Why the Edge of this Cliff Looks so Familiar—& How to Avoid a Societal Cataclysm

Americans of all stars and stripes are working night and day trying to figure out what happened to our country our government and even ourselves over the past eighteen months. It’s as if we are looking cross eyed at a world where Dick Wolf, Lorne Michaels, Aaron Sorkin, Trevor Noah, Jake Tapper, Fareed Zakaria, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Stephen Colbert are all beginning to sound equally logical in their intellectual approaches to what and where our nation is currently. Any situation where parody and reality become intertwined to a degree where nearly all of us are second guessing everything we see, hear, read, etc.; information begins to appear ludicrous. So why does it seem so familiar?

Well, for starters, while America is still a relatively young country; our political parties have switched platforms multiple times.  Republicans worked toward greater federal power to fund massive projects during the 1860s including the transcontinental railroad and a state university system; even working to encourage the westward bound homesteaders of the era. Republicans also played a key role in establishing a national currency and even a protective tariff (or new taxes as they might be phrased today).  In that era, Democrats dominated the South opposing all of these measures. Post-Civil War, Republicans passed laws granting extensive protections for African Americans and worked to advance social justice.  Again, Democrats opposed these expansions of federal power overall.  Now, if we spring forward a few decades into the Great Depression; Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal brought about financial regulation reforms while founding pension programs like welfare, and multiple gigantic infrastructure projects. Roosevelt simultaneously managed to wipe the floor with his republican opponent Alf Landon, whose platform opposed such federal empowerment policies. Would today’s Republican Party representatives (let alone their supporters); recognize Republicans in any of those roles today? I suspect not.  

So here we are again at a bizarre crossroads. (Well, not here, exactly, but we have seen similar turns on roads we were traveling in the past. Constantly moving what we perceive as forward to define who and what we want to be together   as American voters.  We now have a complete quagmire around us. This may be due to a lack of historical context (and frankly, a thorough shredding of references, research analysis and no longer demanding any historic accuracy from journalists, bloggers, pundits, newscasters or public figures). This came to a peak at the beginning of 2017, with the coining of the phrase: “Alternative Facts”. These dilutions of facts and delusions of reality are rapidly causing a complete meltdown in political discussion and/or analysis; which has begun to generate a completely altered world where most Americans (including me) have no clue how to address or even function effectively within it. 

So is there an alternate path available to us where we can resurrect the utilization of verified facts and common realities? Possibly; but one key prerequisite for this to happen is communication. In order for us to effectively communicate with one-another (and/or move forward together); Americans must have a common languageespecially in the political arena.  In today’s America, Republicans and Democrats have so completely morphed both of their overall platforms that almost no one in the current US voting population can find accurate data on who believes what.  So perhaps the limited terminology that many of us are currently using to define American attitudes and philosophies simply needs to be tossed.

This is not a light task and steps will be required to overcome and address expected anxieties and reservations that our current legislature and executive offices are likely to experience. Many will appear to have conflicting goals working to retain their power and control, while still feeling uncertain about what their own objectives (or their constituents’) actually are.  Republicans and Democrats alike will be distracted by their drive to stay in power, but still have some of their original drive to make the country better and represent the people who voted them into their current role.  If an arrangement could be negotiated to fashion a more sensible discussion on Capitol Hill; it could empower all sides to toss prior platforms and terminology aside so they can come to a new table and begin to legislate again. It would be too much to expect one group or another to acquiesce, so rather than mandating those in power to step down, their constituents could allow them as a group to develop the new language and re-define themselves more accurately for the American people than the obsolete brands “Republican”, “Democrat” and “Independent”.

All of our government should commit to a more precisely defined and modern party system. If we can convince those representing us that the potential cost of giving up their theoretical common base of voters (which is becoming more hypothetical and less accurate by the hour); a new vocabulary could 1) help them identify who their actual voters are and 2) realign our political parties so that statesmen can more effectively identify their constituents and begin to actually support their common agendas.  To address their fears and concerns; it will also be critical to ensure all sides that the newly defined groups will form a more effective party system where each group can be demonstrated to have  members with high donor capabilities (and who will vote!)  

