Global and national concerns are easily eclipsed by immediate matters. Expecting otherwise is the product of idleness. Busy people do not have the time for such viewpoints. Politics are crippled by quick time constraints. Those with nothing better to do will focus their attention
upward. Meanwhile, the hurried need to focus
downward to avoid tripping and falling.
Stephen Brooks in his text "Public Policy in Canada" (1998) explains that at the close of WWII, and particularly the era of the 1960's and 1970's social culture, allowed for a post-materialist attitude.
ReplyDeleteThis attitude afforded a move away from materialism towards what is now considered a quasi-environmental/liberal approach to politics and sustainable practices.
Affluence was in the center of this movement, as the post-war movement of increased affluence within the community afforded pontification on other than basic needs.
Immediate need politics focuses on employment, elections, and economic conditions. Affluent needs by reason focuses on stability, comfort, and quality of life.
Focus on the former arguably necessitates the exclusion of the latter. If author's desire a return to focus on the prior than the historical prescription seems to involve a return to the neanderthal mentality, the creation of war, the increase of hate in the social consciousness, xenophobia, etc.
The focus on abstractions occults focus on concrete solutions to real world problems. As such, those capable of stabilizing civilizations run around chasing rainbows while everything burns around them. "The neanderthal mentality" is therefore unrestrained, and will even begin to thrive. Lacking any other avenue, any remaining idealism is sucked into the storm. In other words, you'll be a neanderthal whether you like it or not.
ReplyDeleteAn extreme example is the breakdown of society in Bosnia. Those refusing to take sides were targets of everyone. "You're either for us or against us." Therefore the only assurance of remaining breathing is to become as a neanderthal.
One's only hope, once the danger is past, is that one will not forget what one once was. It is possible to return.
Your response uses conflicting concepts as equivalent. I don't understand what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteOnly the gentle can restrain the savage from emerging, but once unleashed they can't stop it. It then falls to others on the edge. Thus the only option is to meet savagery with savagery, and everybody loses.
ReplyDelete