Dear Mr. Adder:
A neurotic parent is indeed an apt analogy for this
administration. Concerning the seeming disconnect between
reality that we see and reality as described by Bushco, I have
noticed the same thing. I have even termed this phenomenon
"Aggravated Dissonance"
Aggravated Dissonance: 1. The frustration one experiences
when confronted with institutional or public incongruence.
2. An extremely volatile condition of modern life.
By Thomas A. King
Stress is a fact of life. It’s just that simple. Our ability
to cope with stress largely determines our choices about where
we live, what we do and how we function. However, many
aspects of modern life involve diametrically opposed
circumstances that defy any attempt at an integrated
explanation. These incongruities can lead to what I call
“Aggravated Dissonance”, which indicates a feeling of
helplessness and lack of control to such an extent that the
individual simply gives up in the face of a seemingly
impossible situation. In other words: A given set of
problems, the solution to any one of which will result in the
aggravation of one of the other problems in the set; the
classic “No Win” situation.
For example, let’s use the subject of psychology. Psychology,
in its many forms, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Walk
into any bookstore and count the self-help books, the
non-fiction true crime books dealing with the criminal mind,
the forensic studies section etc. On television, shows with
psychological themes are incredibly popular. Any time some
sensational crime occurs, psychologists are consulted and
asked for their opinions on motive, behavior, history, etc.
Research institutions and universities spend millions yearly
on psychological experiments, studies and publishing of texts.
In short, we want a psychological explanation for every
nuance of human behavior.
However, if you ask a co-worker, colleague, friend or
acquaintance for their opinion on the validity of
psychological study and research, invariably the response is
highly skeptical at best. Most people will utterly reject
psychological explanations of behavior as “jargon,
psycho-babble”, or “a meaningless exercise in navel gazing”.
When a psychological explanation is offered for some crime,
people seem to always dismiss the explanation as merely an
excuse for bad behavior or an attempt by the criminal to “get
away” with something.
Here is where the incongruence lies. On one hand we invest
billions of dollars as well as considerable emotional content
in psychological inquiry. Yet we regard this inquiry with
contempt. Let’s be honest; somebody is buying all those
books; somebody is watching all those TV shows, otherwise they
wouldn’t exist. Psychology remains consistently one of the
most popular courses of study in higher education. But,
nobody will admit that they believe a word of it.
In a way, our curiosity demands that we ask these questions,
but our ego forces us to reject the answers; a seemingly
irreconcilable psychic conflict. If we satisfy our thirst for
knowledge, we deprive ourselves of independence. Conversely,
if we regard ourselves as completely independent actors,
un-reliant on history or environment, there is no reason to
study something so ephemeral as motivation. Indeed, the quest
for knowledge can be seen as a lack of faith either in oneself
or in any form of higher power. Since our actions are
completely independent of external factors such as history or
upbringing, there is no sense in exploring these factors. And
yet, we still want to know.
So we find ourselves in an endless cycle of knowledge
acquisition and rejection at the same time. The resulting
conflict is the essence of aggravated dissonance. Of course,
we must reject this hypothesis as soon as we propose it;
otherwise the entire theory is in error no matter how true it
is.
The real conflict here is not, as it might appear, inquiry vs.
independence. This dissonance arises because we are actually
trying to answer moral questions with scientific answers and
vice versa. “We are responsible for our actions!” say the
moralists. We must be held accountable for what we do and any
attempt to explain why we choose one course of action rather
than another is to seek an excuse for our behavior.
Psychological inquiry is, from this point of view, an
abrogation of our knowledge of good and evil and our capacity
for choosing one over the other.
Those favoring inquiry might say that acquiring knowledge of
the cause of behaviors does not morally condone those
behaviors. Scientific inquiry does not address moral
questions; and, therefore, to use scientific knowledge as a
basis for moral judgment is, by definition, incorrect.
Science is not concerned with blame or excuses; but only with
causes and effects.
While I don’t necessarily want to drag politics into this
piece, I think our current situation in the middle-east is a
perfect example of aggravated dissonance. In fact, it is a
dissonance that strikes at the very heart of our identity and
values as Americans. The administration tells us that we are
fighting to secure peace and democracy for the Iraqis; that
these are “God given rights” and it is our duty to bring them
to other people who are governed with an iron fist by brutal
dictators. We tell ourselves we have a common history with
those who are oppressed. We were once similarly oppressed and
out of that condition of servitude our country was born. We
justify our actions by telling them (and ourselves) that we
are doing it for their own good. We are building schools and
hospitals and the Iraqis are much better off now that Saddam
Hussein is no longer in power.
