It is becoming increasingly difficult to give a shit about politics because the debates are like dust devils in the desert, swirling rapidly but having no lasting effect. Does it really matter who sits where in Congress or the White House? Well, of course it does, but the fog is so complete that even if there were a standard bearer worthy of our time, we'd never see it. They all begin to look alike and sound alike.
We won't let politicians be real, have faults or flaws, or show indecision. The media, understanding our blood lust, tears real people to shreds before they can become politicians. The only justification I can see for term limits is that you might be able to hold on to your soul for four or eight years as a pol, but if you look into the future and see only bigger office space, more staff, more time on news programs, and more power, the system will mold you into something only vaguely resembling a human being.
It's also becoming increasingly difficult to take sides. Who thinks America's going in the right direction? Or the world, for that matter? Who believes that we are any kind of shining light on the hill? The problem is trying to understand whether this is a short-term aberration or the beginning of the decline and fall of the American empire.
If I were a born-again Christian mummy, walking aimlessly through the graveyard of what used to be America, I'd be horrified viewing the broken moral compass, the rending of souls in the name of truth, justice, and the American way, the lack of civility or compassion or, as I've discovered the term that best fits me, social justice. The only thing that's worshipped in America is money and celebrity. The Christ-lover in me would think that something horribly wrong had happened; perhaps enough to cause the second coming.
However, as a died-in-the-wool liberal mummy, although I don't know what liberal means anymore, I'm still horrified. I see the same graveyard filled with children who died from neglect, violence, or malnutrition, filled with old people abandoned, with zombies who perhaps haven't yet died but might as well have, wandering in no direction and calling out only to hear their voice echo back to them in the void. I look at the shards of the moral compass on the ground not knowing if even all the king's horses and all the king's men could put it back together again.
We make our problems worse because they're all cloaked in rigid ideologies that will allow for no movement, no understanding beyond which is already provided. Inside the ideology there is the illusion of safety; outside, there is only danger. So we become blind and deaf to everyone and anyone but those who believe as we believe.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lisa McKay
Mark, this is an incredibly powerful piece and describes my own feelings toward the current political/societal scene in a frighteningly accurate way.
2 - Christopher Rose
Great, painfully honest work, Mark. Kudos.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Excellent job, Mark. Were I still
stuckliving in America, I'd feel much the same way you do. I see a similar scene of wreckage here, but my sense of hope and faith in G-d doesn't let me give up. I don't know about America anymore, but I see definite signs of hope here.4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
BTW, Mark, maybe you remember an article I wrote in November or December of 2005 about "all the trash jumping into the same bin". One of the predictions I made in that article was that "reality would appear to unhinge itself". I believe what you wrote and Lisa's comment are your realizations of that unhinging, and your own responses to it.
It scares me that four of my five predictions seem to have come true in the last 10 or 11 months. I'm not supposed to be that good...
5 - Donnie Marler
Mark,
Excellent piece! I think this applies to all sides of the political spectrum. I'm a conservative leaning independent and I'm disgusted by the lack of attention paid to the issues at hand during the campaigns.
I'm tired of the he/she said or did garbage. Painting the other side as monsters or ignorant may win an election but it doesn't solve any problems.
As I said, I'm conservative by nature, but I try to read and understand the views of the more liberal folks. I might even learn something! I may not agree with them, but how will I know that if I refuse to listen to them? Conservative doesn't mean backward.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
That was a beautifully written catharsis. I do hope that you feel better now that you've gotten all that off your chest. And I hope you will feel even better when you learn that many others empathize with eloquent sentiments posted above.
We all get to feeling the same way sometimes, but we do eventually get over it -- perhaps by writing about and sharing our frustrations with politics, the apparent ignorance and stupidity of the masses, and man's eternal inhumanity toward man -- when we remember or realize why it all matters in the first place.
I'm betting that you won't pack it all in, for deep down inside, you know that, regardless of its many flaws, "we still have the best system of government, the most freedom as a people, and more prosperity than anywhere else in the world."
I think you also know that if you can "see the cracks in the foundation, the slow erosion of social justice, the collapsing of society into groups," then there are going to be others out there who can see them, too -- and who maybe even want to actually try to do something about them.
If this is not helpful to you, maybe an historical perspective may be, especially with regard to social justice and how much more of it there is today than there was 50 years ago when society was mandated into not only collapsing, but conforming, into groups.
In the meantime, take heart, because the underlying context of your article clearly demonstrates that you are not "easy prey for political masterminds who have their fingers on the pulse of the damned and know exactly what to say to increase or decrease the rate of our beating hearts," because you can see right through the facade, just like anybody else who bothers to pay attention and stay informed.
