hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Am I defined by me?

Or am I defined by significant others?

Or am I defined by all others?

Or am I defined by how I want others to define me?

Or am I perhaps undefined until all others and/or significant others are able to compile a composite account of how I lived and how I died?

What if there are no significant---(depending upon one's definition of significant)---others left to account for me? What if I am the last one? Would this mean that I should live my Life and die my Death according to how I believe others would define me? Or because there are no others to account for me, (or because those who may account for me will soon enough forget), should I define myself?

I believe many (and perhaps most) believe that one should define oneself. But is that reality? If you believe one should define oneself, do you, in each moment, define yourself with little or no regard (beyond simple civility) for those around you? Are you truly not concerned with what they may be thinking? Or how they may be judging? I believe this is unrealistic because it is difficult to separate judgement from definition; especially in the moment. I believe definition is more definite than judgement but I understand how heavy-handed or consensus judgement can strongly influence (and even become) definition.

I lean towards the belief that one is ultimately defined by oneself but not the self as consciously presented to others; not even the more authentic self as presented to significant others; and not even the self as presented in the quietest of moments alone. I think I believe that one is defined by the self that defines reality outside of oneself. Last week I described reality as a massive writhing contortion beneath a veil of everything-will-be-okay. I am saying that I am not how I am seen, I am how I see. To define myself I cannot see myself (through my eyes or through the eyes of others), I must instead objectively see how I see. What am I looking at? And why? Where is my focus? When is my focus?

For me, this means:
I am skepticism.
I am sadness.
I am serious thought.
I am cynicism.
I am active hope.
I am sincerity.
I am anger.
I am uncertainty.

I would rather be this than quiescence. And pretense. And overriding fear. I think those are the broad strokes.

I do realize though that in a given moment I may be quiescence and/or pretense and/or fear; but beneath these momentary reactions I still see reality as a massive writhing contortion.

I also realize that many (and perhaps most) see quiescence and pretense and fear as hope and happiness and certainty. This is not realistic. Lift the veil and you will see quiescence and pretense and fear grotesquely undulating very near the surface – This is the Reality. Yet if we dare look, many (and perhaps most) of us quickly cover it up.

And perhaps that is okay because perhaps, given our animal nature, it is unavoidable. But if this is the case, why do we pretend to be forward-thinking caretakers? I believe we pretend because we aspire. I believe aspiration is more definite and more actively hopeful than pretense. I believe one day, to pretend will not be okay. I believe more and more (and perhaps soon to be most) of us are working toward longer-term survival of the species. And I believe frequently lifting the veil will ultimately push aspiration from thought to action.

I am active awareness.
I am active aspiration.
I am outrage.
I am not giving up.

Today 1 in 3 adult black males in the United States of America are convicted felons. For some this gap (33% of adult black males vs. 13% of all adult males) just goes to show, all blacks are criminals. For others this shocking statistic illustrates the injustice running rampant through our system. I am aligned with the rampant injustice (fact-based) believers. From the research and statistics, I also believe that AT LEAST 1 in 3 of all adult males could be convicted felons, which, (if I follow the reasoning of the unthinking majority), I guess just goes to show that all adult males are criminals. But, (hanging with the fact-based minority), I believe this shows that the laws we choose to emphasize and enforce, (many times at the street level), are not based on sound principles of farsighted consensus justice, but instead are structured and manipulated to maintain an old guard status quo.

I believe this entrenched injustice applies to far more than blacks caught up in the criminal justice system. It also applies to single Moms, and the disabled, and the skeptics, and the homeless, and the immigrants, and the bona-fide credentialed experts, and the poverty-stricken, and the serious thinkers, and the mentally ill, and the growing majority ranks of paycheck-to-paycheck working poor, and anyone else who doesn't fit neatly into the system's expectation of subservient acquiescence.

Everyone in their place.

We preach hope. We practice suppression.

It is like telling a dog who is beaten daily by his master that he has a choice. It is like telling a squirrel to wait for traffic. It is like telling a man in the throes of a massive heart attack, not to die. It is like telling a pinball caught rapid-fire between two bumpers to begin planning its next move. Circumstance begets circumstance begets circumstance-begets-circumstance-begets-circumstance-begets-circumstance-begets-How-the-hell-did-I-get-here? Roadkill.

We play at anecdotal sympathy and we amuse ourselves with selective, superficial empathy. We flirt with serious consideration and we trifle with the future. We pretend to know Beauty, Truth and Wisdom and we dabble in Faith. We tinker with Life.

It is easy to ignore a preponderance of evidence when the bar is set at beyond a reasonable doubt; even easier when we use the old guard definition of reasonable.

To divide and to separate and to categorize is no longer reasonable. To create circumstance that seduces and deceives and entangles, and then to blame those caught in the trap, is no longer reasonable. To play and to amuse ourselves and to flirt and to trifle and to pretend and to dabble and to tinker is no longer reasonable. To continue to ignore the preponderance of evidence is no longer reasonable.

Yes, it is extremely disheartening to see the massive writhing contortion of reality beneath the veil. Perhaps it would be less monstrous if we could all see it; if we could all share it. But it appears that we prefer to believe everything will be okay. True to our animal nature, we prefer to live in the moment for the moment. And on this trajectory, sooner than later, that moment will be gone.

Problem solved.