hopelesshappiness.com

There is a difference between educating an individual and changing the nature of an individual. Traditional Conservatives want to educate and be educated. Progressives want to change and be changed. Granted, some things need to be changed, but I believe the change should come about as a result of education and choice, not as a result of big government dictating a collective sense of acuity or morality. Unfortunately in this process of discussing and arguing conservative thought vs. progressive thought, in recent years we have created a new power conservatism that interprets education as instructive exhortation. This elite conservative has no desire to learn as the progressive learns – from credentialed expertise. This new conservative believes he or she has all the knowledge necessary from tradition and from his or her own indoctrination. This elite conservative believes that because a progressive desires to use their learning as a tool to manipulate and change the nature of an individual, the learning is bad. This could not be further from the truth. The learning is not bad, (though personally I would agree that the progressive slant is skewed). For the conservative though, the learning could be used differently: as a tool to conserve and advance equality of opportunity, allowing the best of an individual to come about; (which as I understand it, is the original purpose of Traditional American Conservatism). To deny learning because it is a progressive tool to be feared, leads the elite conservative to work to advance regressive thought, which plays out as oxymoronic as it sounds. It is closer to the truth to make the following observations:

1. The elite conservative leaders use fear as a tool to encourage the majority conservative to deny knowledge, and
2. The progressive leaders use fear as a tool to encourage the progressive majority to deny equality of opportunity.

I believe in knowledge and I believe in equality of opportunity. But in our current state, what we are left with is ignorance and a feeble, unworkable attempt at equality of outcomes. Education is not populist rhetoric. Education will not magically transform reality into a Garden of Eden. Education should not incite arrogance or insecurity or fear. Education should lead to knowledge that first facilitates survival, then allows one to pursue personal well-being, and only then naturally enhances a collective well-being. As a culture we have become averse to education. We have come to think of learning as a social exercise that encourages amicability and conformity. We have come to think of debate and argument as an activity that builds confidence and reinforces certainty. We have come to think of activism as a learning exercise that encourages allegiance to a specific faction or ideology. We have lost our way. We no longer know “how” to think. Thinking has become a superficial exercise in futility that offers an illusion of free will. We no longer know how to listen for understanding. We no longer know how to consider a differing opinion, how to analyze the process by which another individual may have come to their belief, or how to incorporate the best features of their thought into my thought. I promise that every ideology has best features and to understand the thought process will lead to a melding and evolution that can only result in greater depth and advancement toward (both individual and collective) well-being. And isn't that what we are all striving for? Imagine: A purposeful entanglement of old and new knowledge that will enhance and advance individual and collective well-being.

E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler to a congressional committee in September: “We are committed to the highest quality science. Good science is science that can be replicated and independently validated, science that can hold up to scrutiny. That is why we're moving forward to ensure that the science supporting agency decisions is transparent and available for evaluation by the public and stakeholders.”

Translation:

E.P.A.: In order to determine public health regulations we require transparency which means we need your raw data to validate your study's conclusions and yes that includes patient information which we realize you can't give us because of privacy protections which means your science is not valid.

Science: so you are saying that in the interest of science, you are going to ignore science?

Uncle Sam: Yes. And furthermore we are going to invalidate previous science that does not meet our standards for transparency.

Trump Voter: Great! So for example if you outlaw the science on cigarette smoking, I have no worries. Right?

Uncle Sam: Sure. Got a light?

Trump Voter: Here you go. Heavy smoker?

Uncle Sam: 3 packs a day. You?

Trump Voter: No. Not at all. Only after sex.

Uncle Sam: (under his breath) – Yeah, same here.

This week I am learning. This week I began reading the book “The Conservative Sensibility” written by George Will. It is difficult to keep up with the constantly changing political landscape. I believe this book, (though I already realize some disagreement in philosophy), will help me to better understand some basic structure and ideology. I will start with some definitions noting that I am less than 50 pages into the book so planning to come back and see how my understanding changes. The terminology in parentheses reflects my impression at this time.

