Smear and Fear Needs an Overhaul

Ahh, once again the smell of politics hovers in the in the air like the waft of a stank fart. The glorious season has arrived--a time for smearing your opponents in order to gain a vote in your favor--a time to bask in the glow of our own superiority for being on the moral side of the political spectrum or for shouting our discontentedness at the slings and arrows overriding discourse on policy. What's odd is that we all know campaigns rely heavily on discrediting the opponent and we absolutely know it's a strategy. And yet it continues. The reason it continues is because it actually works. In a two-party system, one of the best ways to get a vote is through fear of the enemy. Make the enemy bad enough and scary enough and people will get off their couches to vote out of fear where they would rarely do so out of optimism.

This method, however, has bred great consequences. Campaign time never truly stops. The voting may stop, but the people need to be prepped throughout their lives. If we remain complacent and not outraged enough, we begin to realize that it hardly matters who we vote for. We must know that our enemy is up to no good because we did not get off the couch to vote and thus allowed the enemy free reign. By enraging us every day, we'll be far more likely to vote for whoever is the party representative of whichever party had the least amount of fear-generating poo flung on our faces. It forces us to pick a side and become advocates with our votes.

Despite knowing that smear and fear campaigns rule the election season, we fail to recognize it for what it is every day in every article that approaches us. If we can make the "other" side look like the enemy, we will gain more supporters come election time. And so, that is exactly what we do. And we do it so creatively (and mostly subconsciously) out of the actual belief that we are indeed right. You may notice I am saying "we." That's right, because we are part of it whether we realize it or not. The political divide as gotten so strong that we no longer need to intentionally and conspiratorially control people because we actually truly believe we are fighting an enemy so heinous that every lie we state is perceived as truth. We are so quick to judge and to preconceive the motives of the "other" that we believe the very straw men arguments we create for them and we believe in our own power to destroy them.

If we actually sit and listen to our opponents and give them the benefit of the doubt--if we consider that just maybe they believe what they're saying and that it's not some secret code or deprived motive behind it--we might learn that we agree far more than we disagree. The fundamental difference is mostly in how we achieve our common goals rather than the goals themselves. Nobody likes mass shootings, for example, but how we stop them is the fundamental concern. The left wants to have more gun control while the right wants to focus on the underlying cause of why someone would do it. Neither side really wants to kill babies. Neither side thinks that abortion is a great option or that women should be slaves. This narrative comes only from our mutual desire to value life in our particular way. And to get it our way, we must demonize the other with such nonsense and lies.

Sadly, all this feuding has severe impacts on social justice. The best place to divide and manufacture an enemy is along the lines of social inequality, unfairness, and immorality. If we make the enemy look like they're out to control or trying to destroy a particular people group, we can claim moral superiority. And who better to use as examples of the enemy's depravity than those whose unfairness and inequality is most on display? The oppressed become the dividing line. Neither side likes oppression, but if we can convince people that the oppression is due to the other side's negligence, we can garner support to "help" them. But that's all we truly care about is garnering the support for our virtuous side. Even the voters care about getting more voters than actually doing any good because the enemy is so evil that we must defeat them at all costs. We'll help the oppressed later.

It is easy enough to see that the oppressed are a mere tool to both sides because our chants and motives drive the most change in ways of alliance and hatred rather than in doing any actual good. Only recently did we start to focus on a single tangible outcome in police reform but seemingly as a side effect to the chant of black lives matter. Until then, the only thing we squabbled about was whether or not racism existed at all and whether or not we should use the word "black" or "all" in our chanting. What good was any of that? Why are we focusing on the words and labels rather than the actual changes necessary to make an impact? If we care so much about black lives that we're chanting black lives matter, then why are we chanting that phrase rather than chanting for police reform specifically? Or education reform? Or support to end poverty or to invest in infrastructure? Or any other multitude of solutions that would help black lives? Instead it's like the Red Cross chanting "Red Cross Rocks" as a means to garner support for their organization rather than requesting any blood.

The response to this observation is typically more evidence that the oppressed are being used as a tool. It is clear in my words that I recognize they are the oppressed and that I desire to help them. I made it clear that I am all about chanting how we can help them and I am only writing this piece as a means to have a greater impact in acquiring that change. However, despite all these obvious points, my sentiments are only ever refuted with accusations of my own evil. If I am not 100% on board with the chanting, that makes me an enemy. It has nothing to do with my desire to help and it has nothing to do with improving the lives of black folks. If it did, there'd be more focus put into how and less into framing people and pointing accusatory fingers. They would be far more strategic in how they approach the solutions and more willing to alter course in order to garner more support.

Now, don't take me for a minute to be saying that I'm telling the black folks how to speak out. To pretend I am saying that is to create a straw man on behalf of my argument and to subsequently burn it down in a rage (which is quite typical). No, I am speaking to the democratic party as a whole and to any individual who truly cares--not to the oppressed themselves. I am demonstrating and revealing how those who are not oppressed are using the oppressed as a means to alienated and divide our country on a supposed moral basis without intending to do any actual good. The oppressed have every right to shout about their plights without knowing the solutions. They have every right to take a knee or picket in the streets. As a response, however, we the unoppressed should not simply chant their chant with them. We should hear their chant, care about it, and start chanting some solutions alongside them or supporting those who do. Otherwise, we're simply charging our own virtue batteries at the expense of true support. That's not to say change won't occur this way, but if we force the change while throwing half the country under the bus as the enemy, we will never see peace. We will see more dividing and escalation of hatred. We cannot let anger, fear, and hatred be our rallying cries if we truly seek to be a force of good on behalf of the oppressed.

