Toward a More Equal America, Part 9
When I started this series last spring, I had no idea that would continue for what is looking to be 12 installments. Although my writing style may come across as prescriptive at times, it is really a journey of self-discovery: the result of my own thought process as I ponder the sort of world I wish to inhabit as we move through a tumultuous and chaotic collective period in which transformative change is not only possible but perhaps inevitable.
The first four essays focused on economics: specifically how inequality increases over time, and how we might begin to envision an economy of, for, and by the people.
The second four essays focused on neoliberalism and social justice, and in particular the ways in which the modern social justice framework is gaslighting us into believing that we are building a more equitable society as poverty and unemployment rates climb and wealth disparity reaches new heights.
I have so far mostly avoided writing (and thinking) about politics, but in light of recent events and the cultural divide threatening to do irreversible damage to our nation’s founding principles, I can avoid it no longer.
Politics is, at its core, a discussion of the structuring of society. What is the role of government? What is a public good? What should be privately owned? How much censorship is OK, and how do we compromise between the individual desire for autonomy and the collective desire for security?
The culture wars, as exacerbated by social and mainstream media echo chambers, have made any discussion of politics difficult, because we can no longer agree on the meaning of important words. So before we can launch into a political discussion, we need to talk a bit about this abuse of language.
Communism is, according to an established definition, a sociopolitical system centered around public ownership of the means of production. True communism in this sense has never had a particularly strong presence in US politics. However, according to Republicans, “communism” is a cold prickly word that can be used to describe everything they dislike about the leftward end of the spectrum, almost none of which fits into the definition of the word. It is used to put an end to discussion, to discredit an idea without even beginning to consider it.
Similarly, fascism is a hypernationalist, dictatorial sociopolitical system that has also never had a strong presence in the US, which has morphed into an equivalent hate-word on the political left. Democrats talk righteously about fighting “fascism” when they are really opposed to discrimination, immigration control, xenophobia, gun rights, and any number of positions which are not by any means the sole province of fascist governments.
Words like these serve, in modern political discourse, as virtue signals and emotion-laden buzzwords. Using them signals camaraderie with members of the same political tribe and hatred of the opposing tribe, while carrying virtually no meaning with regard to particular policy positions.
Furthermore, media echo chambers have hyperbolized discourse so that a mostly-nonviolent Capitol takeover with zero chance of overturning government becomes a “coup”, or alternatively mostly-nonviolent Black Lives Matter protests become hostile occupying forces. An observer reading the headlines would think we are a nation at war, when in fact we continue to exist in relative safety and with a bare minimum of actual bloodshed.
If we are to have a meaningful conversation about politics – about where our society is headed, how we feel about that trajectory, and what we can do to change it – we are first going to have to overcome our language barrier, to re-engage across our arbitrary battle lines.
As we begin to explore the political landscape in Part 10, I’m going to avoid “isms” and emotionally-loaded buzzwords as much as possible, in the hopes that folks from both camps are able to engage without being triggered into cold prickly mode.