At first I was going to entitle this "Why so biased?" but then I realized that I might turn off even more people to what I have to say than normal because bias is a loaded word - so is blind, but it is not nearly so harsh and I don't mean it in the traditional manner. I want to know why people are so blind to the fact that life is a lot more complicated than they would like to make it. I personally feel that we ought to try simplifying life's difficult matters in order to solve problems, but when viewing why people act and react the way they do, often the simple answer is not it. Simplicity is all to often used in order to convince someone you are right instead of trying to tell it "like it is." Here is an example:
In one of the latest Tagebuch/diary entries I received from a friend stands a quote out of The Guardian:
"...Interessant ist, dass es sich bei den 39% der Entscheidungstraeger nun mehrheitlich um konservative Waehler gehandelt zu haben scheint, die, die Republikaner waehlen naemlich. Wer die Republikaner waehlt, waehlt Bush, das war jedem klar, Bushs Wahlkampagne war wirklich nicht zu uebersehen, und Bush waehlen heisst in diesen Tagen, den Krieg waehlen. Auch diese Aussage wurde niemals so subtil geaeussert, dass irgendjemand Zweifel an den Inhalten von Bushs
Auslandspolitik entwickeln koennte. "Die Amerikaner haben diese Woche eine
schicksalhafte Entscheidung getroffen. Sowohl sie als auch der Rest der
Welt werden mit den Konsequenzen leben - oder in einigen Fällen sterben
- müssen." ("The Guardian", Großbritannien, 11/7/02)
Roughly translated: "Interestingly, it seems that 39% of the voters (decision makers) are mostly conservative and mostly Republicans. Those who vote for the Republicans, vote for Bush and it is clear that Bush's campaign was not to be ignored - and voting for Bush these days means voting for war..." It goes on and quotes someone who doesn't appear to be named. Either the translation missed the person who was quoted or it was simply not given. My point is that what the Germans so often call "plump und moralisch" is exactly this type of simplification of the voting that Americans did on the 4th of November. I already wrote about my irritation with low voter turnout - only so typical in a country that seems to be die-hard to defend the freedom of a democratically controlled government. (Note, sarcasm) What I am irritated by is that there are many of us who voted for the Republicans for reasons way beyond the war - and this is so conveniently left out of the examination of our voting habits. The most important of these reasons is the way the Democrats handle our tax dollars. Part of the frustration with the Democrats is that they are constantly pitting one segment of society against the other in order to gain votes. Often enough it is pit the so-called rich against the poor - as if someone is at fault for succeeding (or growing up in a family filled with success stories). This only works over the short run until they start pitting their own voters against one another. Another frustration is that even when the Democrats have come out against any war with Iraq, they use a half-baked approach - and in the end, never seem to be able to stand by their ideals. I obviously have little problem with this because I find that those who show little backbone deserve to be picked out and flogged by public opinion. I cannot personally say what I would do, were I a politician under the constant barrage of commentary and requests from the constituents and the lobbyists. On the other hand, I could never imagine entering the political field with the hopes of making it my career. I would view it as a yet another stepping stone aimed at achieving a specific type of success. In a way, I almost feel that the treatment of politics as a profession is its downfall in general - how can we expect leaders to understand our plight - i.e. the way their decisions effect our lives - if they are never held to the same standards we are? Look at President Clinton. Why is it that we would be quick to judge against a CEO who acted as recklessly with an intern or secretary, but with the President of the United States, such behavior is excusable? To say such a thing is to truly show no backbone... And to say that excusing him is showing our sophistication is only showing our lack of conviction. Read: conviction is good, lack thereof is bad!
I digress... I started this soapbox opera with the hopes of venting my irritation with the snob-nosed approach many Europeans take towards our politics. What is sometimes even more frustrating is that they can't see their own forrest for the trees. We are constantly criticized for having no regard for the welfare of the world around us. Their answer? Make everyone the same - beholden to the same beaurocratic regulation that squashes my desire to overcome whatever natural and talent based obstacles stand in my way. Our answer - if you don't like the way we do things, you have every right to go elsewhere for your products and services. I do not say that with an air of sarcasm or cynicism - I mean that comment seriously. If you don't like the way we do things, then quit supporting us financially - i.e. quit buying our products. You want to affect Americanism - hit it in the pocket book! As to the issue of statism or "beaurocrat-ism": I admit readily that I am not equal to my fellow man. I have talents and vices that are different - I am different. The only level playing field we could ever pretend to have would be that of how we are seen in the eyes of the law - i.e. no man shall be judged according to a different set of rules than the other. That, however, is exactly what we are doing to our society when we try to claim that man is made equal in talent and vice - oh, and by the way, each person should be paid the same regardless of "Leistung."
To claim that we voted for war is missing the point. What we voted for was a change in the status quo which we feel has put us in our current situation: poor economy, political turmoil locally and internationally. Some of us who voted for the Republicans, voted so because we felt that they would provide us the leadership we were lacking with the Democrats. Whether this equals voting for war or not really depends on the candidate and the voter. To simplify any of this further would really be Simpel.
By the way - I actually started writing this post two days ago and never had the chance to finish - a la business called...
