How did politics come to be so nasty?

Breaking: When people are forced into a corner, they lash out.

Woman: "I want the government to spend 6.8 trillion dollars a year! You just want people to die!" Man: "I want the government to spend 6.3 trillion dollars a year! You just want to spend us into bankruptcy!" // photo by Kiera Burton

Someone I know once gazed into the distance in between his regularly scheduled Trump-bashing and wondered, "How did politics get so nasty?"

I let the question go, thinking some self-reflection would eventually hit him in the face, given the obviousness of the answer.

The introspection never arrived.

He once tried to claim that he's a moderate, which I laughed at. I've never heard him offer up anything good about Trump and I've never heard him say anything bad about Obama. He'll stomp and shout about what Trump is doing to journalists but he somehow never heard that Obama has prosecuted more journalists' sources and whistleblowers under the espionage act than twice of all previous presidents combined, denied a record number of FOIA requests, and issued mass secretive subpoenas against journalists. He thinks Fox News is complete tabloid junk and thinks MSNBC is complete gospel. Sadly, in this hyperpartisan political sphere, this is not unique. 

Even in the same circle of people, a die-hard Trump supporter has never had anything positive to say about Obama, though he has once volunteered criticism of Trump's tariff policy, which surprised me. He will praise the George W Bush wars in the Middle East but has never uttered a peep about Obama's wars. He will denounce Rachel Maddow all day long but will worship at the feet of Mark Levin.

And here I am, the libertarian, stuck in the middle of the two warring factions with a surround sound of angry voices. Democrats are stupid from the right channel and Republicans are evil from the left channel. They both talk politics with me, but they can't talk to each other. The left channel thinks the right channel is a racist, the right channel thinks the left channel is a naïve moron. The left channel never has any idea of any argument other than his own tribe's and the right channel keeps seeing things that aren't really there. I will hear out of my left ear that it's hot out and that anyone who thinks climate change isn't real is a moron. Six months later, there is a cold spell and I hear out of my right ear that it's cold and that anyone who thinks that climate change is real is a moron. I'm left alone, wondering, does anyone understand the difference between climate and weather?

Just the other day, Joe Biden made a speech and in it, in response to a question about vaccine mandates, essentially claimed Republicans don't care about the lives of children. Won't they think of the children?? Which, of course, has nothing to do with the arguments against vaccine mandates. Literally seconds later, he laments the state of politics, saying "I — one of the lessons I hope our students can unlearn is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Politics doesn’t have to be this way. They’re growing up in an environment where they see it’s like a — like a war, like a bitter feud. If the — if a Democrat says “right,” everybody says “left.” If a Democrat says “left,” they say “right.”"

Okay, I know Biden can't remember which shoe he put on that morning and what family he murdered with a drone strike directive the day before, but come on! One comment was strawmanning how evil Republicans are with no respect to data whatsoever and the very next thought is to pout about how nasty politics has gotten? At least throw in one of your crazy incoherent hairy legs stories or classic push-up challenges in between your thoughts to make it at least seem like you have a memory longer than a Democrat's list of programs to cut.

How did politics come to be so nasty?

Is it really that difficult an answer to see?

Isn't it obvious?

Fundamentally, we have gotten away from libertarianism.

No, seriously.

There are several reasons, but fundamentally, this is the major issue.

Think about the massive reach the federal government has. The President of the United States and the select few powerful Congressmen have wide latitude on the domestic spying apparatus. The welfare-warfare state. Which industries to force taxpayers to fund. Which civil liberties we get to keep and which ones are to be discarded. What we can and can't do on social media sites. Whether we have to inject ourselves with a certain chemical. Whether we are allowed to go to work or not. Whether a landlord can evict a tenant not paying rent. Hell, the Executive branch unilaterally dictates what kind of dishwasher we can or can't buy.

With this kind of insane micromanagement of our daily lives, it has transformed elections into a Vegas one card draw in the high stakes room.

If we draw the Biden card, we all are forced to live how Biden thinks we all should live. If we draw the Trump card (har. har.), we all are forced to live how Trump thinks we all should live. If we draw the Swalwell card, we'd all be dead.

Here's the dirty little secret. In this high-stakes room, the house always wins, the player always loses.

Presidents like to make a big fuss over gaining the popular vote, claiming that this means they have a "mandate from the people". Biden won the popular vote in 2020 and was quick to claim that this clearly meant that the people gave him a "mandate for action", another way to say it allows him to do virtually whatever he wants or at least, campaigned for.

Does it really?

