We are told not to take it personally, but aren't we using that line NOT to take responsibility for what may soon enter into our realm of comfort? I think that at this point in this era of time, there are many things that we need to take to the streets and always weigh the things that we think that we should allow to slide. The very things that we tend to allow to slide are the things that we should take to the streets. However, the first rule of order is that we have got to make that effort every day to treat each other with compassion and really listen. Changing the world starts with the very things that you see happening around you. Simply be human and place your entire selves into the unfortunate one besides you. I am not saying let strangers into your home and give every one your last dollar; not at all. I am simply saying to acknowledge what is happening around you so that when the opportuity arises you will find that this indeed needs to be taken into the streets. Listen and take a stand and there are very smart ways of doing it as well. All of us are too complacent; but that is also a design to keep us from taking a real stand. We are all being treated like children by our leaders. Here, toss that Ipod to this one and they will shut up. Here, place this one in a gated to community and they will become complacent. This is what politics is all about. But we want to use a different word for it and what it really is called and should be called is HUMANITY. Politicians do not care about humanity, they may intend so in the early beginnings of such, but they are , as well, blinded by what becomes comfortable and they actually forget what they were there for in the first place. Politics has always been about people; yet we use this word to minimize the importance of the meaning. Politics involve people. Our rights are gone and limited now because we were contented and complacent because, "we had nothing to hide" or " that's a YP not a MP" attitude. However soon, these things will visit upon us very soon right into our own lives and as history calls it, many will suffer before we take anything to the streets and now lives are wasted and gone forever. We have to be very careful to what is happening all around us because if we are not, injustice will become the norm and we are already half way there. Yes, we have our own worries to consider, however most likely, your worries are most likely the same kind of concerns that your neighbor shares with you. We have got to STOP denying one another's experiences. For example, if an African-American is SAYING that they are being mistreated and that this is covert racism, more than likely they are correct because it is truly happening. If we over look these truths, they will soon visit YOUR life because denial is the beginning of what starts an entire fall. This is so true. All things are personal. We cannot forget that. How far is enough? NOW is enough and we have surpassed even pondering this fact. The fact is that Westerns have become a threat to each other and this is easier to do than to care and we are headed for disaster with such an outlook.