I’ve let my focus on politics slip in the past few years. It might have been the exhaustion of grappling with an absurd course load in college while volunteering for the Obama campaign in 2008. It might have been my generally being disenchanted with the ludicrous stances of The Right in this country, whose sole purpose seemed to be winning the 2010 mid-terms by any means necessary, so that they could better make Obama look like an ineffective leader by blocking legislation. Or it could be that, as I get older, I realize how little opinion really matters in politics. In my youth I thought opinion was all it took to be politically relevant, but that’s certainly not the case. More than anything else, as you get older, you must grapple with the bottomless and mercurial nature of politics. Which is unfortunate and ultimately humbling.
But lately I’ve felt the need to be informed and involved again. I thought at first it was the crackling energy of an election year that did it, but that wouldn’t explain why I’ve been reaching into the past for information; explanation. For the myriad similarities between the present administration and political climate, there are as many reasons to disregard aspects of the past for their seeming irrelevance in the modern world. While we must understand the past lest we be doomed to repeat it (trite quota met for the day), the super-connected world doesn’t like to be burdened with the truth. We rush toward idealism, take 140 character proclamations as fact, and value reinforcement of our own beliefs over harsh realities; how else are we supposed to handle the landslide of information we’re presented with every second of every day? Good old fashioned, evolutionarily relevant generalization.
So maybe that explains my hesitation to wade back into political commentary/activity. The knowledge that, try as I might, my own bias and desires will leak into my work, and that bias in 2012 will only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those most dangerous to the future of human kind; those that firmly believe in any cause (even those I embrace) without a firm grasp of why they believe the things they do. Some can site sources, some can argue their point, but I the frightening lack of introspection by most politically active people cultivates blind, obsessive belief with prescribed edicts and a poorly calibrated moral compass. I don’t want to add to that dog pile. I’m not yet old or experienced enough to know whether I’m helping or hindering by broadcasting my opinion. I don’t know whether I have healthy enough understanding of the world, and even if I did, even if I’m well informed and base everything I think on fact without even a whiff of bias, the best case scenario reinforces the groupthink opinions of those that treat politics like a sporting event. I suppose I don’t want to pick a side, but I have to. I (we) have an obligation to the fate of the human race, and we have to try our best not be wrong or stupid or dangerous. Opinion in 2012 has become a facet of radicalism, and the breaks have to be put on that immediately.
And that is why Mitt/Ryan is so dangerous. It’s not their financially backward, socially insensitive policies that are unapologetically designed to appeal to the rich and morally bankrupt. That would be opinion, and opinion is dangerous. The real danger is in the unwavering belief of the ill-informed middle class that makes up a large block of their potential voters. Voters that stand to lose the most from a Romney presidency. The only people in the country that can take an honest look at the history and policies of these men and still vote for them are the rich people that would rather burn the occupants of their village to stop an uprising than feed and clothe them. They’d rather starve to death on the parapets than feel like they gave an inch; that they lost. As Jenna Jameson put it: “You’d vote for Mitt Romney too if you were rich.” She is a Romney supporter.
While far better, more informed people than I have written about the policies, mistakes and demeanor of Mitt Romney, the past 48 hours have resulted in a landslide of information about his vice-presidential pick. For the sake of letting you sort out what you think of this man for yourself, I present to you the best (most factual) of this information, and I would encourage you to check the sources of these sources. Dawg.
ThinkProgress - This is a bit biased, but does provide a fairly great bullet point to jump start research on Paul Ryan.
Slate - Ryan and the stock market.
New York Magazine - Ryan, Rand, and budget that even Bush could hate.
Paul Krugman, NYTimes - A highly opinionated, but well sourced editorial about Paul Ryan.
One final note, before I sign off and devote my energy to my vision of global politics in fifty years for my sci-fi novellas. I like to be humorous. My entire life, I’ve used humor as safety harness to protect myself and those around me from despair. I’m worried that the humor is finally draining out of politics. Every ridiculous move made by policy makers and the powerful in the world certainly has humor in it, but the reality behind that which is easily laughed off is becoming more and more terrifying. Too terrifying. For evidence, look no further than the eyes of an ever aging Jon Stewart. He’s been the balm for reality’s burns for nearly fifteen years, and as he laughs his way through the ridiculous nature of the modern American political machine each night, you can see the pain in his eyes. He doesn’t think it’s funny anymore. Nor do I.
Unless somebody else gets shot in the face.
