Human beings are territorial animals. Think about that using
the broadest sweep of the definition of ‘territory’ and then apply those
thoughts to our behavior. Territory is not just land but referees to ownership;
thus, refers to everything we consider our possessions. We apply the thought to
anything we can say is ours including family. We codify this with certificates
of ownership for land, cars, houses, etc saying this or that is ours; however,
some things do not lend themselves to nice neat legal status. For example, in
our lifetime we have witnessed and continue to witness the fight over
intellectual property bedecked with words like patents, copy writes,
plagiarism, infringement, etc. This sense of ownership is not just material things
but extends to memberships to both territory and organizations, such as “my”
nation, state, or city; “my” football team or club; or “my” church and even
includes such ill-defined things as membership to entities that do not really
exist such as “gun owners” or “deer hunters”.
The point I am trying to make is that the “sense of ownership”,
as ill defined as it sometimes is, is somehow bestial or innate. It is
well-conserved sense extending across the world biota. Although behavior
implies action directed by a mental, or at least a nervous processes, we can
say inanimate things also behave; for example, inorganic chemical react “or
behave” in certain ways under certain circumstances. However, logic dictates
that some time in natural history, animate or directed behavior evolved.
However, people have never been able to draw a clear line between inorganic things
verses organic things, just as they can ever draw a distinction between animal
behavior and human behavior. To speak of politics in terms of hierarchy
dominance as in a pack of wolves or that people have animal behavior such as peck-order
like chickens or territorial instinct is sacrilege yet fights for dominance of
one over another and territorial disputes are part of everyday human existence.
On the other side of the coin from ownership or what’s mine
is mine and no one else’s, we have altruisms; a mother sacrificing her life for
her baby, a father willing to give up his life protecting his family, or a
soldier willing to risk everything to protect his country me. This appears as an
unexplainable clash of tendencies but is really the interface of innate
instincts, the willingness to sacrifice one innate tendency at the expense of
another. The truth is that most of us treat theses things in moderations; they
are part of the give and take in the entire range of everyday life suitable to
think about ranging from war to sports, or jobs, and even parking spaces. We
cannot survive without greed nor can we survive without altruism; however, for
years even biologists would recognize the existence of natural selection of
altruistic tendencies.
Unfortunately, we tend to emphasize the extremes—go for the
jugular or give up our lives—of these traits, which appears to be another bestial
tendency echoed in the famous political quote, “Extremism in the defense of
liberty is no vice.” For me, this is going from being human to reverting to being
bestial. Our humanization is the product of at least 3.5 million years of
mental anguish over bestiality, which often means our degust with cruelty as
the price of dealing with survival of the fittest.
In that sense, our humanization has introduced a number of kind
words to describe altruism such as kindness, generous, friendly, etc; however,
some have added folly, foolishness, and the pejorative, ‘stupidity’. Equally
unfortunate, others have adapted similar pejorative words to apply to the
extreme sense of possessiveness or ownership such as avaricious, selfishness
and greed.
I watch what is happening on the political front in the
United States and the world with interest. I have a tendency to judge events in
the terms just outlined. For example, the children from three Central American
countries are showing up on our boarders. One political group has a solution
that involves blocking the boarders without regard to what happens to the
children; “This is our country”, they say. “We worked to build it. If you cross
the boarder with out permission, you are committing and illegal act, which
makes you a criminal.” Another political group says that these are just poor children
and we should take care of them. If they cross the boarders, they are refugees
and we should protect them and care for them.
Another example, the Pentagon, that great symbol of
militarism, which is there is to protect what we own; it has the unbridled
support of one political party. That party’s rhetoric is full patriot terms and
is punctuated with flag waving and martial music. In direct contrast, the other
political party feels the military budget is greatly inflated; the excessive
with money that would be better spent doing kind things for people, such as
spend it on food stamps, unemployment insurance, government student loans, etc.
Their party rhetoric is load with words that reflect concern with sympathy for
the unfortunate.
I could go through examples based on family structure, the
business world, and other human activities that reflect other deeply held innate
or bestial tendencies such as hierarchy dominance, xenophobia,
self-preservation, and survival of the fittest. Thus, the punch line of this blog post is that political tendencies are
inborn.
This has
consequences. I see political operatives more and more catering to these
innate tendencies to affect both favorable and unfavorable ratings of
candidates. The result is that the political party bases, from which our
leaders that are being elected, are condensing into two smaller and smaller
cadres with more and more radical beliefs but with the caveat that more and
more people are being enticed into voting conservatives by appeal to inborn tendencies;
individualism and ownership. Consequently, we are electing more and more
extremely radical conservatives. We all have innate selfish tendencies because
we needed them at a bestial level to survive yet we are more and more
appreciative of altruistic values; however, clever political operatives have tipped
the scale to the conservative side.
The political party’s respective hardcore messages are being
fashioned for these narrow core groups. The message Democrats use in political
campaigns is pretty much the same as the core message. The Republicans use a message
of hate in their narrower core audience but claim to be compassionate to the
public, which they are obviously not.
Political scientists have recently realized Republicans, the
greedy element of the political spectrum outlined in the first paragraphs, as
individuals are more narrowly focused; thus, have cohesiveness of purpose. In
contrast, the cohesiveness of the altruists or Democrats is simply not there—they
are malleable—apparently, there is more incentive to be a leader then to be a
follower but it really doesn’t matter ass much what they are. Talk radio and
conservative TV reflects this; most Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News
followers will listen to nothing else; their devotion resembles an addiction,
as if the rhetoric they want to hear release “feel good” hormones just like
cocaine. Liberals have none of this.
The working class in American has been convinced to vote against
their own interest; they are voting for the economic elite and not voting to
benefit them selves. The result is that the control of American government is
more and more in control of conservatives with a deeply held sense of bestial greed
and a lack of benevolence. What I earn is mine and I deserve to keep it: no
regulation, no taxes, no government, might it right. The big dog runs the show.;
right is might
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment