The Tragedy of Hope

In the current preparations for the U.S. Presidential Election, there are a number of contradictions. There is the near–incessant coverage of an avowed "non-politician", leaving The Republican Party in a state of disarray. On the other hand (read: political party), there are two actual politicians: one established (even entrenched) and traditional, while the other is painted as a radical and a Populist. In this, the more information technologies change - from printed handbills to electronic tweets - the more political discussion stays the same. Rampant are labeling, nit-picking, 'washing' of many types (where motives are assigned, denigrated, and questioned), blaming, straw-man arguments, and supposedly clever insults instead of honest, substantial discourse. Alternatively, given the two "disruptive" candidates, one might expect the natural results to be inevitable change and hope for the future. However, those who look at history could recognize a consistency with the pattern of previous elections.

Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.

I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.

At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.

None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.

Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)

The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.

To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.

It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.

Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.

The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.

Further Confrontation is Required

It seems to me a number of posts that I have planned are contentious in nature. I will be expressing ideas contrary to popular opinion and potentially even to what I have written before. This is in order to expand the conversation, or to highlight areas I believe need further exploration.

I am declaring this because – much like my previous series on capitalism – I expect there to be a theme and for people to struggle with it. This is not a "trigger warning", this is to assure you that I recognize what I am doing and that it is intentional.

What Cars May Come

I imagine a not-so-distant future in which rush hour, traffic lights, collisions, and road rage are only memories. With entire cities full of cars connected to and controlled by a central computer, almost all traffic issues would be eliminated. Essentially we would all be chauffeured around in private cars without a worry in the world. As much as the internet holds the promise of freedom and equality, I think the same possibility exists with the mass automation of transportation.

Most traffic problems are a result of unexpected or non-conforming actions - when a person goes against the expectations of those around them. Driving slowly on the highway, too fast on crowded streets, surprise lane changes or turns, unexpected stops or slowing, racing, pulling over (or not) for emergency vehicles, and more. Think about every time you've slammed on the brakes, and how many of those times were "some idiot doing stupid, dangerous things." Swerving to avoid a collision, slowing down to evaluate another driver's actions, or just feeling uncertain about what to do. What percentage of the time have you been reacting to another driver? Inversely, it can be me who cuts someone off, doesn't signal, speeds to make it to work on time, or any number of offenses because I'm in a rush or distracted. Car crashes will cease as distracted and impaired driving, missed exits, miscalculated hazards (i.e. wet/icy roads or bald tires), and errors in judgement ("I can make that light") are relics of the past. No longer do I have to worry about what stupid thing I have to deal with next because there will be no more human error.

Traffic jams would go away because there would be no hesitation or need to negotiate between individual drivers. Each car would move to its destination, along with all the others, without the near-misses, anxious adjusting, or jockeying that all result in braking and disruption. Every car would go to its destination with certainty, as there would be no checking of maps or second-guessing of routes. In order to keep traffic moving at its most optimal flow, the computer would divert traffic before a problem, allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded, and provide passengers with an immediate replacement in the event of a car's failure. Merging and highway/freeway on-ramps will also be smooth, doing away with the need for metering lights.

Instead of worrying, bicyclists could move about the roads with the confidence that every car was aware of them and would respect bike zones. Intersections and crossings could be handled easily. The computer adjusts (slows without stopping) traffic flow in one direction to allow time for crossing foot and vehicular traffic and then alternates directions. This would allow for traffic to move continuously, even in busy downtown areas. No more circling the block looking for parking. When I reach my destination, I just step out and the car is ready for the next person.

Another benefit would be the freeing of police to concentrate on substantial crimes instead of speeding or other trivial traffic issues. In addition, the impact of police in traffic (i.e. drivers slowing or focusing on a cop car) would be alleviated.

Never worry about the next oil change or if there is enough fuel in the tank, as that would all be taken care of by technicians who maintain the fleet. Similarly, cleaning, repairs, and upgrades. Alternatively, the motor vehicle department would serve different functions. Licenses would still be needed, but for other reasons. Registration, titles, and other areas dealing with ownership and transfers would be eliminated.

Another major change would be road signs. No longer would there be any reason for anyone to watch for danger or search for addresses. Information could be shown on the screen (windshield) of the car, using a heads-up display. Alternatively, the display could show entertainment, ads, or artistic accompaniment, or could be completely off and act as a plain window. Since I will not need to keep my eyes on the road to navigate and steer, I'm free to simply enjoy the view. All billboards and business signs could be replaced with greenery.

The infrastructure for all this would be immense, which has positive and negative aspects. First, the design, construction, and maintenance requires a sizable workforce. Great for employment in those industries, although many of the existing jobs and personnel could be transitioned to the new system with training and modification. Also, taxi services are subsumed into this new system. Private auto insurance, car modification, or 'personalizing' will be eliminated when all vehicles are public goods. Auto mechanics become public employees, as they are needed to keep the roads rolling. Gas stations, parking garages, and car washes are also public goods and can be used for varying purposes.

The central idea to all this is simple enough: relieving people of the burden of automobiles. This is done by accentuating all the positive and reducing the negative impacts. It is not all post-modern, futuristic wonderment. All these points need to be worked out, security and finances addressed, and implementation is always over-budget and behind schedule. Many aspects of making the transition will take a fair amount of negotiation. However, the bright outcome is enticing enough to overcome such resistance and definitely warrants the effort.

Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.