Options

In all group battles, usually referred to as wars, one side demonizes the other side.  The aim is to turn the enemy into something that is less human than the folks on your side.  Words like godless, savages, animals, devils, and many more are slung at other human beings as if saying something makes it real.  Soon the savages must be stopped, or they will destroy the good humans who only want a peaceful life.  So, the good humans embark on a rampage and try to annihilate the savages; all in the name of goodness.  Has our political divide gotten to that point?  Not sure, but it does seem to be moving in that direction. 

In a political contest, defeating your opponent, is winning an election.  Much of the current political rhetoric is about destroying your enemy.  Fight until the death.  Never give up.  Destroy the threat to your country, your life.  If this enemy (political opponent) is not defeated life as we know it will end.  Those are words of war not political elections.

An election isn’t lost, it is stolen.  Policies are not wrong, they’re evil and threaten the very existence of the country. 

Once this rhetoric is pervasive it is hard to go back to “my fellow citizen” type language.  Succession is only a few steps away.

I write mystery books.  Mostly murder mystery.  These stories involve people who are flawed.  Obviously, the murderer is not a good person, but most of the other characters have faults, sometimes serious ones.  Few perfect people show up in murder mysteries.

I’ve seen what you would call “normal” people say and do things that I would never consider putting into any of my books because they would be unbelievable.  Much of this behavior is becoming normalized.  Hate, vial language, threats, ugly confrontations all at a school board meeting.  Now, there is some stuff I would never include in fiction, it could never happen, except it is happening.

Texas has a movement that would allow the state to succeed from the union.  Their Senator said if they succeeded, they would keep the oil and NASA.  That is almost laughable.  Matter of fact, maybe it was a joke.  You can break up this country, but the ugliness does not go away.  In Texas the majority is one stripe but 40 some odd percent are another.  So now you’re your own country, but the divide still exists.  The divide will become greater.  Now you don’t have Californians to demonize so you demonize your neighbor. 

Until we can understand why we are so divided, we will never sort this mess out.  I don’t think it is much about government policy as it is about different beliefs that move people to think they have a lock on what is right and what is wrong; and if you disagree, you’re the enemy.

The country was originally constructed of 13 colonies with a population of maybe 5 million.  Without question what seemed reasonable then has little to do with the country today.  We need a serious, open-minded discussion about how this country should be constructed.  Maybe there should be some number (4 or 10 maybe?) of regions that have more autonomy than states do today, but still have a central core for purposes of common defense and relations with other countries.  Region one would have a different court system than region two—even different laws, but still keep common laws regarding inter-region commerce and freedom of movement between regions.   States (or region) rights may be the common ingredient that everyone can agree on.  Not what those states do or what they believe, but that they have the right to do that or believe that.  They cannot impose their beliefs, laws or life choices on other states or regions.  Can a country be made up of totally different states who have totally different beliefs and laws?  With no federal override.  Not sure?

I have no idea what is right, but if we don’t begin discussing options, we will end of up with the worst options becoming reality.