• Traditional / Classical Liberalism or (Foundational American Conservatism) – champions the rights of the individual; aspires to protect individual liberty and individual choice; believes individual rights are natural rights; believes government should be limited government; and believes there are universal political truths based on universal reason. According to classical liberals, classical liberalism is what the Founders intended.
• Empirical Conservatism or (Practical American Conservatism) – Like classical liberals, empirical conservatives espouse individual rights and limited government but empirical conservatives are skeptical of universal political truths. They believe a political system should be based on experience, must fit the circumstance, should include a small bit of nationalism, and will change/evolve over time. Empirical Conservatives work to uphold the Constitution. According to empirical conservatives, the Founders believed that a universal political system would not work for all nations.
• American Progressivism – Goal is to strengthen the power of the state; progressives are afraid that industrial society, (banks corporations, etc.), may become too powerful. Progressives work to upend classical liberalism and reinterpret the Constitution. Progressives work toward equality of outcomes at the expense of equality of opportunity.
• (Centrist Liberalism) – Centrist Liberals are not interested in conserving a social status quo but they do acknowledge the importance of maintaining traditional rule of law. They are wannabe progressives who work to accommodate change and autonomy (perhaps unavoidably) by prescribing political correctness and dictating (their idea of) morality, which leads to bigger government.
• (Speculative Nationalism) or (New American Conservatism) – Posing as populism, it appeals to emotions and a yearning for the good-old-days; attempts to maintain status quo and (perhaps unavoidably) threatens to do so by strengthening bureaucracy and the power of the few, falsely claiming this maneuvering as equality of opportunity. New American Conservatives pick and choose particulars from the Constitution (and from Foundational and Practical Conservatism, and even from Centrist Liberalism and American Progressivism) that will aid in their battle to maintain a favorable power structure.

According to my understanding, Foundational and Practical American Conservatism had been (for the most part) aligned and working well (or at least okay) together, keeping conservative ideology intact; and they are continuing to work together to find a single compatible identity. But because Foundational American Conservatism has not translated well to other nations and other circumstance in recent decades, in recent years a segment of Practical American Conservatism has evolved or morphed into Speculative Nationalism; i.e. a New American Conservatism. Where Practical American Conservatism is trial and error, Speculative Nationalism appears to be error and trial. To speculate is more impractical than to practice, assess and learn.

So now instead of two schools of thought – Conservative (which is liberal) and Progressive (which is not liberal) – we appear to have four:

1. Progressive, which remains as defined above;
2. Centrist Liberal, which is suffering from an identity crisis, wavering between progressive and liberal;
3. Conservative, which is working to find a liberal identity built on its strong foundation but offering greater fluidity and flexibility; and
4. New Conservative, which is full of bluster and promise and national pride and nostalgia and (from where I sit) hubris and arrogance and overconfidence and derision and division and ignorance.

Yet in upcoming elections, at least for the near future, it appears we will only be offered two selections:

1. Progressive/Liberal (depending on the candidate), or
2. New Conservative (with sprinkles of Foundational and Practical Conservatism for effect).

I believe that ultimately the New Conservative movement will once again be absorbed by Conservatism and (once Conservatism redefines itself) we may be stronger from the experience. If I had to choose one, I suppose this week's thought marks me as more of a Practical American Conservative. But I definitely lean toward some elements of Centrist Liberalism; I am also attracted to some Progressive thought, but in an ideal world I would prefer a Foundational Conservatism if there were such a thing; (I don't believe it exists). I believe this is consistent with personal belief and philosophy throughout my adult life, though in recent years it may appear that I have taken a hard left. This apparent change in direction though, (I believe), is a direct result of two things:

1. Continued learning, and
2. The evolution of an element of Practical Conservatism into Speculative Nationalism.

Even if/when Speculative Nationalism is reabsorbed by a coherent conservatism, I will remain to the left of where I was a decade ago. This personal effort and ongoing enlightenment though is wasted as long as I have only two choices. Our two party system is outdated. Within my limited understanding, currently our Republicans represent Conservatism and our Democrats represent Liberalism and Progressivism. It is too bad that we cannot have (at least) three or (better yet) four or five choices that would more accurately represent the three or four or five schools of thought predominant at a given time. Within the complexity of today's politics, either/or is not adequate to discern the subtlety and nuance (or lack thereof) within a given individual or ideology as represented by an individual. In this two party system it is too easy to sell broad strokes, sweeping gestures and blustery promises.