He won just over 50% of the popular vote. Even if we take this at face value, this means half the people are forced to live under his thumb. Let's take a step back and examine just how insane of a system this is. The reason people fear "the other side" winning is that they don't want to be forced to live in a way they don't want to live, whatever those reasons may be. So every four years, we go through this stupid exercise, call it our patriotic duty, to see which half of the country will be oppressed? And we're so brainwashed that we're told this is an excellent system and we should praise it without question?

In the old adage, if two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner, those two wolves have 66% of a "mandate for action", far more than what Biden received. But that doesn't make it okay. It's not okay at 50%. It's not okay at 66%. It's not okay at 90%. I don't care if every single person in the country wants to force Bob to stop smoking pot. A voting majority does not make oppression of a peaceful person any more ethical.

But it's not even 50% that support his policies. Not really. If we consider that only a portion of the eligible population votes in elections and that a large percentage of voters just vote for the lesser of two evils instead of actually voting for someone, the chances that any given president was given any kind of "mandate" dwindles to around 20%. Then of these remaining voters, consider that very few people actually vote for a person due to policy preferences. Most likely vote due to the letter next to the candidates' names. If California 2020 election, where Democrats' preferred laws and proposals were slaughtered despite Democrats winning the vast majority of seats, was any indication, the difference between votes for politicians and their policies is a wide chasm. 

So that's what we're trusting everything on. Well over 80% of the people at any given time are forced against their will to live the way one man in a funny-shaped office and several hundred people on some hill named Capitol want them to live. Worse still, the next election cycle, even if the political makeup completely shifts, the oppressive policies from the previous administration and congress are pretty much never cut from the books.

The more power these people are given, the more control these people are allowed to have over our lives, the more people will fear that much more the other side might win. And when people are fearful, they lash out. And tend to do stupid things. Like vote for someone in a major party that doesn't even support their desires, but rather just assume they're not going to oppress them more than the other guy.

There is one way, and one way only that the nastiness subsides. It's to move away from the high-stakes table.

Vote for people that will reduce the power in Washington DC and relocate that power into the hands of communities and individuals. Do you think that perhaps a gay couple living on Castro Street in San Francisco will have different lifestyle preferences from a Christian evangelical family in rural Alabama? Do you think that perhaps a guy working in a high-stress Wall Street job living in Manhattan will have different financial needs from a blue-collar farmer in the Midwest? Do you think that perhaps someone with diabetes and a father who passed away from pancreatic cancer at 45 may have different medical needs than someone who has no known adverse health conditions?

So why should any one of these people be able to vote for a person that would force the other person to live the way they think the other should live? Should one group or another start voting in such a fashion, do you think that maybe the other group would start to fight back? To resent the other group? To start lashing out if they feel cornered?

Considering the growing reach of the government with a heavier and heavier hand, is it really surprising that politics is getting nastier?

Let's reduce the size, scope, and power of the government to the point where these politicians can't do much of anything; to the point where it doesn't matter if Stalin came back to life in the United States and became the president because he has no power to affect any kind of change. Then, what would people care if it was either Biden or Trump that got elected? Either way, the people would be in charge of their own futures.

Let them sit in their office in DC, squabble in session, and do precisely nothing. Then socialists can live in their communes and work in their co-ops. Capitalists can run their own businesses or voluntarily work for businesses. People that are afraid of a particular disease can go to venues that require people to wear a mask or be vaccinated. People that aren't can go to venues that don't really care. People that are particularly at risk of the disease can isolate while the rest of us continue working so that supply chains still move forward and the at-risk people still have supplies flowing to them at reasonable prices. Christians can go to their church and talk to their invisible friend. Muslims can go to their mosques and talk to their invisible friend. Atheists can get high on psychedelics Sunday morning and talk to their invisible friend. 

Isn't it telling that Christians who think Muslims and atheists will go to hell when they die, Muslims who think Christians and atheists will go to hell when they die, and atheists who think Christians and Muslims will...die when they die, can all peacefully coexist in society, break bread together, and happily do business with each other, but two people, one of whom wants a $15 minimum wage and the other who wants a $7 minimum wage are just constantly at each other's throats every four years?

If we just let people do what they want to do as long as they're not harming others and associate with whom they want, then none of this clown show called elections actually matter and people can live peacefully again in the fall every two to four years.

Or we can just plunk down another several trillion dollar chips onto the board and hope we draw a higher card than the other guy. We laugh at anyone who does this for a retirement plan, but we seem to be just fine with this model of governance.

How did politics come to be so nasty?

Because you're not voting libertarian.

You assholes.

Popular Posts