Yet, while the politicians and pundits spout their rhetoric,
we watch the casualty figures mount every day. Prisoners
being tortured by American soldiers so arrogant that they take
pictures of themselves doing it; the lies that we were told to
justify our involvement in this conflict; the pain and anguish
of families that have lost loved ones for a cause based on
lies and misrepresentations; all these things present us with
an inner dilemma. Our beliefs and our actions seem to be in
conflict. The central contradiction of a “war for peace” is
reflected in the unease with witch most people seem to regard
our involvement in Iraq. Similarly, the conflict between
history and ambition is also marked by dissonance. Everything
we are doing in Iraq has been tried unsuccessfully in the
past. Indeed, Saddam Hussein received our willing assistance
in the war against Iran which hastened his rise to power. In
the seventies, the Shaw of Iran received our support for his
government which was overthrown resulting in the Islamic
fundamentalist takeover by the Ayatollah Khomeini. In the
eighties, we invested heavily in training and arming of
anti-Russian insurgents in Afghanistan. Led by a wealthy
Saudi named Osama Bin Laden, the insurgents succeeded in
driving the Russians out of the country. The resulting
Taliban government went on to cause no small amount of trouble
for the West. In every case, U.S. interference has resulted
in a situation which, while unintended, is arguably worse than
the problem we were trying to solve in the first place.
So, here we have a conflict that is contradictory by
definition (war for peace), combined with a course of action
which historically does not work and, in fact, most often
results in more conflict thus amplifying the original
contradiction. This, in addition to goals that are undefined,
open-ended involvement with no clear time frame and a widely
negative perception of our actions world wide, not
surprisingly results in what amounts to a severely conflicted
national psyche.
So, if the described characteristics result in this phenomenon
that I have called aggravated dissonance, what are the
symptoms?
For this, let’s take a look at the classic symptoms of
cognitive dissonance.
The essence of cognitive dissonance is psychic conflict. The
self-concept is in conflict with behavior. This produces
anxiety. Much like water flowing from one lock to another
until equilibrium is achieved; the mind seeks to reduce the
anxiety by adjusting either self concept (through
rationalization) or behavior (by changing actions). Actually
both aspects are changed to a certain extent until they
balance each other. Where behavior cannot change
significantly, rationalization will increase to achieve
balance and vice versa.
In individuals this is a purely psychic problem. We adjust
our perception of the situation and thereby resolve our
conflict. This is not necessarily easy to do, but still, it
is an essentially individual endeavor. Thus we have; conflict
– anxiety – resolution. This is the course of cognitive
dissonance.
Aggravated dissonance as I have termed it is a social
construct. It is the conflict imposed upon us when force or
statements by an external entity, not only compel us to act in
a way that is inconsistent with our self-image, but, also defy
any attempts on our part to rationalize or behave our way
toward a resolution. In other words; when we are forced to
act in conflict with what we believe, and the given reason for
this act defies common sense or is blatantly false, yet we
have no way of avoiding the situation all together, we
experience dissonance that is un-resolvable. We are helpless
to change the situation or even understand it. We then tend
to retreat into apathy and, in fact, “give up.” When
dissonance reaches a high enough level we become overwhelmed
and engage in wrote behavior (un-questioning obedience to
authority, apathy, unwillingness to engage in processes or
even understand them, cultivated ignorance etc.).
I have put together a partial list of public policies that
might possibly lead to higher levels of dissonance in the
national psyche:
• The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that, in appeals,
“Innocence is no bar to punishment.
• The governor of Texas recently proposed increases in school
spending financed by added taxes on liquor, adult oriented
businesses and cigarettes.
• In response to the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison,
the Secretary of Defense banned cell phones with cameras in
all military installations. (It’s not the abuse, it’s the
pictures stupid!)
• In the most recent Super Bowl (a game in which groups of men
pummel each other mercilessly for an hour interspersed with
gratuitous appeals to violence and liquor soaked sexuality),
the exposure of one breast for 5 seconds during halftime
prompted national outrage and an FCC investigation.