I will continue to read George Will and perhaps revisit this week's written thought as I continue to learn.

I am passive-aggressive. I am also assertively-aggressive. I began this week concerned with the disdain of others. I have discovered connections.

Disdain: to openly speak to or of another as a servile subordinate; an overt act of hostile humiliation; contempt.

In fairness I am not subject to excessively unbearable disdain, but I have come to realize that when directed towards me (often) the disdain is brought about by me; specifically by my overt (or assertive) aggressiveness.

Aggressiveness: a vigorously energetic display of initiative resulting from (for me) a striving for excellence.

I realize that what I do on a daily basis is not terribly important. And I realize that I have very little power in the grand scheme. And because of this circumstance I understand why one with more power would react with disdain to what they perceive as an unprovoked offensive initiated by a minion.

Still, what I do on a daily basis is what I do, and I cannot NOT strive for excellence.

Unfortunately, to be passive-aggressive is less productive than to be assertively-aggressive, but to be assertively-aggressive invites disdain which brings on passive-aggressive.

Question:
Is there a way for me to strive for excellence and not be assertively-aggressive?

• Simple assertiveness? I believe this would become semantics and still be defined as aggressiveness by many of those with more power.
• Persistence? I believe this is the cycle I am in now which defaults to periods of passive-aggressive.
• Redefine excellence as mediocrity and keep my mouth shut? Though I acknowledge that my definition of striving for excellence may very well result in (or appear to be) mediocrity, keeping my mouth shut is apparently not an option for me.
• Anticipatory empathy? If the purpose of the empathy is to foresee and then thwart or avoid my assertive-aggressive behavior, then I believe that will lead me (more quickly and more frequently) back to passive-aggressive behavior. If the purpose of the empathy is to create actual empathy so I may more quickly move past the proffered disdain, in theory I see how this might increase overall productivity but I am not sure (as a human) if it is possible for me to 1) consistently find empathy for another whose disdain is directed toward me or 2) consistently invite unwarranted beatings.

Perhaps instead of the question above I should ask the following:
Will we ever live in a world not divided into taskmasters and their minions?

• Likely not in my Lifetime.

So how the Hell am I to maintain my efforts toward excellence, increase productivity and avoid beatings?

Of course. The next most obvious answer is to become a taskmaster; because some of us are more suited to play that role, than others. Right? And because a taskmaster must have minions, the others are suited for that role. Right? It is clearly a division that reflects survival of the fittest. Right?

As a taskmaster though, no matter how my power is bestowed, (whether the title and role of taskmaster is warranted or not), I will come to believe that the title and role of minion is (far more often than not) warranted and deserved; and I will treat them accordingly. And as a taskmaster I will exaggerate my power and come to believe it is more deserved than it actually is; and I will wield that power in unnecessary and hurtful ways. Some taskmasters may learn to mitigate the inevitable exaggeration in varying ways, but wouldn't it be better if we each were our own taskmaster and minion, all in one? Wouldn't it be better if we could first interdependently suggest and discuss, and then choose our own contributions that would complement and support other's contributions? Wouldn't it be better if we would each and all strive for our own excellence? As one?

Likely not in my Lifetime.

Why is respectability given so much import? There is a stigma associated with being human, but it is only attached to those who are caught being human. Why are we unable to acknowledge our shared humanness? Some who believe they have nothing to be ashamed of or nothing to be embarrassed about are delusional; and the rest are by far, far more lucky than good. There is no difference between the (approximately) 20 million convicted felons in the United States and the (likely) 20 million plus others who have committed felonies – except that the individual humans in one subset were caught and the individual humans in the other subset (were not and) are free of any associated stigma; and there are a plethora of prescribed blemishes that mark and follow the publicly disgraced evildoer for the entirety of their life. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between this 20 million and that 20 (or 40 or 60 or 150) million except for the difference between good and bad luck; the difference between being born here and being born there; the difference between being born into money and not; the difference between being born with this skin color and being born with that skin color; the difference between pretentious delusion and unwarranted shame.

