the smedley log - suburban scrawl

Happy being lonely…

There seems to be this unspoken (and often unconscious) assumption so many of us espouse. It’s the uncanny belief that “most people think like me.”

It’s most apparent in the words of pundits and partisans of a certain level, but it exists in many, many other people as well. It probably explains why I used to be so mystified at the popularity of the shallow brand of debate regularly occurring in a wide range of political media—I wrongly assumed people would be disgusted by it, as I tend to be. (It’s still possible I was correct on that one, but the cable news channel offerings don’t yet bear it out.)

It’s probably also the reason for the grossly over-used assertion that one group or another is “out of the mainstream.” It’s not that the assertion is wrong, so much as it often bears the implication that the speaker’s position somehow better represents “the mainstream.” What strikes me odd about this assertion is its predominant use by people who are themselves out the mainstream.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Seriously, what’s the inherent value in being like everyone else? But back to the political realities.

The U.S. voting public was almost evenly divided between Democratic and Republican tickets in the past two Presidential elections. Given that fact, exactly how does either contingent coherently lay claim to “the mainstream”? Dissect it even further and one might even realize that a good segment of those who did vote for major party candidates in recent elections are nowhere near as politically geeky as people like me (or you, if you’re still reading this).

Given that, I’d wager a large sum that the real mainstream in U.S. culture give much more thought to things like American Idol, their weekend plans or (insert mundane concern here) than they do to issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun-control or immigration.

And I’m not suggesting it’s a good thing that most Americans don’t care about politics; it’s just reality.

So to those who routinely make these politically-motivated claims about who is or isn’t in the mainstream, I plead with you: don’t.

True consensus is about as rare as a partisan who takes the opposing argument seriously, and people swayed by the allure of being in the mainstream generally aren’t the type to think for themselves anyway.

Just a thought.

Of course you are 100% correct. You can easily see this evidenced in the fact that nobody votes anymore, that there is little media focus on real current events, that there is no budding revoultion occuring. We the people who care are certainly in the minority.

I believe that that’s the way we want it. That the actual average human being in America is so spoiled that they don’t need to care about these things. That is a result of our incredible prosperity in America.

If you read a book like “Island” by Huxley you see this utopian society that while incredible, will never happen in the large here in America and probably across the human race. Humans have conquered the real visilbe treats to their existance, they (and I mean all humans) can now get food and make shelter. In short, we can survive and there is some flaw to us that makes that ok. We have no overall need to acheive more as a race. We are inherantly self centered and lazy.

So, as I’m coming to believe, it is up to us, the small majority to lead the sheep to a better world. We can’t count on them to help us. We need to drag them into what should be the 21st century by oursleves.

It frusterates me as well. On my blog I still complain and most of those complaints are not against the establishment. They are agasint the lazy sheeplike public. I feel helpless to make change in the world. But I think that my writing isn’t for those masses, it’s for others like you and others like me. I think it’s a way to say “we’ve got to do something since the rest of America (and in the future, the world) doesn’t (and won’t) do it themselves!”

Not being bothered by the fact that I am decidedly not “mainstream”, I guess I hadn’t given it that much thought. I suspect you are right, Howard, in that there is probably an undiscovered axiom of political speech that any reference to your adversary being outside the mainstream, by definition, accompanies a position the speaker knows can’t be advanced on its merits alone.

What scares me is the amount of reacting that is considered “thought” by people. I struggle with some of the shades of grey with some issues and feel I need to police myself to some extent to keep the line between reacting and real thought straight on issues knowing that the presentation of the issues is seemingly more designed to ignite reaction then to engender thought.

I mean I’m politically pro choice (to use a given example) even though I would very likely not ever actually choose to have an abortion under most circumstances, but I’ve struggled several times throughout my life to try to see where the shade of grey I believe is closest to right is and subsequently to what extent that shade of grey is legislatable and I’ll be externally vocal against a strident pro-life stance if I feel the need but privately do have to admit some squishiness on the leftmost side of that issue and some of the trickle-down issues with it (eg – minors/parental consent).

So – the black-and-white reactive world view scares me some. Of course, I am posting this from Mom’s where I see it firsthand all too frequently too. How’s that for irony?

Trace,
I share your sense that most people will never concern themselves with getting involved (which would entail not allowing other groups to make wholesale decisions for you), but I do believe there’s some room for helping people become more involved, as opposed to just blazing a trail without them (not sure if that’s what you meant or not). But the frustration is real; some day when I have a few months to think about it, I may have a more specific analytical response, or not.

