DeViney, Jonathan D.: Our daily post feature, rather than being called “Shorts,” is to be entitled “NeoSpeak” – debate amongst YOURSELF the septuple-entendre aforementioned at The Heptagon!
Coker, J. Leo: You’re a liar!
DeViney: Too many weird, inside jokes which, in fact, are so exclusive only I know ’em…problem is, people do eventually tend to understand and then they’re truly concerned.
Coker: Nice.
DeViney: Yeah, y’know, things like French benefits, French with benefits, benefactors having been known for throwing fits and launching into tirades in the language of the Gauls…
With the majority of public discourse non-existent and what discussion does occur usually ending acrimoniously, I recalled a lesson (from the past) learned the hard way: in life, there are times the rules are such that, indeed, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
Politics is considered the art of the compromise, or “the game of compromise,” to suit the lesson. Now, I don’t know if IQs dropped, if we forgot, if the entire paradigm changed despite the entire pantheon of examples (of public discourse), or if it’s an all-of-the-above that’s closer to where we’re at, but we’ve forgotten. One way or another, it’s that simple.
As “The Great Experiment”, that means that this is a failure as a nation. A failure to even try to communicate and find some semblance of common ground, to find a way to even try to be civil and respect one another’s time to speak, to actually listen to a message before deciding what it means and how we view that meaning, to even agree to try and communicate at all.
You see, the trick is in self-control. Before picking up your pitchforks and torches or, worse, leaving altogether, let the damned man have a few final words.
Fistfight breaks out in Turkish parliament
I say “self-control” is the key, if there is one, because in order for public discourse to function where there’s debate, dialogue and (hopefully) resolution at some point, we must individually approach this forum with the intention of conducting one’s self in a civil manner no matter what the opposition says or how they say it.
The first impulse is outrage, I’m aware, followed by some variant of, “So what do we do when [insert example of national Democrats and/or Republicans] start acting the fool?” And that’s precisely where, following my abandonment of my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts that the lesson learned previously (“sometimes the only way to win is not to play”) I remembered that silence isn’t always concession. Sometimes, it might be easy to think, “Ahp! Yep, see, DeViney’s silent so he’s conceding,” when, the truth is, I’ve also come to embrace another tactic summarized best as, “Let them talk; most people will hang themselves given enough rope.”
CNN was really on to something when they debuted the policy debates, featuring an epic duel between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) versus Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) engaged in an actual, substantive, non-campaign debate. Too bad they didn’t keep the series alive.
In order to pull this off, one must listen to their opponent’s words and, I don’t have chapter and verse from Harvard or Little Sister’s of The Poor and this that or the other study to cite, but I do know that it is humanly impossible for you to absorb as much of what someone else is saying while you’re running your piehole. An easy life “hack” for this (I’m trying to meet you halfway, my fellow Millennials) is to engage in one of America’s most obvious traditions and gently shove, well, pie or any other food one prefers into their gaping maw, which should, advisably, prevent the pie-eater from interrupting while someone else is speaking.
Another idea, and I only mention it in passing, is to teach your children these same concepts so that there’s a generational sort of reboot here, if you will.
Another really good concept, and this brings me back to what we’ve lost in terms of public dialogue, as a nation, as a people, is drop the assumptions. Do I really need to say that, as a Federal republic of 325 million-plus people scattered across 50 nation-states over 3 million-plus square miles, people come from different backgrounds and therefore automatically have their own way of doing things?
Apparently. Just remember: how good is it? Really good.
“Why does any of this matter?” one might ask, certainly a wise and reverent question, and unscripted at that!
As I face the active task of delivering closing remarks that are dually comprehensible and comprehensive, my personal political platform has never stood out more and conversely never kept me directly out of the fray as often. That’s weird. We’re living in a weird era.
As a centrist, I see, for instance, the keen insight President Trump into the general failings of a bloated Federal bureaucracy that feeds right into the national angst of an alienated body of followers who argue the value they get for their investment as taxpayers isn’t worth spending in excess of $4 trillion annually. However crude one views his “one-in, two-out” policy regarding regulations, he was onto something. Specifically, the broader argument that, not because of lack of desire and hardly because of lack of money but because of the inadequacies and failings that are part of the very fabric of a bloated, administrative state; in short, our Federal government is a monstrosity. A monstrosity, I might add, that needs to be shrunk, not given more money.
