Vicarious Political Self Examination

2009-06-10T13:31:00.001-07:00

So, my wife and I worked hard to see Barack Obama elected President of these our States United. I say we worked hard, but this is a characterization; and as such is relative. Barack is the first person we have ever worked to elect President. Indeed, working for his campaign was the first time either of us were ever directly invovled in politics.

I reflect on this periodically, because I like to mark the performance of this fellow I've elected, and because it was an entirely uncharacteristic thing for us to do. When push comes to shove, I think we did it not so much to put him in office as to do whatever was expedient to get anyone who even resembled the outgoing administration completely out of the picture. It didn't hurt that Obama looks so *good* in the company of other politicians.

We are white, anglo-saxon, from protestant stock, living in a predominantly republican community in a predominantly republican state. Neither are we precisely democrats; indeed, we are deliberately, pedantically without preconcieved affiliation. We are not for the winning team; we are for the team that has what it takes to win.

So far, my man does not disapoint.

Rock on, Barack - thanks for bringing some dignity home to the people.

Initial Edict

2009-06-07T05:14:00.000-07:00

Ahhh, forgive me, if you can, for indulging myself a bit - I do it a lot, it's almost as if I had style but set on autopilot :D

So recently I got a call from the best and closest of my old friends, someone I have not seen for far too long. He has never really been the type to make a lot of visiting calls on the phone, so I was quite concerned to hear from him. It concerned me further that he was a bit agitated.

As it turns out, his principle concern was what I like to refer to as "The Shit Sandwich".

I'll take a moment (I can, as you are a slave to my text :P ), and elaborate a bit on what the shit sandwich is. I think that by the time I am finished, you will note that you are actually quite familiar with it.

The shit sandwich is this: "I get up in the morning, and get ready to go to work for someone else, at a place of their choosing, doing something I don't like, for very little of what what I produce." Why? Because I have to. I have the car payment, the mortgage, the typical 24000$US of credit card debt, oh yeah, those damnned student loans, and crap, the IRS lien...

Now honestly, this does not describe everyone in these our States United. That being said, I think that the person who does not carry at least one of those burdens, and who is in his legal and financial majority, is a rare beast indeed.

I think that the point is this: The balance of work to reward in any society is the most important of its characteristics: literally, the quality of the human condition. Is there sufficient time in the day to enjoy the benefits of ones labors? Does the average Jane struggle practically from birth to accumulate such gain that she is able to sustain herself in her golden years, obviating the need to labor unto her death? Are there sufficient opportunities for gain that all members of society are equally engaged, productive, and happy? what about the rate of criminal insanity? Overpopulation?

Anyway, that's all hypothetical; it is, as they say, what it is - substitute your own subject for 'it' and 'it' will 'be'. And so, we all of us partake of the shit sandwich to some degree, every day. Some masochistically embrace the shit sandwich and gobble as much down as they can in an effort to clear it away - others try to avoid it altogether through awkward social mechanisms such as criminal activity, expatriotism, or other dissociative and potentially destructive means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If one considers those awesome peoples so thoroughly worshipped (if not also destroyed) by the ancient romans; yes, those incredibly beautiful, talented, and intelligent greeks; and one finds the ugliest and most ignorant of them, and by his own admission: a man, they said, so ugly, that his wife wept at the sight of him; a man so thoroughly convinced of his own ignorance, that he deliberately left the writing of his books to his followers...one Aristotle, who is inarguably the father of modern logical thought.

But as I said, a man who left it to his followers to write his books, so we must look instead to Plato, and the book "de Republica", or as we probably know it better, "The Republic".

In this book, Plato/Aristotle (herein referred to collectively as "the greeks"), an ideal society is described - one in which all children are fathered anonomously according to lot in a lottery - a lottery rigged to produce superior breeding - and raised in a community creche; all children borne deformed are destroyed as abberations, and all citizens perform societal obligations in singular, narrowly defined roles prescribed by the state.

Now, dependant upon *who you are*

*pause for effect*

you will have any of several wildly variant reactions to a societal proposal formed along such lines. There are at least a half dozen potential points of contention there - it's really a rather draconian arrangement. Or is it?

What it *is* (no pause for the drama cause this time), is a state designed with one goal in mind: Preservation of the State. If the state prevails, and the state is made up of people, then the people prevail, per se.

The offending quality is, it is a design produced completely through the employment of logic, and in the complete absence of compassion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what does any of that have in common? Why do I ramble on as I do? Well, to put my thoughts in order for one - in the hope that at some point in the future, as I have an occasion to provide an accounting of myself and my thoughts, I might better understand myself and what drives me, and to better articulate that to myself and others; and to display for others, as it may be, these observations I have made in the clear light of day.

I kinda skipped past the first question. I'm clever like that (on a good day), as I can now conveniently seguey back into my discourse concerning how the writings of the ancient greek philosopher-kings impact our quality of life today:

There are, you see, a couple or three different schools of thought in my mind on what I will loosely refer to as 'civics'...one of which is, that the designs set forth in Plato's "de Republica" are an ideal; something to be gradually worked towards like a goal over generations to produce the 'perfect society of perfect humans'. They'll try to work around the truly offensive parts - e.g., better to prevent birth defects and sickness than to destroy the malformed and incurable.

Then there is what I will call the 'philadelphia' school - the opposite end of the spectrum, if you will. Those who would structure society strictly along lines of progress, productivity and philanthropy, leaving the smaller details to organic communal style and taboo.

Are any of these (republicans and democrats) forms starting to take shape (conservatives and liberals) in the mental landscape?

Now granted - I am speaking in very specific terms about some very general things - and that can be a dangerous way to make decisions about how things work. So take all this with a grain of salt, and remember that no *human* being can execute a plan over the course of millenia...
...but that by no means is this to imply that some haven't tried. Some have nearly succeeded; or, perhaps more accurately, have had limited success for a time (witness Aristotle and Plato).

Of all of Aristotle's musings, I think that perhaps the most useful was the most easily understood: The Analogy of the Cave. Simply put, the cave in the analogy is the figurative 'place' of our existence, which we experience indirectly through the shadows of the forms of reality cast upon the wall of the cave. Our natural view is quite narrow, and it is perforce all that we behold. Aristotle sought to observe directly that which the rest of us experience only as shadows, and to convey the true nature of existence to his fellows.

As we examine ourselves and each other, we should always consciously seek the forms, through the recognition of shadows - lest we perish as victims of misinformation. The truth as they say, "is always stranger than fiction."

Until next time, I'll be trying to find my tinfoil hat :D

Pater F.

Pater Familias

Vicarious Political Self Examination

Initial Edict