Thought experiment #1
Imagine a baseball stadium. Fill it with twenty thousand Americans. Require Democrats to wear blue and Republicans to wear red. At a podium at second base, have a person give a speech about, say, immigration.
Soon enough, a fight breaks out.
Rewind.
The same twenty thousand people. Let them dress however they want. Instead of the talking guy, put two baseball teams out there. Immediately it’s a different energy. Among the fans of Team One will be both liberals and conservatives, suddenly united in common cause. Ditto team two. There will be disagreements, sure, but as we’ve learned about acceptable baseball game discourses, these will tend to be relatively good-natured.
Questions for discussion:
Regarding the first example:
Who gave the order to wear red or blue?
Who dragged the podium there?
Who chose the topic? And from which list?
Is it possible that “politics” has come to mean arguing forcefully about a short list of pre-approved topics (immigration, abortion, disruptive culture, etc.), because these topics have somehow been provided by (let’s say) some distant powers , which has also provided a rigid framework for debating them, a framework designed not to solve anything but to ensure constant discord, with agitation as the goal, agitation being, let’s face it, a big moneymaker?
Thought experiment #2
Put four Democrats and four Republicans around a charming local conference table somewhere in the heart of the country. (Put one of those golden American maples out the window, and every now and then an autumn leaf will fall from it.) They are a city council. Their subject is pits. There are five thousand dollar potholes in town, but the municipality only has three thousand in the pothole repair budget.
These eight people are trying to solve a specific problem. Which pits can be left unfilled? Yes, which are the biggest? Shouldn’t we take care of the one in front of the hospital? These three, on that road on the outskirts of town, where no one ever goes, will have to wait.
The discussion is not theoretical but practical. (What’s the left’s take on potholes, right STOMACH show?) This is problem solvingsomething we Americans are good at (or at least think we are). Most people, from either party, know a pragmatic solution when they see one, especially if they have worked with the problem and have an idea of the costs, choices, and sacrifices required to solve it.
What can result among this group of people is something akin to predilection.
We, the Pothole Eight, will have made it through the wars together. We will enjoy mocking together re. the laughable criticism of our work coming from the ill-informed populace. Perhaps we will feel a little proud of what we have accomplished. Sometimes, when I’m driving, I’ll spot a big new pot hole and I’ll call Murray, my friend from the council, who might be a Republican, but frankly, I don’t care. I just want to tell him about that big pit.
Questions for discussion:
What, or who, makes us dislike each other so much?
Could it be that one reason we feel sick right now is that our natural desire to be fond of one another is thwarted by distant, profit-based forces?
Thought experiment #3
Imagine you are about to have a political argument with a close friend or family member. You are on opposite sides of the left-right divide. You’ve had this discussion many times before.
Many times.
Questions for discussion:
Doesn’t it sometimes feel like it would be easier if you each just brought a small TV and left it on in the kitchen, tuned to your respective network, while the two of you went into the yard and talked about something you have little original knowledge about? Once you’re out there talking like that, won’t it be nice to feel your preformed “political” shields fall away? And won’t it be disheartening and alarming when, as soon as one of you slips up and utters a trigger word or phrase (“immigrants” or “Trump” or “politically correct” or “eats cats and dogs,” for example) , you swing back to your canned “political” jargon, as actors suddenly aware that the scripts you’ve been given must, at all costs, be honored?
In that moment, when the two of you are standing there like Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em robots, hitting each other with someone else’s phrases, often looking a little sad, even embarrassed, who is speaking through you?
Thought experiment #4
Imagine a simple, pastoral precursor to spring, walking around, club in hand, smelling the flowers.
The caveman’s ability to construct opinions based on mental projection is what allows him to survive. This is true for us too.
But we get a lot more information than he did, information of a strange kind, information that is powerful, and that has been constructed far away, by people with agendas. It is delivered invisibly, in a way that gives us a deep sense of belonging. It is addictive. It’s overwhelming. It flows directly into the brain, basically the same brain as Mr. The Flower Sniffer went along, and like a stomach designed for nuts and fruit suddenly faced with a TripleFlame Macaroni & Lard Burger, that brain starts to have, well, digestive issues, but gives it a good try anyway.
Questions for discussion:
