by James Wallace Harris, 12/17/23
The idea of Donald Trump becoming president again has me worried. I’ve enjoyed the quiet years of the Biden administration, and I fear four years of a Trump president because it won’t be peaceful. I know I shouldn’t worry at my age because any kind of stress is hard on my health. I know I can’t control the future or even what’s happening now, but I’ve discovered that reading about the past alleviates some of my worries. America has always been at war with itself and the political strife we see now has always been the norm. Political peace never existed. Even when I think Biden’s administration has been quiet, that’s only relative to the Trump years. The volume of acrimonious political rhetoric has stayed quite high, just nowhere near as high as 2016-2020.
After I finished reading Democracy Awakening by Heather Cox Richardson, I began rereading it hoping to make sense of an overwhelming amount of information. Ultimately, I felt Democracy Awakening Richardson identified two forces seeking to define the political structure of America. Those two forces have always existed since the beginning of our nation, each fighting for dominance, with power swinging back and forth between two poles of human perception. My hopes of that conflict going away is a fantasy that I need to give up. That conflict might be as natural as kill or be killed is to animal evolution.
The political poles could be called conservative and liberal, or we could use political party names like Republican and Democrat, but one thing that Richardson shows is labels for politics have constantly changed over the history of our country. I constantly think if I could only understand why people believe what they do I could just accept them and let them be, even if I think they’re out of their minds.
I’ve started wondering if political views are connected to personality and upbringing. Richardson’s book gives an overview of the history of democracy in America that feels like a war between the two philosophies that divide us. First, are the Darwinians who believe power belongs to the fittest, and second are idealists who want complete democracy and universal suffrage. But I don’t feel these beliefs come from free will or logic. It’s something much deeper, as if we’re two different species.
Ever since growing up in the 1960s I can’t understand why we’re so polarized politically. What I believe offends half the country, while they passionately believe in what I think are delusions. In recent years I’ve concluded that each group perceives reality differently. It’s not a matter of evidence, or external truths, we just don’t perceive the world in the same way. We can’t convince each other of anything because we’re psychologically different. I’ve even wondered if there’s a physiological difference.
I read a science fiction story yesterday that might be the perfect metaphor for what I’m trying to say. It’s called “The First Men” by Howard Fast and you can read it online. Fast based his story on theoretical concepts about feral children, which is a controversial subject itself. Children raised without language seldom acquire it later in life. Children raised by animals never act human because what it means to be human is something acquired in childhood. In the story, Fast suggests that mutant superhuman children are born occasionally, but because they are raised human, they can never become superhuman. In the story, scientists track down orphans with very high IQs with a technique that can detect intelligence in babies. Those babies are raised in a controlled environment and grow up to be superhuman. I’ll let you read the ending.
What if back during the Renaissance a new kind of child began to show up and saw the world in a different way? At first, they were rare, and most of their special thinking was snuffed out by being raised by traditional believers. But slowly, some of them got a new upbringing, and raised a few more of their kind. So today, about forty percent of the population have this new kind of thinking. We might call this thinking liberalism. While the old thinkers call their perspective conservatism. The conservatives have a theocratic, autocratic, aristocratic, or oligarchic view of reality. While the new people think everyone should have equal say in politics and be given equal opportunity to achieve their full potential. This new way of thinking is anti-Darwinian, but then so is the Christianity of The Sermon on the Mount. And these two ways of perceiving reality are not based on logic, facts, or rhetoric, but a biologically programmed perception etched in early childhood upbringing.
We have a problem with words and labels. Richardson uses democracy vs. authoritarianism. The trouble is, both these terms have many definitions, used in different ways. Even saying Republican and Democrat, or conservative or liberal is very troubling. Republicans today are different from Ronald Reagan Republicans, or Nixon Republicans, or Eisenhower Republicans, or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans or Lincoln Republicans. Lincoln Republicans are more like current Democrats. The words conservative and liberal have gone through several different definitions and meanings.
Despite the problem with labeling these two forces in politics, I believe it’s important that we recognize what each force wants to achieve. There have always been people wanting to limit the running of the country to an elite group, while other people have wanted to move towards a democracy with universal suffrage.
You can see this back-and-forth battle by reading Wikipedia’s timeline of voting rights in the United States. Whatever 2024 brings, it will just be a continuation of this long process.
I believe political stress is caused by believing we need to decide issues once and for all by our personal perspectives. I think we’re stuck in a Groundhog Day loop that we can’t escape because everyone wants what they want and won’t be happy until they get what they want. It’s like being stuck in an endless programming loop without an exit condition. Because we’re polarized politically, half the country is always unhappy when the other half gets what their biological programming wants at the poll.
The failure has always been that each group thinks it can convince the other to change, and that’s just not going to happen.
The only escape I can see for this endless loop is to change a condition. One idea I’ve had, is require more than a simple majority to win elections or pass laws. I think we should raise it to 55% to start with, and eventually increase that over time, to 60% and 66%. We should force politicians to appeal to a wider audience, and we should pass laws with referendums. Of course, this won’t happen because the current power structure would never allow it.
I’ve decided to read more history books about the United States to see how changes were brought about. It’s soothing to my mind to understand how things got to be the way they are. It’s less stressful than wanting things to be different.
JWH
Auxiliary Memory 