On the other hand, I also see the benefits of a strong, but limited, leaner Federal government with a decisive Executive having multiple opportunities for reform in bipartisan areas (fringes on both sides notwithstanding) with Congress, and I see those very same opportunities going wanting right now. And that is where, yes, I can see the personality crises stemming from being willing to be at odds with anyone, anytime over anything bringing about, indeed, a sort of “Trump Fatigue.”
That cuts both ways as well: while the people grow weary of the constant drama President Trump’s approach relies upon, they also tire of every single failing in DC being laid at his feet.
The same President who picked a fight (via social media, but of course) with an Autistic foreign teenager over climate change he maintains doesn’t exist to begin with also felt like the status quo that denied opportunities to felons post-release was unfair (See: “The First Step Act”). The very same POTUS who inexplicably disavowed support (however briefly) for our Kurdish allies also did what every Administration since Carter had threatened to by being the American Executive who stood up to Communist China’s underhanded trade practices and illegal valuations of the Yuan (their currency), which gave them unfair advantage(s) in imports/exports against other countries.
I don’t blindly support any politician, and I’m leery of ideologues. I don’t have any heroic, holistic advice on how to approach the President or his (many) conflicts, some contrived and some born of circumstances outside of his control.
These thugs didn’t issue executive orders that restricted travel from other countries into their own. They killed people they didn’t like and/or want. Perhaps a bit of caution, then, before ascribing the President Trump to the ignominious league of names like “Hitler” and “Stalin”, methinks?
But I do know this: the sooner we can get one extreme to stop canonizing every wacky idea the President utters and convince the other side that, no, Sugar, dictators don’t ask other countries to stop immigrants, they just have them shot. Dictators don’t ask, and they don’t Tweet about being treated “very badly” by the judiciary and the media. They don’t have to.
Look at the big picture, and tell me where you’d rather be that would be a better country from which to launch Endeavor A or stand up for Civic Cause B, et al. So, you don’t like the President. I don’t know how much the President likes the President. But you ought to be able to know the difference in there being room for (bigly) improvement in our mixed capitalist system, and in living in a concentration camp as you and your fellow undesirables are systematically exterminated by an authoritarian state.
“If being crazy means living life as if it matters, then I don’t mind being completely insane.” – Kate Winslet
There’s a fundamental breakdown that, for whatever the reason may be, is completely disregarded by many modern Americans. While there are so many behaviors that can be clarified on a psychological standpoint, this one isn’t presenting itself quite as easily as some other predominate issues. Fifty years ago, mental health wasn’t a recognized issue. There was no reasoning or justification for people suffering with such, only that they were traditionally characterized as a bad person. We come from a civilization that, 50-100 years ago, men would institutionalize their so-called weaker parts for some of the most mundane reasons; superstition, novel reading, tobacco use, masturbation, etc. Thank God that doesn’t happen anymore, right?
Consequently, the ship turned, starting on the daybreak of the 21st century, to a focus on mental health. We have the Boomer generation that started to classify themselves as damaged and recognized there was a problem. The Boomers came from parents who were the product of the Great Depression and World War 2 which, from the psychological viewpoint, we can take a look at the time and infer that while they were traveling into adulthood, the focus was more on a Country as opposed to the needs of an individual. This outlook coupled with extreme PTSD from the lack of basic needs and war time elements brought to life the behaviors of “sweeping it under the rug.” We then had the Boomers raise the generation coming into adulthood now who are focused on mental health. “Focused.” At least mental health matters when it fits and supports an agenda. Before we go further, I am not and will not relate politics to mental health. In this context, they are in no way or form related. There are snowflakes everywhere people; stay woke.
I will be the first person to say that I absolutely love the fact people are more focused on mental health. I truly do not know how I would react in a culture that didn’t and there still are countries where that is not highly recognized. For anyone that has/does suffer with anything in the mental health category, it’s an extremely comforting to know there is some safe space and people that do understand its real and it’s not going away. Adhering to this train of thought, there is a big difference between needing a safe space because you are trying to work through an issue and because you refuse to admit that it’s ok for people to disagree with you. They are not the same thing and never will be.
Let’s talk about this disparity. In the grand scheme of things, we are not special, our feelings only matter to ourselves, and if we don’t do something, America is going to be governed by a bunch of oversensitive, ill-informed, entitled children; this doesn’t sound very promising to me. However, I’ve been wrong before.
