I have been making an effort lately to write less about politics here — these days, when you talk about politics, you are sure to alienate half of your audience. Some have already tuned out, and others are not even going to finish this sentence. To those who remain, welcome to my convention.
It seemed timely to break my fast from politics, what with the orgy of Obama-bashing they call the Republican National Convention about to begin. I have this to say to them: foam at the mouth all you want but I won’t be voting for your guy.
There are Republican politicians, Republican financiers, Republican talk-show hosts and everyday people who vote for Republicans. Many people who vote for Republicans are decent people, and I know quite a few of them. (Many are also fearful and small-minded, but I’m trying to be equitable here.) But I have nothing but disdain for Republicans at the top, the ones in power, the ones with the money, the ones who purposely distort the truth for their own political gain and for the financial gain of their backers.
I disagree with just about every Republican stance on social policy, economic policy and defense policy. Surprisingly, that is not why I absolutely will not vote for any Republican, in any election. It is because the Republican Party has seceded from the United States. Republican leaders now live in a country all their own, one they made up in their dreams. They have disowned ours. The most convincing evidence of this was the 2010 statement by Senator Mitch McConnell that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Republican actions (mostly inaction) since President Obama was elected have been entirely consistent with this stated goal.
The Republican Party has not been interested in helping the American people weather the the financial crisis and ensuing recession (the one that their policies helped engineer). No, Republicans sat on their hands, unwilling to compromise, wanting Obama to fail more than they wanted ordinary Americans to succeed. And now, having done everything possible to engineer failure, Republicans point to our persistent slow growth and high unemployment and, of course, blame Obama. This was the script all along, and they continue to follow it. They are like deranged firemen who purposely set fires for the glory of putting them out.
There may be some Republican congressman here or there who is a decent man (I say this because 9 out of 10 Republican congressmen are men) and who may share a subset of my values, but I cannot vote for him because he will vote the way his leadership says he must. A vote for any Republican is a vote for Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell. And those two have left the country, at least the one I live in.
So I am also left with no choice: because Republicans vote as a bloc, so must Democrats, and now so must I. This is what happens in the game called Prisoner’s Dilemma: no one cooperates and, consequently, no one gains.
That about wraps it up. I have pounded the gavel. Thanks for attending my convention. It only lasted five minutes and you didn’t have to leave your seat.
Worf was a character on the 1990’s television series “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” Lt. Commander Worf was the chief security officer on the USS Enterprise, his role crafted to explore and exploit conflicts between the Federation (obstensibly the good guys) and the warrior-centric Klingon Empire, Worf’s home world.
Klingon culture was based on honor and combat. In the series, mortal combat was often fought in defense of one’s (Klingon) honor. Battles to the death ensued. Unlike other Federation officers, Worf killed a fair number of civilians during the series; however, because Worf was a member of the Federation (obstensibly the good guys), each of his killings was explained away as a defense of his Klingon honor or his right of revenge.
There are many ways to hurt people. We should distinguish the pathways to hurt from the weapons that are employed. One can aim to hurt physically, mentally, or both paths at the same time. Physical weapons include hands, guns, chemicals, drugs and sleep deprivation. Mental weapons include verbal abuse, blackmail and fear of torture. Economic and political weapons such as oppression and disenfranchisement deliver damage along both pathways. Weapons are designed to hurt. That’s why people use them.
That said, there is a decided difference between physical and mental weapons. A physical weapon has much the same effect on any of its victims. A knife in my gut causes the same damage as one in yours — our prospects for survival depend less on our anatomies than on the speed and effectiveness of our respective medical teams. Mental weapons, however, have varied effects on individuals — the most effective of these weapons exploit a specific vulnerability of the target individual or group.
An insult is one type of mental weapon. Like other mental weapons, a particular insult can hurt one person and have absolutely no effect on another. One of the strange things about human groups is that they announce to their adversaries, in advance, what they consider to be insulting. This is tantamount to exposing one’s vulnerabilities so as to invite attack, so as to provide justification for one’s own retaliation and restoration of honor. The line in the sand is drawn, its only purpose: to serve as the uncrossable line.
Humans often use insults as proxies for physical weapons in wars that are fought in words, as words are cheap and physical weapons are not. This is not to say that words are used more effectively than guns or missiles. Words also miss their target; words also explode and create collateral damage; words escalate as often as they intimidate.
Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans were killed last week — supposedly because of an insult; more probably because terrorists were ready to exploit a chaotic situation. The uncrossable line in the sand had already been drawn and it was inevitable that someone would cross it.
Animals do not kill other animals for honor or revenge — only humans do. Only the human animal recognizes insult and responds to it with self-justified physical, often deadly, force against the offender.
You must admit: we are all Klingons now. The notion of honor poisons all of our cultures. Maintaining honor requires that one respond to insults to one’s honor; but the logical answer is to dispense with honor and thus the need to defend it. That we are subject to insult shows nothing except how fragile we are.
The wise show restraint. The civil do not kill. The strong are not insulted.