Remember, apathy is one of our most pernicious enemies.
7 - MAOZ
Margaret #6: "Remember, apathy is one of our most pernicious enemies."
Yeah, but who cares!
[Sorry, couldn't resist]
8 - Mark Schannon
Wow, thanks all for the comments. I had this in draft for ages, writing and rewriting, not sure whether to publish it or not. I've had this love-hate relationship with politics and politicians for decades, and even today's pols and politicos are unhappy with the state of the union--in the sense of how poorly DC works.
Donnie, some of the strongest relationships I've developed on the Net have been with conservatives. But we have to get rid of the labels--I really don't know what I am any more, except that Ruvy pegged me for "Social Justician" in an earlier article of mine, and I like that, even if I don't know what it means.
Thanks again, all, for the comments.
In Jameson Veritas
9 - Jonathan Scanlan
Mark,
While you do put out a good piece every now and then, this post is as full of smog as the society you criticise. Rather than make an argument, it plays to emotions and sentimentality.
If you are going to make a case that intellectualism is in decline, I want case studies, stats, models and something other than a knee jerk reaction.
Just take this for instance:
The most distressing element in all this is that we still have the best system of government, the most freedom as a people, and more prosperity than anywhere else in the world.
While I often see this view come up on BlogCritics, no one ever seems to justify let alone prove it. It never even has a citation. It is puffery, and I bet that the closest thing to a citation for most people is a primary school textbook.
Finally, the above quote points to he heart of where your analysis goes wrong. You're making the absurd assumption that it was ever any better than this. You're trying to bridge the gap between an ideal and reality. Of course you're going to be disappointed.
10 - Donnie Marler
Mark,
No man that enjoys good Irish whiskey can be a bad guy.
11 - Steve
Interesting article, Mark.
I have to focus on the same sentence that the above commentator quoted from your article:
"The most distressing element in all this is that we still have the best system of government, the most freedom as a people, and more prosperity than anywhere else in the world."
Any goverment system can be circumvented/corrupted, so the best system of goverment is one that is flexible enough to be changed/altered when it no longer works the way it's supposed to.
Re. 'the most freedom', freedom is fine only until it becomes license, then it becomes a problem. It's not a panacea. Just look at Iraq.
Re. 'more prosperity', prosperity is fine as far as putting a roof over one's head and eating properly...but when it becomes excessive (also called wealth), it can create greed, a lust for power and status in those who have it, and envy and distrust in those that don't. It's not a panacea either.
My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong in those (freedom, prosperity) but, like most things, when taken to excess, it can cause problems.
There has been alot of talk about 'rights' in recent decades, and while these are generally well and good when properly defined, there should also be more of a focus on the defining of 'responsibilities', otherwise rights alone lead to the distortions and problems I listed above.
America now is a system out of balance, and balance is needed more than ever.
12 - RedTard
Anti-intellectualism is something to be proud of. It is a term used by liberals to describe those people, usually conservatives, who don't buy their socialist propaganda posed as 'science'.
13 - Steve
Re. anti-intellectualism, I prefer to take a middle ground.
What I mean is, just because someone is an 'expert' in something, it doesn't mean they are right all of the time, but it probably doesn't mean they are wrong all of the time either. Each issue should be taken on a case by case basis.
Because no one is perfect, sometimes, the experts will be right, and sometimes those that aren't will be. To take either side and say that one or the other is always right is...well...a form of deification if you ask me...kinda dangerous to do that to ordinary people IMHO.
14 - RedTard
Good point, Steve. I think that has some merit, you just never hear of a person called an anti-intellectual in the math dept, they just call them dumb. Anti-intellectuallism is more associated with the soft sciences and it's social theories which many everyday people just don't agree with.
I think sometimes researchers in those areas let their philosophies and values slip in place of scientific fact. No one likes being criticized, hence the jab back at the 'anti-intellectual'.
15 - S.T.M
Mark Schannon wrote: "The most distressing element in all this is that we still have the best system of government, the most freedom as a people, and more prosperity than anywhere else in the world."
Yes, I take umbrage with this one as well, especially as it's my view that I have more freedom than the average American (the freedom to become ill and receive top-quality free medical care and financial aid being a major one. It's a huge thing not to have to worry about) ... It's been pointed out that one freedom I don't have is the freedom to own guns (unless I live in a rural area), which is good because it means no-one else does either and I believe the right not to be shot up by a lunatic is a good right.