• Recently, a U.S. Senator made the following statement in an
interview:
And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to
consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to
bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to
incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I
would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue,
this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the
United States Constitution, this right that was created, it
was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case
-- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the
further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom
actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well,
it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic
unit of our society because it condones behavior that's
antithetical to strong, healthy families.
While this list is by no means complete, it does serve to
illustrate a point. It is not just that the examples cited
above are wrong (although they are), more importantly, they
don’t seem to make any sense at all. Many of these things are
absurd on their face. What are we supposed to think of a
state Supreme Court ruling that says, “Innocence is no bar to
punishment.”? Granted, this is in reference to appeals only,
but it still seams antithetical to any notion of justice.
The last statement on this list is especially telling. In
reference to the repeal of anti-sodomy laws in Texas, the
Senator involved somehow equates the right to consensual sex
in the home with bigamy? Is he possibly talking about
consensual polygamy? Things might get a little crowded in the
old homestead.
I believe absurdities like those listed above are leaving more
and more people dumbfounded. In the face of a society and
government that doesn’t seem to make any sense at all, we
don’t know whether to agree or disagree or laugh or cry.
Thus we have a major national psychic conflict. We all want
to believe that our government is competent and sane. We like
to think of ourselves as a relatively well balanced society.
And yet, we are constantly confronted with an apparent reality
that is incompatible with our national self-image. We are
Americans! We are the good guys! We pride ourselves on our
struggle for freedom in the face of oppression. We regard
ourselves as the symbol of freedom in the world. We are the
noble experiment in government of the people, by the people
and for the people. We seek, not to control or conquer, but
to help others throw off the yoke of oppression and become
free and democratic.
Unfortunately, this idealized self-image has come in conflict
with the opinions of other nations and, seemingly, with
reality. Pictures of torture, by American soldiers; the
apparent manipulation of information in order to go to war in
the first place; the non-sensical placement of national
priorities, all serve to force us to realize that we may not
always be what we tell ourselves we are.
If we apply dissonance theory to this problem, we can see that
one of two things must change to resolve this conflict.
Either our behavior must change so that we are no longer
acting in ways inconsistent with our self-image as Americans,
or our self-image must change to include our behaviors as they
are.
Which shall we choose?
If we are to change our behavior, we must first define our
self-image (for those who are uncomfortable with the term
“self-image”, we can substitute “mission”). What is our
mission? Fortunately, we have a document that has served us
well for over 200 years that describes this mission. Our
constitution outlines a system of government that attempts to
reconcile the desires of the many with the needs of the few,
adequate regulation to make a society possible with the
freedom to realize individual goals, and the delineation of
absolute individual rights. Indeed, the first ten amendments
to the constitution, known as the bill of rights, is purely a
document of negation. It spells out specific areas where the
government may not regulate, intrude upon or abridge the
rights of the individual. If we support and uphold the tenets
of our constitution, we will have the framework of our
mission. The problem historically, and in the present
situation, is in the interpretation of these guidelines. Here
we have a logical problem that can be stated:
1. If our constitution is the framework for our government,
and…
2. If our government thus formed, and the freedoms so
designated, place upon us an obligation to bring this type of
government to other peoples.
3. Then, we are morally obligated to help other nations
achieve freedom from tyranny.
However, we have an equally valid argument that would preclude
us from interfering in the government of another country:
1. If our constitution is the framework for our government,
and…
2. If our constitution is based on the proposition that we
have the inalienable right to govern ourselves without foreign
interference,
3. Then, we must not attempt to impose our form of government
on other nations.
Remember, in order to reduce dissonance we must either change
behavior or self-image. So, if we decide to alter our
self-image, how do we do it? Theory would tell us that we
will either rationalize our imperialist tendencies until they
are consistent with our behavior (our duty to free others);
or, change our behavior (withdraw). This is entirely
dependant on which interpretation of our constitution we
choose. We are a nation of absolutists and insist that our
options be presented in black and white. We will tolerate no
grey areas; there is only right and wrong, good and bad, Truth
or Lie. This absolutism requires us to ignore realities that
are inconsistent with our strict definitions. More
accurately, we are forced to “pigeon-hole” every situation
into one of two categories. Yet these realities still exist
and, whether we acknowledge them or not, we are aware of them.
