The Political Practicality of Compromises

     Bipartite, balanced, bipartisan: such words and phrases constitute the holy grail of  contemporary political speak. The significance of this sort of terminology is obvious,  and is predicated on appealing to the common sense of logic that all human beings share. After all, nobody is conceivably against a joint effort, a compromise. People are conditioned so thoroughly to be satisfied and relaxed at the mere mention of the latter. But, of course, there is a downside to using this sort of externally reassuring language. Evidently, by doing so, the public's sense of what is right and wrong is dulled, as they become increasingly apathetic to the soothing language articulated by the government-and thus, in extension, the media- and lose, or at least temporarily shelve, a vital part of their cognitive and moral conscious. Such a coalescence of morality with government interests is not a healthy state for either by any measure. Now obviously one might remark something to the effect that the government indeed wants people to be, putting it bluntly, dumb and drone-like. However, doing so actually conflicts with government interests in the long-term. As history has shown invariably, as the middle-class grows in wealth and thus power, its development parallels a huge and explosive boom in technology and indeed the general wealth. It is an economical fact that as the wealth of the less privileged increases, so does the wealth of all. Paradoxically, the rate at which the wealth of the upper-classes increased actually slowed over the 1980's to present day when wealth began to disparagingly concentrate more and more in the top socioeconomic bracket. Clearly, a lack of foresight is what holds humanity back; as a collective, it is time to actually strive for such a lofty and yet noble goal for a sustained period of time, meaning not a couple hundred like is the case for virtually all countries and empires, but for a thousand or more years at a time, the periodicity of which should likewise increase exponentially. What a troubling thought it is that despite so many advances in technology and thought human strife has not truly deviated from its primitive roots. Perpetuating the emotional weakness of humans by using such spurious language, preying upon the minds of people to reduce them to self-harming husks, and finally leaving them so confused that they cannot possibly sort out what went wrong is useless. When one makes a compromise, the terms have to be, by definition, fair. Shifting the debate to one side (the conservative side, as in the case in the U.S. and the majority of other instances) is disingenuous.   Thus, loaded words like compromise should actually embody what they claim to contain. On the other hand, there should likewise not be intent to rally emotion against compromise as a cliché. Instead, people should be helped in the obtaining of knowledge that will better society. Knowledge should not be esoteric but exoteric, and despite the current reign of the information age, clearly such is not the case, at least in terms of what counts most, collective humanity. Political leaders should do away with the notion of compromise if it does not allow sufficient room for the moral high-ground. One can even lean slightly to the side of compromise, as long as the majority of stated belief is not eclipsed. By doing so, a whole lot more political capital can be won over if only the one in power, even if the power was procured through promising fealty to larger forces, and one's name can have a much more practical chance of enshrining the coveted annals of history as a great leader loved by both the middle and lower-classes for outright satisfaction, but also ultimately the upper-classes, as they eternally benefit most as a piece of the pie in terms of overall advancement.

Responsibility in Politics in Relation to Religion

     Religion and politics are nowadays intertwined in America. However, it is not Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other named religion. Rather, it is the orthodoxy and orthopraxy that dominates mainstream beliefs and ideology. Take, for example, the victim-blaming that is widespread. Cases like Steubenville shift responsibility on the person who was victimized to the extent that the victim is punished by being shamed and chastised. Even something as common as prison rape is supported by a significant portion of America as a means of additional punishment for someone who did something bad. What fails to be scrutinized in cases such as these is a gray line. If someone is accused of doing something wrong, they are marginalized in increasingly extreme and callous ways. Similar in principle is religion, which likewise has a black-and-white outlook on life in general and demands that every member adhere to all its intricate nuances. Just like in politics in today's day-and-age, people are resorting more and more to reactionary actions to counterbalance an anomaly that, if treated fairly, would undermine the current hierarchy. So rather than change a popular and accepted belief, the community instead chooses to quickly and quietly silence issues to try and stop any controversy when it is localized. Actions like these were the bases for the Christian crusades, the Hindu caste system, modern-day Islamic extremism, and many other things.
     Both religion and politics therefore levy a fundamentally unfair burden of responsibility on a specific group, usually a minority. For politics, it is the poorer population and/or a racial minority, who are expected to know that politicians can lie at any time like political commentators, their full rights like lawyers, and study like a far more privileged person. All of these expectations are unreasonable and prevent a deeper look at the causation of the problem as well as practical and efficient alternatives instead of 'they should have tried harder as this is America.' Thus the problem is that both religion and politics are misrepresented as being separate when, in fact, they derive their roots from the same basic place, the like-mindedness and homogeneous actions that define the community. Ultimately, a solution to this issue must be developed. Whether it is a more clear separation of religious reactionism from political activism or a more conciliatory reversion to religion will define America. Obviously, a more empathetic stance will lead to a more egalitarian society, or utopia in the contemporary sense.    

