Political Disgust

It's only a year until the next presidential election and already I am tired of it. The pursuit of power in this country has become a big game between the rich and powerful and the more rich and powerful. It is nothing more than the pursuit of a new trophy to put on the mantle of those who achieve it. They claim to work for the people but it is, in reality, they work for themselves alone with a veneer of humble public service - and not much of a veneer sometimes. They are often bland personalities who cannot think for themselves and shout rhetorical platitudes designed to inflame passions and reduce logical thought. And, based on the reactions of their frothing partisans, it seems to work. Unfortunately, it is the smaller partisan groups that tend to dominate because they are such a vocal minority and they override the moderate, middle majority who so desperately wants true public servants who are willing to serve for a short time and in the best interests of all not the narrow interests of just a vocal few. And, because they do dominate in such a fashion in the political arena, those who pursue power cater to them and leave rational discourse until the very end - when the general public has become so embittered with the extreme positions staked out by the candidates that those who vote do so only out of a sense of responsibility rather than a sense of genuine trust of their chosen candidate.

There are those who argue that the candidates are as trapped as the general public by the extreme positions of the most rabid politizens (I wonder if this is a new word and, if so, I want the credit for it!). In order for the candidates to win their respective parties nomination for the general election, they must cater to the extreme positions. Even the candidates with the most reasoned and nuanced positions must swerve to the sides of heated rhetoric in order hope to get to the general election within the party framework that has come to command the political system in the US. And as soon as they swerve to one side, all hope of moderation is lost and the debate has moved from one of being in the interest of all to the interest of the few. And, as the nation continues down this path, it is only a matter of time before the many move from their continued blind devotion to the ideals of the republic to the recognition that their public servants are no longer acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole but in the interest of those who wish to maintain power simply for the sake of power. And, upon that time, the issue becomes what will that majority do?

This is not to sound negative nor to imply that this is a fait accompli - merely a scenario that seems to be a likely occurrence given the way things progress today. I hope not.

Radical about moderation

The only thing about which I am radical is moderation. This means, however, that I am in a very strict minority. In an era that both glorifies and amplifies the most extreme views until they obliterate any other (more muted or nuanced) views, it seems that only the most radical views are given the space for expression. Any attempts to moderate those positions are typically met with howls of protest from their proponents claiming that they are being marginalized for their opinions. Never mind that their opinions typically exist at the margins of public opinion to begin with.

In most of the democratized West, this tendency toward extremism (though it should be noted that extremism is not necessarily solely a Western trait, merely that there is more freedom to express it in many cases) has often manifested itself in negative ways - and often on the most innocuous subjects. It is not uncommon to see radical viewpoints on issues of race, politics and religion. If anything, it would be uncommon not to see them. But, it seems that extreme points of view now roll over into more mundane or trivial subjects such as entertainment, celebrity or even sports. Take the recent commentary regarding the marriage of Sandra Bullock and Jesse James or the storylines revolving around the Pittsburgh Steelers and their treatment of two players with troubles off the field. More precisely, a perusal of the message boards on various entertainment and sports sites to see the points of view relating to these stories demonstrates the radical opinions that even casual observers have on these events. Frankly, when those views can be expressed via the relative anonymity of the internet, the likelihood of self-censorship is further reduced since there is little possibility of actual consequences - other than equally radical opposing viewpoints being expressed in similar anonymity.

Yet, despite the increasingly radical rhetoric spewed about on the airwaves, the moderate opinions still hold sway - for now. This does not mean that radical stands have not occasionally shoved their way to the forefront of decision making, but that they are still the exception and not necessarily the rule. However, at some point, a stand must be taken to ensure that the extremists (on both sides of any given issue) do not become the law of the land. Extremist opinions are not necessarily always wrong, but they should not be given preeminence in a debate simply because they are so far different from the more common (read: moderate) positions which often come from common sense and logic. Moderation is a good thing, not a bad. Equating moderation with compromise (an apt comparison in my view) - a good compromise is when both sides leave the table unhappy with the final decision.