Due to our ongoing dissonance, in addition to our innate
desire to believe that there is, in fact, some kind of
rational plan underlying our efforts, we find ourselves
divided along purely artificial lines. Simply put, we grasp
desperately at our illusions of control over our environment.
We let those in charge define our ideological boundaries and
then expend every effort to polarize us along these fictional
divisions. This, in turn, serves to increase our reliance on
others to tell us what we should believe; what we should not
believe, and since our self-perceptions have been turned
upside down, we naturally are inclined to let others tell us
what to do about it. This leads to blind loyalty and
unquestioning obedience to whatever dogma we have aligned
ourselves with. It is as if we are standing in a shaky,
unstable boat and will reach for anything resembling solid
ground no matter how many other dangers may lurk there.
As stated above, this construction of artificial divisions or
polarizing factors provides us with a ready-made motivation to
ignore things that don’t seem to make any sense. It is much
simpler to align people against each other by creating
simplistic stereotypes and ascribing to them a host of
negative qualities. Once again, if the stereotype is
effective and the audience receptive then any bizarre or
blatantly absurd idea will be more acceptable than the
oppositional alternative.
Unfortunately (or otherwise) the human mind is a bit more
complicated than this. At some level, most people are still
aware of the glaring absurdities that seem to permeate their
lives and the resultant dissonance is still present. It
manifests in elevated stress and anxiety as well as further
retreat into the more comfortable stereotypes that worked
before.
If we disregard for the moment our preoccupation with the
truth as a measurement of reality, in favor of “The Truth” as
a measurement of loyalty to our leaders, we are faced with
this basic choice:
A. Do we resolve dissonance by accepting without question that
our actions match our self-image exactly as we imagine it to
be, disregarding any information to the contrary?
B. Or, do we simply abandon our idealistic self-image and
acknowledge our ambitions for what they are; to dominate and
control other populations, thereby ensuring U.S. hegemony
world-wide?
A is, in fact, a false choice in that it treats dissonance as
a concept subject to our will. In other words, it assumes
that we can choose not to acknowledge dissonance even in the
face of dissonance producing factors. There is no evidence
that this is possible. Remember, dissonance itself is a
psychic conflict. That means it arises spontaneously as a
result of circumstances not in our control. When our behavior
conflicts with our beliefs, whether individually or
collectively, dissonance will result. We can ignore it; we
can deny it; we can rationalize it; but it is there
nonetheless.
B has the dubious advantage of being honest. We could resolve
dissonance by abandoning our illusions of moral superiority
and adopt the attitude of all empires historically. Simply
put: We will appropriate land and recourses wherever we find
them because we can. It is our destiny to rule because we do,
in fact, rule. However, this position strands us in a moral
and ideological dilemma. One need not be a professional
historian to know that freedom, civil rights and due process
of law cannot long be denied to one segment of the population
without eventually being denied to the rest of the population.
If we do not afford other peoples the rights and privileges
that we possess ourselves, eventually the day will come when
we will deny those rights to segments of our own population.
This “might makes right” philosophy in the end will deprive us
of the very freedoms that we seek to defend.
“They wouldn’t listen; they’re not listening still…”
I recently received a poignant lesson in the results of
aggravated dissonance from a friend. We were talking about
the publication of Bill Clinton’s memoirs and an appearance he
had made on a popular talk show. My friend, a staunch
Republican stated that she was impressed with Clinton’s
performance in the interview and that, “I had no idea that he
(Clinton) was so thoughtful.” I asked her if she had never
heard Clinton speak while he was president and she stated
that, “I don’t know, I guess I never really paid attention to
him before.” It struck me as curious that someone who was,
by comparison to others, politically involved, wouldn’t ever
listen to what the president had to say for the entire eight
years that Clinton was in office and would then opine that he
seemed “thoughtful” on a talk show, four years after his
presidency. However, if we apply the theory of aggravated
dissonance to this situation, we can speculate that my friend
remained unaware of Bill Clinton’s “thoughtfulness” due to the
simple fact that she was unable to listen to him. As long as
he was president, Clinton was a part of a dissonance producing
system (government). Thus, not only was my friend unwilling
to listen, she was literally not capable of listening. She
was helpless in the face of a learning disability produced by
dissonance. Once Bill Clinton was removed from the political
arena and presented in the context of a popular talk show, he
was no longer subject to the stereotypes discussed above and
my friend was therefore able to consider his ideas as
independent of a political agenda.