PLATFORM A: Iso-Nationalism: “Let’s aim for a society that moves toward a domestic oriented economy where the family unit is key; where kids are disciplined and raised by the family unit and where people behave appropriately in public. Let’s work toward making our own economy within our shores and try to get away from a world market that is only working to corrupt our puritan roots to make us into something we are not and don’t want to become.”

There are plenty of lobbying groups that will back their platform; support them financially and intellectuallyand who will vote for them as well.  As we have seen recently there is (and has been for a long time), a significant and increasingly vocal group of Americans who truly does support this platform. Rather than this highly fragmented group becoming more and more violent due to a belief that they are not respected by their government or their neighbors; If Iso-nationalists were provided a platform and representation where they can be part of a discussion and where they believe they are being heard, they will likely become less inclined toward violent destructive behavior (even if their viewpoint does not end up receiving a majority of voter support). Iso-nationalists can be brought to the table with several lucrative financial backers like The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, National Rifle Association, American Legislative Exchange Council, Majority Committee PAC  and possibly even Vice President Pence's 'Great America' Leadership PACto note a few.   

PLATFORM B: Neo-socialism:  Move our country toward a system where taxation is for serving the common good. Using a similar philosophy to what Henry Ford and others understood; which is that a key requirement for the overall populace to be willing and able to keep trudging along maintaining the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and enabling more prosperous Americans to continue partying and vacationing with their kids and their nannies in Cape Cod; a minimum (but remarkably low) level of basic amenities must be maintained. This can even be accomplished while maintaining a healthy level of basic competition and psychological drive in our laborers; while strongly encouraging those with ambition and talent/skill to continue in active competition with one-another.

This will encourage more accomplishment and discourage an existing belief that Americans at the bottom do not have any way out (and therefore anything to lose if they grow violent or combative). It could assist in the prevention of and/or treatment for many Americans on our present path who are falling into a psychological abyss where substance abuse, criminal activity, incarceration, abuse and suicide rates will all begin to lower and where society hopefully moves toward a place that if not blissful, is comfortable enough while not being constantly threatened with death or constant acts of crime and/or terrorism.

There are plenty of lobbying groups that will support a Neo-socialist platform and provide financial backing. There are also many who will support Neo-socialists intellectually and will vote for them. Some that come to mind include:  The Saunders’ supporting super PAC, National Nurses United for Patient Protection, Operating Engineers Union ,Center for American Progress, ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and many others who would have ample financial backing to support those efforts and provide an effective platform for many Americans. It may even help narrow down and simplify to one message what Occupy Wall Street activists were hoping to communicate in Zuccotti Park back in September of 2011.
PLATFORM C: Christian Capitalism: We are an independent mass of constituents who expect our leaders to exhibit principled behavior and to provide well thought out points of view for any laws and policies they enact. We believe that our country is fundamentally supposed to have a firm moral code and that corporations, lobbyists and even academic think tanks are required to demonstrate advancement of such.  

This platform leans more toward a moralist who in our current political structure experiences frequent anxiety due to the concern that the American people have completely tossed any moral compass they may ever have possessed and that their party platform has inadequate (if any) representation  to encourage unobtrusive behavior in public and on multiple media fronts. They want to voice their concerns regarding disregard for freedom of their religion and their current perception that all moral expectations are now extinct. Christian Capitalists commonly worry that the utter immorality and egregiousness of literally everything from terrorism to pedophilia to mass murder has been ignored or even condoned by society and the media. Their aim is to encourage more public acceptance of appropriate behavior in public. In addition, Christian Capitalists accept and encourage the free market and strongly support corporate and private creation of wealth; but are also quite willing to co-exist with the other platforms provided that everyone behaves themselves with a minimum level of decorum and if Americans begin to demonstrate that they have some respect for the common society. This may provide a party that encourages a governance structure that encourages financial incentive for adhering to a perceived moral code of law and increasing the common good using more law enforcement and more prudent taxation.  Perhaps Christian Capitalism is a closer fit to what the Tea Party was originally attempting in 2009.