The system of Government is almost identical, as is the legal system (as it came from the same source).
And more prosperity than anyone else?? Not true, Mark. Come here or go to a few other places high up in the "propsperity stakes" and see before you make those kinds of judgments. I've travelled all over the world and I can tell you that while the US has more prosperity than most countries, it doesn't have more prosperity than ALL countries. There's an awfully big gap in the US between the haves and the have-nots, which translates to a lot of big money at one end and a lot of poverty at the other.
You can't just throw this stuff in old boy without backing it up.
Apart from that, it's a pretty good piece;)
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"I can tell you that while the US has more prosperity than most countries, it doesn't have more prosperity than ALL countries. There's an awfully big gap in the US between the haves and the have-nots, which translates to a lot of big money at one end and a lot of poverty at the other."
Stan, you don't have to tell this to Mark, or to me, for that matter. He wants social justice more than any 'ism' you could imagine and narrowing that income gap and providing decent health care to everybody is one way to achieve social justice.
17 - S.T.M
Ruvy: It wasn't ad-hominem stuff ... It was Mark's comment at the top of my post that was the key issue ... I will give myself a slap on the wrist. But yes, universal free, decent health care is a good thing, though, and you can still have private insurance if you so choose (I do).
The good thing is if something happens and I get carted off to hospital I know the quality of care will be good (mostly). They will treat everyone the same and treat me without asking whether I have insurance first.
There are only 20 million of us, but it's possible even in a huge country like America.
On a sliding scale according to your wages or earnings, you pay a levy (offset at the top of the wages/earnings scale if you also choose private insurance). However, it's a small price to pay, all things considered.
Makes for some red tape and increases the size of the bureaucracy, but it's worth it in the long run. It's nice, too, to know that my monetary contribution on that sliding scale helps to pay for those who aren't as lucky as I am.
18 - Nancy
Politicians don't "become" corrupted; most of them start out that way. Most politicians arrive in DC with their souls already sold to the highest bidder. You don't get as far as congress without having already prostituted yourself pretty completely, selling off your ethics, morals, & honor along the way to major campaign donors & lobbyists, not to mention passing the vetting of The Party moguls who run things. Of course, the top of the heap (or the nadir, depending on your view), the utter lack of any sort of ethics or honor, goes to the ultimate winner, the president of the US, who is the one who is the ultimate political whore of all.
None of them, IMO & IME, is out to change anything. They're there to settle in & start feeding at the publically funded trough which will allow them access to even greater wealth, self-aggrandizement, & privileges than they already have; not to mention pensions & lifelong medical coverage for themselves AND their dependents that the ordinary working people who foot the bill can't even dream of, that will never fail - even if they're caught in flagrante & go to jail for felonies committed while in office, a la Ney or Cunningham.
With numbing regularity they will refuse to raise the minimum wage, citing a Pecksniffian concern for adverse business results, while at the same time voting themselves hefty pay raises, perks, and yet more privileges. Even then they only "work" (if that term can be used in connection with congress) a full TWO DAYS a week: from Tues. pm to Thurs pm. The rest of the time they're out panhandling, either for re-election, or to enhance the goodies they already have access to, courtesy of the slimeballs on K street. In any event, actually DOING anything useful, or serving the public honestly, is the farthest thing from their greedy, warped, little piggy minds. To ascribe to these ... people ... any sort of noble or public-spirited motive is to be a starry-eyed pollyanna, and that's exactly what they themselves depend on from the gullible & naive public to continue their incumbencies & the boggling frauds & rapaciousness they commit on that same overly trusting public.
19 - Mark Schannon
Jonathan, we'll that was a back-handed compliment if ever I've received one. I'm glad I occassionally write stuff you like.
But those of you who have picked on the sentence about the most freedom, prosperity, etc., I don't disagree that they're in danger, but Jonathan's point, they've always been danger. But I didn't intend to suggest that there was this golden past where all was pure and we danced, lymphnode-like, in the flowers.
On the other hand, and I emphasized that this was a feeling I had based on my own perceptions and talking with lots of people here in D.C. that something's wrong; they system has gotten rigid to the point of being non-functional.
I could go on with details about how candidates are chosen and funded, how the election cycle has become like the media cycle-never ending, and the disturbing polling trends that Americans are becoming more and more suspicious of the basic institutions of our society. But it wasn't my point to write a book...at least not here.