Where does this leave us?
To sum up, the problem is a lack of participation (indeed an
inability to participate) in the political processes necessary
to insure a competent government. This is a chicken or egg
question. Did we become apathetic due to dissonance created
by irresponsible and dishonest politicians? Or, did the
politicians just do what we demanded and our own conflicted
desire for comforting lies over truth resulted in our current
condition? In other words, did our own dissonant demands come
back to us as glad-handed politicians and hidebound
bureaucrats? In the absence of coherent direction, we have
allowed those who worship process over performance to set our
agendas and decide our place in the world.
When behavior becomes ritualistic, the objective of that
behavior is lost. When the worship of God becomes mindless
ritual, the objective of godliness is lost. When dedication
to country becomes mindless ritual, the objective of freedom
is lost. When we allow others to decide the right way to
worship; to be dedicated to our country; to think; to act, we
abrogate our abilities as thinking beings.
This is not to say that it is always wrong to do so.
Sometimes and in some efforts (particularly when individuals
are unable to grasp an objective), we must, in effect, serve
the process. In some areas, such as war, people are required
to sublimate their free will to the point of giving up their
own lives so that an objective may be reached. There is a
difference, however, between intentionally deciding to give up
self will to reach a greater objective, and allowing this to
become our “default” mode of operation. If we give up the
idea of ever questioning authority (or allow dissonance to
inhibit our ability to question) we become subject to the
whims of the powerful, who may or may not be serving our best
interests.
If we seek to reconcile some of the dissonant aspects of our
civic life, we might start by repairing some of the disconnect
between government and its representatives and the population
at large. When government officials make proclamations about
the state of the economy, for example, people tend to look
around them and check to see if what they’re being told about
the economic situation resembles their personal experience.
If there is a conflict in these two representations,
dissonance occurs. One then may conclude that either, the
official is out of touch with reality, or “My reality doesn’t
count.” Whatever the conclusion, this leads to dissonance
between what we are being told is reality and what we’re are
actually experiencing. This applies to all of the various
aspects of our civic life.
We must remember that this is not, in and of itself, an
indicator that we are being lied to. There remain vast
differences of perspective, scope and scale between examining
an enormously large system as a whole and experiencing that
system as an individual within it. The politicians dilemma
is; how to effectively resolve system-wide problems, while
appearing to have intimate knowledge of how the problem
affects each individual within that system.
Given that any change to a system comprised of two-hundred
million plus individuals won’t appear to have any effect at
all for many months, if not years later, how will individuals
judge the effectiveness of the candidates they have chosen?
So, politicians are, in effect, forced to lie to make them
selves look effective to individuals immediately rather than
wait for their actual effectiveness to be judged. In a way,
this is an unintended consequence of our astounding progress
in communications technology. In a time when communication
speed was restricted to how fast a horse could run, or
railroad move, there was time for the individual to let the
gradual effects of changes become apparent (maybe not to their
full extent, but to a certain degree).
Now, however, a policy can be proposed, voted on by congress,
amended, re-voted and implemented in a matter of hours or days
depending on the proposal.  So, the politician
must rely on the goodwill of the voter before the results of
any proposal can be judged. The voter, in turn, has very few
actual performance results to look at in order to judge a
politician’s merits. So, as a consequence the voter is forced
to rely on his impression of the candidate, or how the
candidate makes him feel. Potential candidates understand
that making people feel good about them is more important than
intangible future results, so they sell themselves
accordingly.
Thus, we have an endless downward spiral of “truth
displacement” Politicians are, in effect selling truth on
credit; saying “Like the way I look? Vote for me now, and
I’ll make it worth your while ‘later’.” Of course, just as
some people over-extend themselves on credit, politicians
sometimes mistake their ability to make people feel good for
an ability to actually do good. As well, sometimes people
“enhance” their credit history to obtain credit that they
would otherwise be unqualified for. We can extend this
analogy to politicians and their behavior fairly easily.
Another problem with the political process in its current form
is that the ability to run as a candidate does not necessarily
translate into the ability to perform the duties required of
an elected official. In other words, while we are very good
at training people to run for office, we are miserably bad at
training people to run an office. Hence, I believe, the
public becomes disillusioned with the system and office
holders who aren’t “in touch” with the “common man”. Once the
lie of telling people what they want to hear is exposed, the
rest of our suppositions about our representatives fall like a
house of cards. At least on a subconscious level we have
learned to anticipate this disappointment and seek to avoid it
by refusing to acknowledge information contrary to our beliefs
no matter how well documented that information is.