There are numerous lobbying groups that will happily take up a Christian Capitalist platform and work to support them both financially and intellectually while turning out proudly to vote for them.  Many corporate backers would likely lean toward this group to promote their own goals as well to encourage a society that in the Christian Capitalist process will effectively increase their corporate profits. AT&T Inc., Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Comcast Corp, National Association of Realtors, Northrop Grumman and numerous others are highly likely to utilize this common theme to strongly encourage a society where they will likely increase both their investors’ security and their profits.
PLATFORM D: Fiscally Pragmatic Liberalism: Seeking leadership who continue to leverage US intellectual capital and education to work toward the improvement of our country and the world while effectively capitalizing on inventions and services that we are able to develop and patent as a nation.

Fiscally Pragmatic Liberals are able to project a societal concern for overall public well-being while still encouraging the profitability of our intellectual capital. They strongly support all STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) fields and are often working to address issues like climate change, healthcare advancement, more efficient power fuels, financial advancement, etc. Fiscally Pragmatic Liberals are intertwined inextricably with both academic learning and constant adaptation. They would work toward a more reward-based society for cerebral assets. This could provide a comparable outlook to the Christian Capitalists through encouraging/financing of long-term investments in intellectual capital over short-term market trades working toward pure profitability. 

These academics and pundits are often located in the more affluent financial circles; but they prioritize intellectual capital while supporting the US in utilizing a world market to gain the highest profit from such capital. Fiscally Pragmatic Liberals may also encourage institutions and citizens who excel in innovation skills to receive increased financial incentive; while also inspiring the less intellectually inclined to proactively apprentice and train to become technicians or handyman, or working toward service careers. They also recognize the concerns of many current college graduates who are for all intents and purposes financially indentured citizens who are highly underutilized (largely due to prior academic debt they incurred without learning any currently profitable skills). Fiscally Pragmatic Liberals are likely to find some authentic and lucrative support from both the Christian Capitalists and the Neo-socialists; but they will strongly discourage any reward for apathy or indolence while strongly encouraging capital improvements to the landscape. Their primary goal is still the constant overall advancement of the American population through retraining and constant intellectual growth. Fiscally Pragmatic Liberals work toward a key assumption in society that transition and change are here to stay. So the best way to keep a society where we are all able to move up together is through encouraging and rewarding Americans for exhibiting initiative, curiosity and determination. 

There are quite a few lobbying groups with significant assets who will take the Fiscally Pragmatic Liberal platform and happily support them financially and intellectually while turning out in great numbers to proudly vote for them.  AARP, Wounded Warriors, Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America (IAVA), All Health-related PACs and many think tanks are likely to be come together with Adobe, Stryker, Oracle, Deloitte, Leidos, Splunk and Tesla to proudly support a party with such a platform.

While this is only one hypothetical path; no matter how we decide to go about it; a significant philosophical and political change is almost always a painful process. Nonetheless, a hefty majority of Americans appear to be completely disconnected from any current political platforms and/or leaders.  So we as a nation need to cultivate a more common language to effectively deliberate on where we are individually and what direction we all want to head toward together.   If some simple changes in terminology could help us to form a more current understanding; we could come to a point where we can cooperate with one another. While we are very diverse as a nation, it helps to remember that an overwhelming majority of us are not politically or philosophically one extreme or another and we do not fit in the current political buckets that we have been placed in for the past quarter century. So let’s all consider coming back to the table as an electorate and learning to work together again as the very diverse people we are with numerous perspectives. Then we can begin to help our leadership reach some of our more common goals as a nation.  


Popular posts from this blog

How Trump Convinced Americans to Give up Meat Space and Consent to Live in Augmented Reality

How to Effectively Combat Fire & Fury with Bureaucratic Tenacity

The Circular Process of Funding Emergency Response Operations