Unfortunately this method of smear and fear will continue and my words here will have little to no impact overall. It is impossible to avoid since it is the best method to garner votes. People are biologically prone to respond to this method and it will continue to work so long as we have a two-party system. And we will continue with a two-party system for as long as we continue to vote the way we do. This is because of the winner take all with a single vote strategy. A third party divides votes away from someone else we might otherwise be happy with. And so, to be strategic, we must always vote as a group for one or the other. Adding a third person weakens it and allows "the enemy" to get in. In short, we must always vote to avoid an evil rather than vote for who we truly want.

To work around this, we must abolish the two-party system. This would abolish the smear and fear and subsequently abolish hatred and division. The only way to abolish the two-party system is to enable Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). By doing so, we can vote for who we truly want without "wasting" our votes. People will then be forced to emphasize why they are good candidates rather than why so many other people are bad ones. Increasing the number of opponents will make it far easier to uplift oneself rather than to put down all the rest. Voting reform is the first step to many better solutions. It is the first step to removing our dividing lines and once again recognizing that those who think differently than us are truly necessary and not simply evil. We have different minds and experiences and it is necessary to give each mind room to breathe and speak. If we don't, we continue to devolve until another war breaks out. Let's end the hatred. Let's stop buying into the hate and recognize that our opponents are not indeed opponents. They are our friends, family, and coworkers. They're all around us. And they all need a voice without being falsely accused of evil.

 

The Bubble Conundrum

I often contemplate the various plights of the world and burden myself with the ever-present load of attempting to rectify what I find wrong. Being a middle-class nobody, this quite often entails discussion and attempts at convincing others of what I see in hopes to spread ideas. In other words, I am a Facebook troll (at least by some definitions). I am kind and courteous, but others do not perceive me that way when I bring up topics that quickly enrage them. This, of course, spews hatred in my direction which often begs the question if I'm doing any good at all or even, perhaps, making things worse.

If my attempts to benefit mankind reap no benefits--and especially if they cause harm--then I would be far better off attempting to do nothing. I come to conclude quite often that I ought to stop which is temporarily relieving, but it rarely lasts as I can't hardly feel like a good person if I am not trying to fix what is wrong with the world. How can I go on my merry way with a cheery smile while so much sucks for so many others? How can that be good? And yet, who am I to think I know what ought to be done? Mind you, I'm thinking from a larger and grander scale. I'm considering the whole of racism and sexism, religion, politics, and more. And from that perspective, perhaps I am even more of a terrible person to assume I could even know enough to attempt to rectify such things.

And so, I am often caught perceiving myself as terrible for trying and terrible for not. Given this self-imposed dichotomy, perhaps what makes the most sense is to focus more on my smaller sphere of influence. I should look at my family, neighbors, and coworkers and try to help them. Not help them understand my grander schemes of the universe, but via the minimum good that I can do while forgetting about the larger scale. I, myself, can ensure that I am not being unfair in my dealings with others and I can stand up when I see unfairness occur around me. While sounding good on paper, my bubble rarely has such terrible occurrences which is supposedly half the problem with the greater issues. It is our privilege to never see the plights of others. My bubble is typically well enough while so many other bubbles are suffering.

If everyone felt a responsibility to their smaller bubbles, then clearly we'd have no problems whatsoever. The pitfall with that philosophy, of course, is that not everyone does nor will feel such responsibility. So in bubbles where this feeling of responsibility is not occurring, who will save them? And yet, if not within the bubble, who are we to even know any saving needs to occur? And even if such saving is needed, if it is not our bubble, can it really be said to be our problem? Given the relativity of everything, there is an obvious flaw in trying to help another bubble from the perspective of our own. Should an advanced civilization truly attempt to improve upon the bubble of a more primitive one? I think history and Star Trek have proven time and again that non-interference is typically a better strategy. 

So where should we draw the lines of non-interference? And what point is it better to say that a bubble is better off learning and growing on its own? This is especially challenging in such a global economy. Is the world one bubble? Is a continent a bubble? A country? State? County or city? Can they be ideological with bubbles of Christian, Muslim, Atheist or otherwise? Political? I think our bubbles are much like Venn diagrams but with too many dimensions to truly comprehend. So again, where does the rule of non-interference take place? We seem perfectly fine in the United States allowing third-world countries and tribal groups to manage their own bubbles and grow, so how would this be any different than, say, allowing ghetto areas to deal with their own problems? They may belong to the bubble of the United States, but does that mean they belong to the bubbles of the rest of us? 

Perhaps the Government should care about ghetto bubbles and yet those of us outside should not? And yet, we vote for what our government does and who is in charge so it could hardly be said that they are not a part of our bubble. Our government also deals with other countries, however, and provides aid to other people. So once again, our bubble has now become that of the world. There must be a better means of narrowing down our own responsibilities. The universe likely has a plethora of sentient species and creatures that can feel pain, but we'd be fools to assume it is our responsibility to minimize the pain and suffering of them all. So where does it end? At what point is it okay to callously shrug our shoulders at the plight of others and pawn it off as someone else's bubble? 

In the end, it truly is all relative. My pain is not the same as another's. My first world problems not those of primitive tribes. Does that mean my pain is meaningless? Of course not. Within my sphere, pain is still pain. Compared with another bubble, the mere bubble itself would be pain to me and yet contains both pain and joy for those within. Not having a toilet is pain for me and yet having a fresh hole for a toilet could be joy to another. The relativity of suffering makes it so much harder to know what is truly worth intervening on behalf of.

And so, I just don't know what is worth fighting for. Without knowing, I can never comprehend how I might be good if I simply enjoy my own life. Thus, my life is filled with misery. Perhaps this is itself worse than the bubbles of those whom I'd otherwise wish to help, but such a thought would likely make me a terrible person.