Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nope. I'm more interesting in talking to people who don't share my beliefs. But you don't seem to believe in anything.
|
I thought about this. First I'd say we shouldn't use "believe." We should use "conclude." I can conclude certain things based on what I observe. Belief is a different animal. That's coming to every issue with a set of values and letting those values guide how you approach each issue. That creates rigidity. That's a lot of what's causing polarization in our society.
Each situation is different. "Values" or "beliefs" are a narcissism that blinds people from seeing each situation subjectively.
So, in regard to the types of issues before us here, in the US, no, I don't really "believe" in any set of principles to the point that I can't be swayed. If I thought Trump really was an existential threat to democracy, I'd have a different conclusion. But I don't. I think he's a natural phenomenon that can occur (in many forms) when an entrenched and myopic governing class ignores problems or papers over them for decades. He's been coming for a long time. Be thankful this populist wave is here in the form of a buffoon like Trump. Imagine if it arose in the form of a cunning and shrewd statesperson who could actually get things done.
I don't want the bundle of things Trump is selling. But I also don't want to be governed by the people aligned in resistance to him. I can't really "believe" anything here because I see little worth getting behind on either side. I see a system in disarray and society, myself included, that deserves to suffer the national nervous breakdown we are at the moment.
The horse race fascinates me because it's all that matters. You talk of who did what and whether it was illegal and how awful it was. Or when Presidents you like are in office, you talk about how great their achievements have been. That's nice, but it ignores how things get done, the only real laws: Power and Political Skill. The system is one of winners and losers. Getting into the legality or illegality of what Trump does is only relevant in terms of determining whether it's bad enough to make a difference in the political power game.
In a game where power and skill are the only things of relevance, I guess you can pick a team. But you don't "believe" in that team or its basket of policies.
If I see a candidate whose policies I conclude are well considered and will help the country, and either help me or won't hurt me too much to make such a vote irrational, I'll support that candidate. The last candidate to have done that would be Jimmy Carter, way back when, in the
Crisis of Confidence speech. He nailed it. He was thinking ahead. Maybe Warren will do the same. I sense she has the mettle for it.