Steve, I don't disagree about the lack of responsibility--just as long as you point the accusing finger everywhere it belongs--not just as the poor. The wealthy doing every the can to hide their wealth, the growing gap between the uber-wealthy and everyone else, the mind-numbing cynicism of Congress and Health Insurance Companies when 45-50 million Americans can't afford it. (My wife and I pay over $25,000/year in premiums, out of pockets, and co-pays...we're in our late 50s, but we're in pretty good health.) How many people can afford that???)
Thanks to Ruvy, I've got to worry about what the hell I'm talking about when I say "social justice" but responsibility has to be a part of that.
S.T.M. Good point about "prosperity." We almost have to define it before we can discuss it. That was sloppy on my part.
Ruvy, thanks, as always my friend.
Nancy--we disagree on this one. I've watched too many good people get distorted by the aura surrounding politicians--at the local, state, and national level. Good people do go into politics, but the system is grinding them down.
Whew. Finally, anti-intellectualism. You need to read the book, as old as it is. It's not a left-wing attack on the right; as far as I remember, and it was years ago, it's basic thesis is that Americans have always tended to based decisions on ideology, emotion, herd mentality rather than rigorous intellectual investigations. That could be said for everyone else in the world, too, but it was shocking when it came out in the 50s because that was the great era of America the Science, Technology, & Business king.
Enough. Thanks for the comments. You've got me thinking & I do want to revisit this.
In Jameson Veritas & a tip of the glass to Donnie.
20 - gonzo marx
well now, Mark me boyo...WTF are ye spoutin' off about now?
we all know that any kind of junkie ain't giving up his/her "fix" and politics IS the ultimate addiction, since it is the practice of how we get along with each other, and figure shit out in a large and modern society
but, i9'll chalk a lot of it up to burnout from this insane election cycle, and your being in DC itself...
so, here's some linkage that shoudl cheer you up...it follows my own analysis and i'm betting that Charlie Cook woudl say the same , off the record of course...
enjoy, and BREATHE...
tip one fer me this evening (but single malt is still superior to that blended shyte)
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan,
I also benefit from a system of universal health care - though with a population as small as ours transplants can be a problem. So, you should understand that genetics and stem cell research, and other items in genetics, such as moving data from one string of DNA to another are big items here.
I am damned grateful for the healthcare system, though. There are a lot of things that are third world level here, but health care is a top shelf commodity here.
22 - Mistress La Spliffe
Mark, I'm going to take up your sentence about 'the best system of goverment' - not in a 'nah-uhhhhh, mine is better' sort of way, but to wonder if your system of government is in fact an active contributor to the sort of political degradation you describe.
I wonder how a two-party system can be maintained over the years without coherent and sustainable party platforms (not to mention and sort of real idealism) being utterly replaced by the opportunistic, transparent populism that so distinguishes both the Democrat and Republican parties.
In a multi-party system a voter can - at the very least - vote for an idea they feel deeply. This doesn't seem possible with a two-party system in this complicated world. It seems inevitable such a system will devolve into two corporation-like structures that are willing to claim anything about themselves or each other in their advertising to get market share. Or like a zero-sum game. Very oppositional.
I think the generally dismal voting turn out in the United States indicates many people feel both parties are unrepresentative of their interests and ideologies.
I don't know. Elucidate me. I just don't understand why people think a two party system is attractive or functional.
23 - gonzo marx
for Mistress in #22...
but the US doesn't have a codified "two Party system" and that's not what Mark appears to have been talking about..
my interpertation was that he was speaking about the US Constitution and the secular Rule of Law
there have been other Parties besides GOP and Dems, and there will be again...as the Whigs and Torries grew irrelevant and new parties arose...so they will again, if the People want it and back it with their votes
that being said, i woudl much rather real multi-party representation, but our Nation is in a time of cultural flux sorting all this out in the context of the 21st century and the new media/information/community offered by online communities such as the one we are discussing all this in
my Thought is that within the next generation, we will see many different kinds of political changes to the malleable part of our politics
and that very malleability, the ability to grow, change and adapt, is the REAL strength of our System
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
24 - Nancy
Yer right, Gonzo: politics is indeed the Ultimate Addiction. And it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening if you're just watching & carping about it (& voting, of course).
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
A two party system is not that wonderful at all. But a system where most of the population share a reasonably common vision, whether it takes two parties to express that vision or more than two, is far better than one where the views of the population is squelched under artificial divisions and issues, which is what I see in much of American "governance".
In essence, a two party system is what Great Britain used to have two centuries ago, and it is very important to remember that the American political system is a snapshot in many ways, of a more liberal and open version of the British system of governance in the mid 1700's.