posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:18 AM
NOTE: this is not a Mud Pit thread. If you want to throw mud at me. I am in the Pit in many places. This is intended to be an ATS-worthy
Like many, I have watched the development of what is easily the wildest election cycle in memory. And like many, I have been disgusted by the depths
people seem willing to go to in support of one candidate over another.
The big question in my mind has been why. We are all Americans. We share a commonality.
I believe I have found the reason.
By that I do not mean that one candidate is better than the other, or that one philosophy or party is superior to the other. In truth, I never paid
much attention to the letter beside the names. I always tried to look at the policies, the core beliefs, and the integrity of the candidates. And in
truth, that last quality is sometimes quite difficult to find.
I not only accept the fact that opinions on political issues differ, but I celebrate that fact. It is our strength, theoretically assuring that the
best policies are the ones that go into effect. Like evolutionary theory, the best survive because they have more to offer. But that theory
presupposes something: that people will use critical thinking to make such important decisions.
According to this cycle, that may well not be a valid assumption.
It takes 20 years for ideas to come to the forefront, and 30 years for policies to develop from vague societal attitudes. A good example was the
flower children movement of the 1960s. Go back 20 years and we have a society tired of but somewhat removed from war, and growing in prosperity.
People were looking forward wearily to a world free from war and oppression. That's what the 60s protests were about: peace, harmony, and love. But
the political scene was different, concerned with protecting national interests and national security... a direct reflection of societal attitudes
during and just after WWIII, 30 years earlier.
This same general timeline continues throughout recent history, and makes sense. It takes about 20 years for children to grow into adulthood, and a
child's outlook on life is primarily influenced by the attitudes of their parents when they were young. But young adults do not make policy; older
adults do. So policy has to wait another decade.
What does this have to do with the present electoral turmoil? Let's look back 30 years.
1980s: It was the "me" decade, marked by a new prosperity and a penchant for technology and gadgets. The economy was recovering from the 1970s and
science led the way. TV was being enhanced by new video recording mechanisms, music was suddenly easily portable, and money was, for most, plentiful.
With this wave of consumerism came a new interest in business, complete with new ideas on how it should work. Some succeeded, many failed. So policy
today reflects that philosophy: science has all the answers, is unlimited in its omnipotence, and business works with science to give everything to
everybody. Today's policy rejects the policies of yesteryear: hard work, self-sufficiency, sacrifice for a greater good.
1990s: people seemed to become bored with consumerism and turned their attention and wealth to causes. Environmentalism resurged, humanitarianism
became popular, and science and technology were taken for granted. Today's youth, 20 years later, preach these things again. They are out to change
the world, and they feel they have unlimited resources to do it.
But the two cannot coexist... and I would say neither can exist singularly for very long. Science does have limits, and we are pushing those every
day, with precious little money left to support it. Business has become business-driven instead of customer-driven, existing for itself because that
is assumed to be best for the customers. That has led to power abuses that would have shocked people a few decades ago. And amid a struggling economy
and shrinking customer base with less buying power, the desperate attempts to maintain business for the sake of business has led to governmental
intrusion into the business world and effective Oligarchy.
Enter the youth, caring not about money but assuming there will always be plenty for their particular cause. Since their cause is often assistance to
one group of 'oppressed' people or another, people who are becoming desperate to maintain some semblance of a standard of living, their cries for
assistance are amplified by their beneficiaries... and a government floundering in debt and questionable at best business involvements is quick to
appease, lest their own dirty laundry be exposed.
Policymakers bent on making money, desperate to maintain their unsustainable world view, forced into appeasing protesters whose sole purpose is to
protest and who will defend the veracity of their 'humanitarianism' to the bitter end. And then there are those from before who are wondering how
either can possibly be blind to what's truly going on. And we're seeing the breakdown of both systems of thought as they prey on each other to the
death of them both.
It is said that a starving man will do anything for food. Policymakers are starving, not for food, but for money and power, and will stoop to any
level to maintain their status. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill, destroy as long as they can maintain. Protesters are starving for money as well,
and they have seen that attention makes them get noticed. They will do anything to get that attention to promote their cause, collusion, cheating,
espionage, even demonization of entire cultures, to get it.
Two diametrically opposed world views, feeding off each other and sustaining each other.
No wonder we are seeing this disaster unfold. And it begs the question: what will become of us in the next decade, when the newer generation is the
protesters and the protesters of today are the policymakers?
What does ATS think?