I'm leery of efforts at constructing grand, all-encompassing explanations of complicated phenomena, but think there is an element of truth in the claim that our history is in some sense cyclical, which is to say that we repeat ourselves, swinging pendulum-like from one extreme of social consciousness to another. I'm inclined to attribute this to an inability to learn and to think, however. This isn't to our credit, but it generates optimism of a sort--we can at least imagine that the current fad for autocracy and sameness, and the repression of contrasting views and lifestyles, will dissipate in time, as we ride the carousel of our history.
Thus, the prospect of an aging, scatter-brained and astonishingly self-centered snake-oil salesman becoming president once more need not terrify us, and it may be hoped that no permanent harm will be done to the nation. The recent, relentlessly clownish, convention might merely be a tawdry circus rather than a horrifying glimpse of things to come.
But assuming we survive the upcoming election as something resembling a Republic, what kind of a nation will we be? We already are an oligarchy, or more properly a plutocracy. Our legislators are for sale; the justices of our high court look for handouts and appear more and more like panhandlers wearing black robes. What do we call a nation governed by gluttons and hoarders? I don't think Aristotle came up with a term for a land of Trimalchios.
We must emulate Montaigne, who wrote: "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself, and if they will not adapt to me, I adapt to them." We must become nations in ourselves. Not like the silly so-called "sovereign citizens" who live in a fantasy world much like a roleplay game, but rather as individuals mindful of their own interests and seeking peaceful co-existence with others but taking intelligent steps and making intelligent decisions for their own protection.
Well said. What sort of “intelligent decisions for their own protection” are reasonable under these circumstances?
ReplyDelete