The necessity of symbols in a large population
There is indeed a fine line between symbol and stereotype.
For this piece we may define symbols as objects that allow us
to illustrate a larger concept. As an example, the flag is a
symbol. It symbolizes freedom, liberty and the sacrifices we
have made to get them. As such, symbols lose their value when
they become the objects of adoration rather than
representations of that adoration. Simply put, we value
liberty and freedom and we use the flag to symbolize them.
The flag does not contain any aspects of liberty or freedom,
but rather is endowed by ourselves with a representative
importance. A symbol is, therefore, useful as a focal point;
an intervening variable as it were, to describe a set of
beliefs or values. The group of values, for example, that
include liberty, freedom and willingness to sacrifice for them
are expressed in their symbol-the flag.
In contrast, stereotypes are simply the application of
perceived group characteristics upon individuals within that
group. As such, they rely on exaggerated idiosyncrasies of
the out-group behavior that tend to set that group apart in a
negative way. For example, Asian people aren’t smart, they
are geeks; African-American people are not hard-working, they
are strong in order to perpetrate crime; Mexicans are not
industrious, they are just trying to avoid the
responsibilities of citizenship. Stereotypes are used to
separate people by exaggerating their differences. Symbols
are used to unite people by emphasizing their similarities.
This is not to say that stereotypes are always bad and symbols
always good. They are only tools that can be used for either
good or ill.
I think this does, however, force us to simplify issues in
order to conform them to either symbolic or stereotypic forms.
To simplify, we want BIG issues and GREAT causes that can be
reduced to easy, good or bad, yes or no decisions. Thus our
political culture deals in absolutes. “Abortion is evil.”
“Choice is good.” Nothing can be considered in degrees.
There is no alternative such as “some” gun control, or
“reasonable” taxation. Not only does this result in an
oversimplification of complex issues, but it discourages us
from considering some issues at all. You will never hear a TV
announcer say, for example,
“Tonight on ‘CPA Miami’ ripped from the headlines; Greenspan
raises interest rates .75%! The detectives’ 401-Ks are in
jeopardy – you can’t afford to miss it!”
Economic issues, foreign policy, energy policy, while very
important to the quality of our lives, do not translate well
into crusades. Thus they tend to be disregarded by
politicians trying to make us feel good at the moment, as well
as by we the people who really only want to be entertained and
allowed to feel good about the world around us. We yearn for
something to smooth the edges of a jagged, unpredictable and
largely uncontrollable environment. We want a replacement for
the time and distance that used to separate us from the
immediate results of our mistakes. In essence, we seek
perspective.
Unquestionably, all the information we could ever want is
available to us immediately; for the most part in our homes or
as close as the library. More information is available to us,
more quickly, than ever before. And yet, as with any
commodity in overabundance, the accuracy and value of that
information has plummeted. This “information glut” has struck
us dumb; thrown us into sensory overload and rendered useless
our critical faculties. Like moths to the flame we flutter
toward the simple; the absolute; the uncomplicated and those
who will hold our hands and give us the answers we want are
lionized in our civic realm.
However reassuring, it is a dangerous course we take.
Here is the basic question: Given that we are thrown together
in this odd juxtaposition of people, places and personalities;
and given that we will probably not agree on most issues, will
we allow stereotypes to tear us apart, or symbols to replace
reasoned action? Moreover, as we retreat further and further
into an unthinking and unquestioned agenda of what amounts to
political idolatry, the mechanisms of real change are quietly
disassembled by flag-waving, bunting encrusted politicians who
have no use or desire for a well informed electorate.
Aggravated dissonance leads to a perceived lack of control
over the political environment which leads to learned
helplessness on a national scale. This, in turn, results in
the inability to control or even understand real political
issues. We rely on vague generalities and useless political
crusades from our so called leaders who want nothing more than
to distract and avoid the fact that economically, militarily,
educationally; we are spiraling downward into third world
status.
