Acquiescing to the deficient new normal

Young people fed up with a deficient new normal

After watching the results of the New York primary, I knew the activity level in my sphere of Facebook would get very active. I have three distinct group of followers: conservative Republicans, Democrats, and left-wing liberals. Conservative Republicans were pretty quiet.

A few of my left-wing liberal friends went a bit overboard with conspiracy theories about the New York primary outcome. Some were unnecessarily disrespectful to Sen. Clinton. Feelings are still raw on both sides. Of course, I suggested that it be toned down.

As a left-wing liberal myself, I was disappointed that Sanders has yet to make the sale with enough people in other demographics. People, in general, want familiarity. You have to reach them through their hearts, and Clinton did that long ago, her perceived sins to these communities forgiven by many. Sanders got a late start. He never endeared himself to other communities in a timely manner, and it may be a hill that’s too steep to climb.

Drew Westen’s book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation doesn’t only apply to talking to the hearts of conservatives to have them vote in their own interests. It applies just as well to liberals. You have to reach people where they are.

After watching the reactions of many, I posted a little rant of my own. In that rant, I pointed out:

Look Hillary has more popular votes and pledged delegates. That is a fact. It will take a lot of grassroots work to overcome that. It will likely not be overcome in this election. That must not stop engagement. Suits, superdelegates fights, and all that stuff are not the answers. Continuation in building the movement irrespective of the outcome is. Keeping the people who finally entered the political process is. To do that requires that we give them a purpose and achievable goals.

Every politician is an empty vessel to be filled. So far it has been filled with the will of the plutocracy. It is time for us to concentrate more on movement building, a movement that will replace the pollution they are filled with, instead with the values of the movement. Again, achievable goals that keep people engaged and not deflated.

This rant led to a very healthy, civil, and respectful Facebook discussion. A dear friend, Professor Cody Pogue, started a new Facebook discussion that encapsulated much of what afflicts today’s body politic.

He wrote the following:

Many Americans feel a void. I think part of this is because our nation has lost its sense of national purpose. We no longer stand for anything. It no longer means anything to be an American. We are a nation of people who are defined by personal greed, selfish ambition, and a love of fancy gadgets, entertainment, and gossip that continually distract us from any meaningful thought, contemplation, or meaning. Our value comes not from being human beings or even from being part of a community, but from how many commodities we have, and we live in a world where those commodities that give people value are becoming increasingly scarce for everyone outside the top 1%. We will never make America great by expanding business interests to further a culture of greed and selfishness. To make America great, we will have to develop a national purpose that puts community, national identity, and the advancement of the philosophy of the heart and mind ahead of selfishness and materialism.

That did not occur in a vacuum. It was a slow process of plutocratic indoctrination that got us to that point, and getting back to our real values will be slow going. Disassociating capital from our individual real worth as humans will be a slow process.

A woman in the thread made an interesting statement.

I would argue that in many ways, there is at least more opportunity for more Americans now than there has been historically, unless we limit that history to white men.

This provided the perfect segue for Professor Pogue to get historical. Most importantly, it provided context to much of the subtext in the Democratic primary.

I think limiting that history to white men is the only fair calculation due to the oppressive nature of everyone else throughout history. To expect minorities, women, or any other classifications of people (including white men) to be happy to be treated in any way less than white men have historically been treated is unfair, oppressive, and discriminatory. To celebrate the fact that minorities and women are treated better than they used to be is premature as long as women and minorities are still being treated as less than white men. To celebrate these accomplishments also ignores that fact that white men are worse off than they used to be, not because of the success of women and minorities, but because of the success of a small group of white men that have exploited everyone else in the process.

The expectation of relative complacency—whether by Hillary Clinton’s incrementalism or Donald Trump’s racial and ethnic scapegoating—to absolve real systemic problems is the issue. Professor Pogue continued:

We have always had selfishness and we have always had the community, but I believe the dominant American culture tends to swing like a pendulum between having a focus on the public good and having a focus on the private good. In the 1820s, Americans focused on business and private interests and until conditions became unacceptable and we had an awakening in the 1830s and 40s. In the 1850s, Americans focused on the private good only to awaken to issues of the public good in the 1860s and 70s. Then Americans got tired and retreated back to focusing on their private good in the 1880s and 90s, until income inequality, mistreatment of immigrants and farmers, and unfair working conditions released a storm of public energy in the 1900s and 1910s. Then in the 1920s, we returned to “normalcy” and focused on business and making money, but when the stock market crashed, American culture focused back on the public good during the 1930s and 40s. Exhausted, Americans retreated back to normalcy during the 1950s only to be awakened to civic engagement in the 1960s and 70s. Then Americans fell back to sleep and got distracted from their public duty during the 1980s and the private good has dominated ever since. I think we are on the verge of a new awakening to civic engagement that focuses on the public good and I hope it will last 20 years or more like the previous swings of the pendulum. We have lost ground to make up for.

Today, we still celebrate the businessman who reduces others down to nothing more than a commodity to exploit in his desire for his personal fortune, but we denounce the well-meaning individual who devotes his life to service to the public good. I long for a day when we celebrate civic virtue and denounce greed, when we no longer celebrate the “rags to riches” story, but instead celebrate the person who was born poor and took everyone else on a path to prosperity with him, even if it means he sacrificed a fortune in the process, when personal value is not based on wealth and celebrity, but on goodness, kindness, and civic virtue.

I know that some people think I am too idealistic, but i don’t see that as a problem. We have lacked optimism for a long time.

Americans have been made to believe that demanding what they have earned and what they deserve is too idealistic. Ensuring that every single person in this country has access to success is not idealistic—it is American. Ensuring that people do not backslide into the financial states of yesteryear is not idealistic, it is American. Demanding that gainful employment pays a living wage is not idealistic, it is American. If a business cannot pay employees appropriately then it is a hobby, or a flawed business model.

Americans have been so beaten down over the years that many fear the fight for what is rightfully theirs, so many acquiesce to the new deficient normal. It is the job of activists mitigate that reality. Good activists must be the vitamins that keep hope alive as they work to help change hope into reality.