Rationalization of Liberalism

     Although a post that defends conservatism might be unexpected given the history on this blog, the point that will hopefully be conveyed is that the writer does not hate conservatism just because it represents traditional values. Indeed, many people, including the writer, would like to back traditional values. For example, it was aforementioned in another blog post that conservatism has a subtle psychological appeal that lends itself to stability and a basic sense of modernism in general. Compare such nomenclature to liberal, which is heavily connoted, especially in today's political environment, with extremism and an underlying sense of wanting chaos. The point is people who choose to outwardly identify as liberal or even progressive (as even though it may sound absurd, progressives are seen as ideologues by many people) are not aliens who are somehow an exception to this tendency. Nor are they mentally insane or damaged or hopelessly different: oftentimes they choose to change ideologies after sustained and careful consideration.
     Yes, the word "change" used deliberately. After all, many people, except for a few whose communication  and belief circles perpetuate liberalism as an ends to a means, do not naturally ascribe to liberalism. Unlike conservatism, there is no consolation of preserving the status quo, no reward in going against traditional societal values as the minority, oftentimes for decades before change is actually enacted.  Now of course that is not to necessarily say that liberals are inherently smarter than conservatives-as they are not-nor is always true that liberalism does not have a calming mental effect on its own- prominently displayed in the cases of more liberally-inclined townships have a greater percentage of liberals. But even taking into account these significant exceptions, many people still are reluctant to flip to the left side of the political spectrum. It is only through extensive ostracization and a consistent estrangement to not consider the other point of view while just responding with the sentiment that "things have always been done this way," the latter being part-and-parcel to the former, that culminates into a slow, deliberate metamorphosis in terms of political ideologies.
     Obviously, most people agree that many things in society should be preserved. But sometimes change is necessary. It is only when a large group of people are disillusioned by stagnate, glaring problems that are not fixed despite a real solution existing that many liberals are formed, at least in the U.S. in today's day-and-age. Consider the fact that many contemporary revolutionaries, including the vast majority of the famed founding fathers, were originally conservative loyalists. But after a long period their grievances not being addressed, they eventually became more radical (radical being a word that is likewise heavily connoted in a negative sense unfairly by today's arguably recalcitrant society) in their beliefs and actions. George Washington himself embodies this fundamental change; he was after all a British military officer serving under General Braddock. The results of George Washington's slow radicalization can be seen today in America with such extreme ideas like liberty and democracy for all to the maximum level, equal chances for the poor through social programs, and an openness to change. Surely many people can agree that the conception of what is now the most powerful nation on Earth, responsible for many good, is a positive thing. Remember that people have to consciously choose change, an ordeal that is informal and uncertain by its very chaotic nature. However, such sentiments are formed because of a lack of modern arbitration between the two extremes. Ultimately, most sane people come around to the points that change is essential to the world, that it is always necessary based on history (and that today's times are no exception as excuses like people being equal everywhere are demonstrably false), and that people who do want societal betterment, God help them, do so with  great regret in their hearts at the prospect of having to isolate themselves with the greater part of society, with has a tendency to be conservative to a fault, to help a group of people that so need assistance to even have a real shot at the American Dream of pulling oneself up from the bootstraps.