Proposal:
We need to approach this problem from two directions. We must
ensure that holders of elected office are fully qualified to
perform their duties. Rather than just being good at running
for office, we need officials who can run an office. Also, we
must change public perception (a much more difficult task) in
such a way that people no longer feel that elected officials
are out of touch, or ignorant of day to day reality. Since
we base our perception of reality largely on what we see on
television, allowing people to see their elected officials
dealing with “real life” situations would help to establish a
commonality of interests. It is somewhat axiomatic that
people will, in general, be more motivated to participate in a
system if they have seen others within that system deal with
the same problems they do everyday.
I propose that both of these problems could be addressed by
establishing what (for lack of a better term) I will call
“Government School” (GS). The underlying idea is to ensure
that those whom we have entrusted with the power to control
our lives and our freedom actually understand on a real,
visceral level the consequences of their decisions. In
addition, internalization of these consequences would help
educate lawmakers about implementation of the laws that are
passed. It is one thing to milk some hot button issue by
writing a bill about it, and quite another to write an
effective piece of legislation. Developing statutes is a
perfect illustration of Murphy’s Law; “Anything that can go
wrong, will.”
A poorly written law is a mine field of unintended
consequences. While we may not all agree on what laws should
be written, we should at least make sure that the people who
write them are competent to do so. After all, we insist that
doctors, lawyers, therapists and even postal workers go
through a training process before they can ply their trade.
Yet, we do not require any kind of formal training to run our
country. We elect congressmen and senators and give them some
token orientation then turn them loose to make laws that will
affect the entire country. Our President doesn’t even have to
go to this much trouble. It is generally assumed that if you
are elected, you must by caveat be qualified to hold office.
This is a misguided and often dangerous assumption.
So, what we need is specific instruction for elected officials
so that they may be aware of the ramifications of their
decisions. Let’s use the office of President as an example of
what I intend.
Presidential elections are, of course, held in November every
four years. The winner of the election doesn’t take office
until January of the following year. This leaves a transition
time of about two months give or take. I propose we move back
the transfer of power to the beginning of the next fiscal
year, September 1st, lengthening the transition to 10 months.
During this time the president elect will be paid his regular
salary and will be required to attend a course of instruction
designed to qualify him to hold national office. In the
tradition of legal and medical training an emphasis is based
on exposure to real experiences. In this instance, the goal
is to expose the officeholder to the realities of his or her
office. If one is going to design economic policy, then one
should experience economics from all perspectives.
For instance, one phase of this course could be “Poverty 101”.
Keeping in mind that the President elect will never be placed
in actual physical danger or deprived of vital nourishment, it
would be relatively easy to simulate the day-to-day realities
of low wage existence in this country. Perhaps the student
could spend a month in simulated poverty; having to live in a
shoddily built public housing complex with no working elevator
and sporadic electricity (all simulated of course). The
student would be required to hold a minimum wage job in some
sort of service capacity. And, while the student would get
adequate food, it just wouldn’t taste very good; consisting
mostly of Ramen noodles and Kraft Mac & Cheese.
Another phase might involve several weeks in a prison lockdown
unit; yet another could be a military boot-camp; another might
be to manage an actual budget for a middle class family of
four. Of course, while this is all happening, the
President-elect is receiving instruction from former
congressmen and past presidents on the mechanics of governing,
design of law and all functions of the executive branch. The
specific program could, of course, be adapted to the
individual students’ life experience. Thus, a candidate who
had experienced poverty as a child might get more instruction
in administration or macro-economics, and vice versa.
This entire program would also handily address our perception
problem. If the public sees the candidate go through the
various phases of the course they will know that the candidate
has at least a familiarity with their everyday problems.
While there would likely be great skepticism about the
legitimacy of this experience, we will have created a starting
point for establishing a common ground between government and
the people: Hence, the possibility of a more involved
electorate and a possible resolution of dissonance.
In the end, we will have to face the fact that we have created
our own problems. Politicians may be, as a rule, weak willed
and content with only telling people what they want to hear
but, in their defense, they are only doing what it takes to
succeed in their chosen profession. If we want a political
system that is responsive to our needs rather than our
desires, we must be willing to listen and act on unpleasant
truths. Our problems need solutions, not slogans; our values
need action, not symbols. Are we strong enough to allow our
actions to reflect our ideals? Or, will we continue to pay
lip service to freedom, liberty, equality and opportunity
while undermining these ideas with inconsistent actions?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
