Disturbing Trend in American Politics

Greetings,

I want to talk about what I see as destructive trends in American Politics.  Many of my counterparts across the political spectrum have their own opinions.   On any given day, I hear, from my friends, co-workers, and family, all sorts of reasons why the country is going to hell.

My grandmother would agree with this Occupy Wall Street/MoveOn poster.  Whenever I call her, if we talk about politics, she mentions that she believes greed has sent us down the way of late-empire Rome.  She can find a way to blame almost any major problem in America on the rich or an industry agenda.

Contrast with one of my longtime friends.  He identifies the same contemporary problems as endemic of our society, for we have fallen from traditional values.  He too, embraces comparisons to late-empire Rome.  His concerns are echoed by prominent American politicians, most notably Rick Santorum, though such beliefs are put in better terms of apocalyptic cries through  Pat Buchanan.

Contrast again with my older brother, Daniel.  He firmly believes that we, the West, are currently in a cultural battle with Islam-- and that we risk losing if we sacrifice even a small bit of our vigilance.  He avoids the late-period Rome comparisons, but the message is the same: we are on the brink and our society is perilously close to falling.  Mark Steyn would agree with him.

Many libertarians I know, especially those actively invested in the anti-War movements, have come to believe that the Federal Government is the real culprit behind Daniel's concerns.  They advocate that the government wants the average citizen to believe that there are "Islamic terrorists under your bed," then use this boogeyman to expand the federal goverment's own power.  They warn that we are perilously close to a fascist police state-- Lew Rockwell thinks we're already there.

I'd be more surprised if any of this is news.  You may agree with some of what's written.  I'm not going to debate any of the specific points, in this post, anyway.  Rather, I'm going to highlight a few trends that i see in all of these.

The single biggest is the stakes we're playing with.  Lew Rockwell and OWS want you to know that a slim few have this country under their thumb and living in tyranny.  Mr. Buchanan believes America won't be around by 2025.  Mark Steyn gives us a little longer-- until Islamic demographics catch up.  These are carefully measured words, but they all read the same: We are screwed.  A convincing argument could be made that the people mentioned above are all political commentators or members of an extremist movement, but their rhetoric filters through to mainstream politics.

I contest the legitimacy of this apocalyptic trend.  I would offer the comparison of a poker game.  A player, we'll call him Uncle Sam, represents the United States.  His money represents the current state of the nation, gauged by as many metrics as you'd like.  On the sidelines, Sam's family members watch him play, knowing that's their money out there, but the condition is this: they don't know how much money he actually has.  With each hand, Uncle Sam bets a large sum of money.  On the sidelines, the critics are full of the usual commentary-- they all believe that Uncle Sam is playing too much, too fast, or playing the wrong hand.  They worry that when this money disappears, they will have nothing left.  So the hands turn, and turn.  He wins big for "World War II" and then almost loses it all again during the "Vietnam" hand.  But again, the hidden value, what really matters, is how much money he actually has.  Often, critics correctly predict the outcomes of various programs and initiatives (The Vietnam War, for one), but fail to grasp the consequences.

History judges that in our reality.  Americans know now that Vietnam was not the end of American prosperity; that allowing the Chinese to immigrate did not cause us to lose our culture; that the abolition of slavery did not end the southern way of life.  But to look at sources from the time, they too, argued with apocalyptic stakes.  The Defense Department insisted that if Vietnam became red, then so would the rest of Southeast Asia until we had lost all our allies and were under siege from a multinational force of communists. American anti-immigrant activists ranging from white supremacists to labor leaders insisted that without the Chinese Exclusion Act, thousands of Americans would lose their job to low-wage "coolies." Of course, the CSA was founded on the principle of keeping Southern Culture intact, and the states that seceded did so under the firm belief that the election of Abraham Lincoln would lead to their cultural extinction.

The problem with such sweeping, apocalyptic stakes, is that they distort the actual issues.  Actual apocalyptic stakes read more like "There is an aggressive neighbor state with a larger army than us who wants our land" or "we are about to have absolutely no money."  Not this slippery slope of "No intervention in Vietnam = communists will be in America soon."  Empirical evidence, unfortunately, has a peripheral place in American politics, and arguably in world politics.  But in this author's humble opinion, the best way to start fixing problems is to take them reasonably in stride, and address accordingly.

I'll use one of my own personal beliefs as an example cause: I oppose the PATRIOT Act.  Now, here's a few things I could say to oppose it, ranging from the frankly ridiculous down to the productive.

"The PATRIOT Act has turned the United States into a police state, on par with any third-world dictatorship."
"The PATRIOT Act infringes upon the liberty of our citizens, and puts us on the road to a police state."
"The PATRIOT Act is a violation of our civil rights laid out by the constitution."
"The PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed-- we can accomplish similar goals through more legitimate means."
"The intent of the PATRIOT Act, ultimately, to preserve American freedom and security, makes no sense if in order to do that, the State must be granted powers contrary to American freedom, and only loosely aligned with security.  Instead, we need to focus on what we can do to stop attacks from happening in the first place, not trying to catch them in the act or late planning phases."

Now, obviously, the last is far more spelled out, but that's the point.  Contemporary America needs solutions, not complaints.  Does this mean you can't complain?  Absolutely not.  Go for it, more power to you, the Bill of Rights encourages it.

But keep in mind, if you want something to be done, a reasonable goal must come first, and apocalyptic stakes and reasonable goals are natural enemies.

--Ty

Welcome!

Hello, all, and welcome to Grey Harbor.

I'm not sure what's lead you here, but, dear reader, expect to read musings on fiction, politics, current events, history, and perhaps a dash of philosophy.

I'd like to provide a frame of reference on yours truly.

My name is Tyler Bannister.  I am a 24-year-old employee of the Federal Government.  I went to a small college in upstate New York, where I studied history.  In addition to my day job, I am an aspiring author.

Politically, I identify as a libertarian, which, yes, occasionally conflicts with my day job.  I am not a libertarian to be fashionable, nor did I pick it up as a random unconventional philosophy to shock my parents and annoy my friends and co-workers.  I believe heavily in the ideas of invididual empowerment and freedom-- no other philosophy conveys my beliefs quite as well.  I am not 100% lockstep with the libertarian movement-- I am cautious about threats both internal and external, whether they masquerade behind Islam, communism, populism, Christianity, etc., etc.

Personally, I enjoy fiction of all stripes.  Movies, video games, comic books, literature, theater...  I don't believe in limiting myself.  A good story is a good story-- the medium is just how its told.  I enjoy reading history.  I try to keep up with the news, though it frequently just makes me angry.

I wish you all the best, and hope you enjoy what you read here.

--Ty