by Flavia Eckholm
For the last several years, through social media, I have gotten to hear, to read and to respond in real life terms to what is happening in the world of politics. We have been able to selectively share articles about what we believe are the real concerns of society instead of passively accepting what others wish to dictate to us should be our concerns.
In that vein, the nature of public discourse has uncovered some troubling aspects about the limitations, as well as the extent of our powers of persuasion using media and political activism to bend public opinion. It is always easier to spread negativity and fear than it is to inspire positive participation with people. Liberalism doesn’t require fact based knowledge as long as emotional theory can construct skepticism that the person next to you has only the worst motives of your well being and that big government only has the best motives. Neo-conservatism constructs a similar emotional reaction using historical relevance linked to future military might being the only answer to perpetual assertion for global domination. From either direction of origin, the outcome is totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Each side believing that they will ultimately conquer the other through force, rather than through persuasion. Persuasion requires logic, analysis and at least some relevance to mutually understood facts. The stumbling block there is that there are few mutually understood facts that I can discern.
The struggles with this administration are as much within as without. The far left has embarked on an irrational fear, hate based rhetoric that has been designed to create a perpetual state of chaos and instability. The left have offered few solutions other than to shut down speech, religion, market based solutions and progress of any real kind. However, within our own community, there is much disparity about how to achieve common goals of containing terror, sustaining an economy, controlling our borders and personal responsibility. Moral questions about societal responsibility for the care of the most vulnerable and how much independence are people brave enough to assume, don’t appear to me to be settled.
My question to the globalists: If the US is such an evil entity, why are you so energized at exporting more of our culture? If we don’t seem to have the answers to any of the big issues why not find those answers here first? Importing the third world here only weakens whatever strengths and cohesion we have as a nation. If you had the answers, you wouldn’t have to extend your influence forcibly; nations would emulate your finest examples. If you distrust your own people, why do you think you can trust a foreign import more?
My question to the Neocons: If you knew all the answers to other nation’s problems, why can’t you solve the US problems? If you spent your resources into building our country to being strong militarily for security, economically for stability and Constitutionally for American justice, wouldn’t our laboratory of success provide the best solutions for other nations? You have been looking for those solutions in the Middle East and Asia for as long as I have been alive, yet, your hostility for a free market displays your distrust in human nature of your own people. Has anyone ever pointed out to you that your control issues are much like your Liberal counterparts?
My question to the established ruling class: other than self enrichment, what connection do you have to the people that you are supposed to be serving? You offer no support to the elected person who is head of your party, yet you expect the people to be able to support you to stay in office. Why do you believe that you are not responsible for the unraveling of the trust people have in whatever part of government they believe is necessary for stabilizing this nation? The right has a healthy distrust in government, so why are you disrupting the little trust they have remaining?