Furthermore…

Those who are convicted or marked or guilty by association are held to a higher standard than those who are lucky. Blacks are held to a higher standard than whites. The working poor are held to a higher standard than the comfortably affluent. Foreign born immigrants are held to a higher standard than native born citizens. Single Moms are held to a higher standard than Soccer Moms. A higher level of respectability is required to be accepted as something other than a criminal, or a deadbeat, or a terrorist, or a slut. Yet research and statistics and reasoned thought continue to show there are no more criminals or deadbeats or terrorists or sluts amongst those convicted and marked and guilty by association than there are amongst the general population. Labels are utilized to keep certain people in their place and to maintain the status quo.

It is beyond difficult to hold up a convicted felon as a victim of racial profiling; as an example deserving empathy; as an individual human no better and no worse than the millions of sons and daughters who also made mistakes in their youth but went on to college instead of prison. He's a convicted felon! He's a criminal! He made his choices! He deserves what he got! Right? WRONG! Unless we are willing to stigmatize and withhold jobs from and deny housing for and disenfranchise an additional 20 or 40 or 60 or 150 million people, what we have done is wrong! And the only reason his punishment is so far out of whack, so disproportionate to his crime, is because he was unlucky.

In March 1955 a fifteen year old black girl was considered for a role and rejected because she became pregnant. In October 1955 an eighteen year old black girl was considered for the same role and rejected because her father was rumored to be an alcoholic. In December 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for the same crime as Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith: for not giving up her seat to a white person on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Rosa Parks was chosen by civil rights advocates as the perfect symbol because her character was impeccable. Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith were unable to meet the standard required to ensure empathy for a victim, though each was indeed every bit the victim (and the hero) that we saw in Rosa Parks. Today we continue to hold blacks to a higher standard, both those convicted and marked, and those guilty by association. Today we continue to withhold empathy until we know a victim is of impeccable character.

In the past few years there has been considerable concern surrounding racial profiling and police shootings. And because of this some have come around to see the disproportionate and unreasonable nature of our policing methods. Very recently a young black woman in Texas was shot and killed inside her home by an officer who was outside her home in the dark, and who did not identify himself. The first thing the police did after the shooting was to post (online) a picture of a gun found inside the home. If I am not mistaken it is still legal for a person to have a gun for protection. Yet the implication tried to be that this young (now dead) black woman brought this upon herself. By posting a picture of her gun the police tried to impugn her character thus robbing her of empathy. In this case their tactic failed. The police officer has been charged with murder. This is some small progress. Only small progress because it is not too difficult to find empathy for a young, college-educated black woman who gets shot, dead, inside her home, playing video games with her nephew. The only reason this result is so far out of whack, so disproportionate to the circumstance, is because she was unlucky. If your memory is short, the same reasoning applies to the convicted felon two paragraphs above. Bigger progress would be to also find some empathy for the convicted felon by recognizing these fear-mongering, strong-arm tactics for what they are; (i.e. fear-mongering, strong-arm tactics). Bigger progress would be to first see then begin dismantling the structure that overtly encourages targeting certain groups thereby increasing the likelihood of circumstance that favors police shootings. Explicit or implicit bias and profiling directly lead to unnecessary police shootings. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Our insistence on higher standards of respectability serves our lack of empathy which serves the status quo which serves bias and profiling. If excessive police force and unnecessary police shootings are wrong then targeting and profiling (leading to mass incarceration) is wrong.

Both per capita and raw numbers show the prison population in the United States exceeds that of every nation in the world including Russia, China, Brazil, Ukraine and El Salvador. Many countries have found alternatives to prison such as drug treatment programs and facilities, education, work programs, and not targeting and profiling certain groups. And many of these programs would cost less than the maintenance and upkeep of prisons and prisoners. But our entire criminal justice system is so massive, and some elements (like many prisons) now privatized, that there will be (and has been) a tremendous amount of pushback against even suggesting a dismantling and reworking of what we have come to accept as normal.

Again, I don't know how many ways to say it. If shooting an innocent black woman in her home is wrong, then mass incarceration is wrong. The dots connect. And until we dismantle the system there will continue to be excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary, unjustified, disproportionate punishments brought down upon those who are convicted and marked, and upon those who are merely guilty by association; punishments ranging from unreasonable standards demanding impeccable character to being marked for life unable to find reasonable work or housing to being shot dead in your own home.

As a nation we have plenty to be ashamed of. As a nation we are a disgrace.