“If you’re going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you’re going to be locked up.” – Hunter S. Thompson
If you made it thus far, you’re thinking, “What’s the point here Brittany? What are you getting at?” When is the last time that you have seen a peaceful protest? When is the last time you have seen multiple groups of the modern Americans that differ on views come together and either achieve the agenda or at least agreed to disagree, and didn’t end up looking like a bunch of snotty nosed, bratty children fighting over the last cookie? It’s cool, I’ll wait. When did we lose the social capability to have the basic respect for other people regardless of political stance, race, economic status or literally any other way you want to group people? When did we have to start grouping people anyway and then treating them differently just because of such? When did we forget that the Constitution protects freedom of speech? PSA, the Constitution also protects ideals we may not agree with.
Looking at current events, we have a group of people aware of mental health but refuse to accept that people differ in their views and when that difference does come about, we then choose verbally and/or physically attack those that do not agree. For what? We are mentally aware enough to know that abuse in any form causes trauma, trauma then has the potential to create mental health issues, however, in that same sentence we will condemn any person to just that, solely because they do not agree with our ideals. Anyone else confused?
The late, great Dr. Seuss wrote, “A person is a person, no matter how small.” How and when did we forget this? How do we now have people that have been friends for years removing each other from their lives just because of who they voted for during the last election? How do we say we care about each other in such a primal way as mental health and with the same tongue cause the trauma we were still healing from? Most importantly, why? Why are we so stuck on being right as opposed to just agree to disagree?
On this, the third anniversary of the founding of the (multi)
media beast that has become ModState,
let’s take a quick look back at what we’ve accomplished this year, and what has
kicked our collective asses. This being the “leather” anniversary (or crystal
if you follow “The Chicago Guide for
Style and Asinineness”, but we’ll forget that), Political Beast
would like to point out the tough (and not-so) commentaries and
informationalities offered by the crew aboard the good ship. Leather in the
minds of Political Beast has always conjured up images of John Wayne astride a
horse, hat always seeming to be just about to blow away as he leads his men (or
just himself) up a hill or down into some dangerous valley; always the hero,
always sure of himself, always a winner, even when he’s down. Our personal
favorite of his films is the one he shares with Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Vera
Miles (hottie!) and a host of others at the top of their game. We guess
competition for screen time sometimes brings out the best in you. “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”
suffers for being black-and-white, but you can still almost smell the boots and
saddles. Not quite sure what ModState
would smell like if you got us all together, but after banging this out over
the last few days, Political Beast needs a bath. In this political climate,
seems we all do…constantly. But, leather-faced and determined, ModState continues to dive down into the
belly of the cavernous animal that is reality and tries to stay in the saddle.
If a much greater man than any member of Political Beast could describe the
year in review, he might do it thusly:
We’d tilt our gaze downward, too. The Internet is forever.
“It is not the critical education Theresa Leary attempted to give us in her American Scandal Primer, or the fact that she forgot to capitalize “Deep Throat” that counts. Nor is it in the way DeViney points out how the Steele Dossier, or GamePartisan or Harvey Weinstein (no affiliation) stumbles, or where Apologetics articles could’ve done things better. Like not making a description of ModState’s history look like a Trump circle-jerk cabinet meeting. The credit belongs to the guys who are actually arguing (sometimes redundantly) in the Podcast, whose faces are marred by dusty facts and changing priorities, and sweat and lack of sleep, and blood from the veins popping out of DeViney’s neck whenever he has to admit Hillary is still relevant; who strives valiantly as Leary does to convince us that she is a mom; who errs in saying “We are all the descendants of rebels” (sorry Al Sharpton), who comes up WAY too wordy again and again, because there is no effort—especially by Political Beast’s recent writing team—without error in Wellein’s shifting definitions of socialism, and shortcoming in DeViney’s confusion over how “universal” universal healthcare should be; but who does, like Geoff Sheppard, actually strive to do the deeds of giving us an accurate portrayal of Katharine Graham’s role at The Post and setting the record straight; who knows the thinly-veiled enthusiasms of seeing the Mueller report exonerate Trump (DeViney), the great continuing devotions to the legacies of Kennedy (Wellein) and Nixon (I’ll ignore the obvious); who spends himself in a worthy cause, bringing the seedy-stream media to its knees (ok, they’re kinda doing that to themselves) who best knows in the end the “zero-tolerance, zero-humanity” (of getting) high on achievement, and who at the worst, if she fails at explaining why kids are still getting separated at the border, at least fails while daring us to take her seriously, so that none of these media warriors’ place will ever be with those cold, right-wing stooges or timid left-wing loons, who never accept Trump’s victory, Hillary’s defeat, or realize the exultation of the exit song on celluloid as the leather-bound hero rides off into the sunset.”