Cziltang,
Undiscovered axiom, eh? Could it be somewhat akin to Godwin’s Law? I’ll have to work on that one a bit more.

Ellen,
The gray is what’s lost in most political discussions. I was just on the phone with a friend who (rightly) pointed out that political platforms ask us to decide between extremes when most of us have views that are somewhere in between. I think that’s related…

I’d wager a large sum that the real mainstream in U.S. culture give much more thought to things like American Idol, their weekend plans or (insert mundane concern here) than they do to issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun-control or immigration.

And I’m not suggesting it’s a good thing that most Americans don’t care about politics; it’s just reality.

You’re quite right that the “mainstream” couldn’t care less about politics (i.e., the realm of public policy) as long as they have their feelies… which is all to say that they are neither fit for self-government, nor in fact do they actually exercise it. I would say, however, that it is a very good thing that they don’t care about politics, or things might be very much worse. We already have almost unlimited social freedom, with nanny state security and boundaries. If people cared, it might even be worse: a nation of fat, spoiled adolescents actually trying to control something… that’s really quite scary!

So let us just declare liberal democracy a well-intended but failed experiment… and move on! The ottoman hordes are coming, and we’d better be prepared… we’ve a culture to salvage.

Cheers!

I can always count on you to put a rosy face on every issue, Steve.

While most people aren’t currently poised to practice effective self-governance, I’m not sure that means there couldn’t be an improvement in the situation.

Who’s to say that if people actually started paying attention they wouldn’t act much more responsibly about such things? I tend to think that if a majority of citizens lived up the label of “citizen” (i.e. paying attention to policy, being more responsive to it) there might actually be a more disciplined approach taken, as opposed to the runaway train that government has become.

I agree with Steve. Do we really want people who don’t know and don’t care flipping a coin when they go to the voting booth. Encouraging clueless people to vote makes the results more dependent on slick advertising and the money necessary to generate it and whatever smarmy scandal one side or the other can manufacture. (Not surpisingly, I’m not i favor of the Arizona “voter lottery” idea.) I’m not approaching this from an elitist standpoint, I just think we would all be better off if we stick to what we care about. If you really care about American Idol, vote for your favorite (early and often…). If you care about politics and the direction you want the country to go, well, you know what to do.

As to the axiom; I was indeed thinking of Godwin’s law. I tentatively considered calling it Smedley’s Axiom, but thought that would sound like sucking up.

Suck up all you want…

As for the other thing:
While I do agree that we don’t want people flipping a coin in the voting booth, what I’d had in mind was more about people getting into the nuts and bolts a little more so the coin-flipping could be reduced.

I don’t know about you, but I know an awful lot of people who engage in different versions of coin-flipping when they enter the voting booth. One way is to oversimplify the options by believing that everything one party leadership touts is automatically trustworthy. In other words, I think we’re already too dependent on slick ads and well-oiled political propaganda.

While I don’t know if Steve is suggesting as much, there’s something to his statement that almost implies the people who are politically active aren’t already acting like total idiots. If that’s part of his assumption, I definitely don’t buy it.

As to how/if we could correct any of this, I’m still struggling with that.

Hmmmm…. I’d say:

People should heavily weight their interest and effort toward the local over the national or global, toward the natural and organic over the industrial and artificial; that institutions that grow bigger than human sized (whether they be gov’t or corporate) necessarily dehumanize either by treating persons like chattel (or consumers or voters) to be manipulated as mere material objects, or by bribing them (by artificial inducements to gastronomic bliss, orgasms, or gov’t security) like so many lazy adolescents (or is it steers at the feed lot?). Put not your trust in princes. “Human sized” things are those in which one can have actual influence, viz., family, church, community, and (if you’re lucky enough, which you and I are not, to live in a small or relatively unpopulated state) the state or commonwealth. These are the things which must be preserved for they are (for better or worse) a part of us and (God willing) the things that our grandchildren will inherit.

Therefore I applaud the efforts of the Smedley Log to highlight and underscore the political and social interests of Bucks County and SE PA… even tho’ that means 98% or more of the blog-reading public couldn’t care less.

Self-sufficiency and discipline, and community solidarity are what I preach over and against concern for the last futile hiccups of a dying and decaying empire.