A Divided Nation---The American Dream Turning a Nightmare
With No Political Orientation
The following is a strictly logical, at places also psychological assessment of the current political divide in the United States of America---so, to anyone expecting a literary support to their party this article may be a sheer waste of time.
I am a Canadian living in Canada, and like every neighbor I can't help witnessing a presence of some excessive commotion going on behind that low, almost symbolic fence between us. However, first allow me to identify myself politically. Yes, I do live in a currently "liberal" society, but that doesn't automatically make me a liberal.
As a matter of fact, I am a first class political cynic, meaning that: 1) I don't trust any politicians; 2) I don't think that my political opinion would really make any difference; and 3) I have no damn clue how a country is run, while having no qualifications of a lawyer, diplomat, economist, or a crooked careerist---therefore I can't criticize something that I know nothing about.
If you happen to be one of those folks whose opinion has affected some concrete changes in the political arena---now you know that I am not one of you. So you know where I am coming from, and that should make it so much easier not to "recognize" some political orientation in this article where there is none.
You may also notice another difference between us, as you go from one paragraph to another---I don't claim to "know" what others don't; and it has nothing to do with an "intellectual modesty", but with the fact that my only source of information would be the media, which I don't trust, along with politicians who are either paying them or owning them.
Nevertheless, let's get to some of my observations, if you don't mind.
Name Calling---Just a Part of the Game
As I just confessed my distrust for the media, I was wondering about your criterion of determining which news are true, and which ones are false---I mean, other than by your political preference, which might be helping you to decide every time.
Really, of all that gamut of information flowing daily out of the big mouth of the Mainstream Media, how do you tell what is a political fabrication and what is truth? I can't. Some of those broadcasters look quite cute, and others keep that all-knowing expression---but that doesn't help me much to make up my mind whom to trust.
Let's rewind the tape of events to the times of the election for a moment. If we put on the scale all the crap that was said either against Hillary or Donald, one would hardly outweigh the other. So much was said about Hillary's murky dealings abroad, her e-mails "suggesting a treason", the role of George Soros and Michael Moore in organized protests, some turning violent.
Then it was not enough, and somehow Bill cast a long shadow over her resume with his amorous nature, with even some words like "perversion" and "rape" coming handy .
Donald didn't get any luckier, with names like "liar", "racist", "women-hater", "insane megalomaniac", "fascist", "Hitler", "big mouth offender"...stuff like that. And, of course, since families also had to be dragged through mud, his 10-year old son got to have some "mental issues", his wife's English was bad, and his daughter was a convenient target for harassment on that plane.
Indeed, it could have been a good comedy if everybody was not taking it so seriously. What particularly impressed me was exactly that "character study", as suddenly the whole nation turned into qualified psychiatrists, generously throwing out diagnoses.
Indeed, everybody suddenly wanted to play a damn Sigmund Freud (sorry Siggy, just a figure of speech). Well, in that business of producing all kinds of names, attributes, and diagnoses only a mirror was missing. Well, here is one.
Too Many Shrinks for Just Those Couple of "Patients"
Let me put it this way: I wouldn't blink if Donald got impeached tomorrow, and neither would I be disappointed if he happened to be re-elected in four years---but let's face it, folks, all that stuff about his "stealing the presidency from Hillary" was nothing but a joke.
How do I "know", after admitting that I don't know anything? Simple logic. The electoral college had the last word, and even if "Russians had been messing with the voting technology in his favor", how did they convince those electors to elect him? Quite the opposite seems to have been the case, as I was watching a couple of those electors revealing how they were threatened with death should they dare to elect Donald.
However, the biggest beef everyone seemed to have was about both candidates' lying. I was watching a little compilation of Hillary's pearls of self-contradictions, as she was expressing some totally opposite positions in important issues over different times of her career. It was presented live, not as someone's narration, so I just got to hear it all from her own mouth.
Then, her camp got even with their own little string of Donald's self-contradictions. O.K. they were not called that, but "psychotic, insane lies from a deranged personality". I mentioned a moment ago how everyone suddenly became a great psychiatrist, so, if you don't mind, I am going to join you in that capacity, by contributing with my own diagnosis.
Well, sorry guys, but neither of them is "insane", "psychotic", "megalomaniac", "pervert", or anything. In a second I will say why Donald simply can't play a "Hitler", but let's stay for another moment with all these mentioned "diagnoses".
You see, it doesn't take someone "insane" to be a liar. If you are as much of a human being as I believe you are, then both you and I would qualify for an "insane" person, as our own lying would be enough to make us "insane". Besides, in their case so much more was at stake than when we said how we "never touched that cookie jar".
And, as for a "Hitler", come on, you know it better than I that your president could never, and I mean never be allowed to act like one. He would either be impeached or shot--- judging by the history.
All in all, it was not exactly a "classy" election; but who said anything about classy anyway, because it would quickly be called "mousy", "gutless", one of those labels. The only true definition of freedom seems to be the ability to publicly burp, spit, fart, swear, and call your president an idiot.
Since "classy" doesn't fit in that definition, it must be something for those "spineless", "tail-between-legs", "yes" - nations. After all, hey, you are people with guns in those drawers where other, meek peoples keep their spoons, forks, and knives. That alone surely must give a great sense of security to everybody.
Both Guilty---So Neither Qualified
Whether you can see it or not, but you had absolutely no objective material helping you in assessment of your candidates' readiness for presidency---you did it all out of your own political preference. With MSM throwing in so much contradictory stuff about both of them, no one could be smart enough to make heads or tails out of it.
In the late hours of the election night, Hillary allegedly went emotionally ballistic over Donald's victory---screaming, hitting someone there, hysterically accusing Barrack for not having done more, and FBI for hinting about her "treason" with those e-mails. The conclusion was that she was "obviously emotionally unfit" for presidency with all those tantrums displayed. The media asked: "Would you want a hysterical woman with a finger over your nukes?"
The opposition media camp just continued---to the present day---trumpeting about Donald's being "illegitimate president", bound to ruin this country's economy, start the WW3, abuse his position for his family's business gains, make friends with the communist Putin, and show more and more evidence about his insane politics. Of course, with a similar phrase involving that "finger over the Armageddon button".
I just can't resist but ask my previous question again: how the hell could anyone know whom to believe in all that? And could the word "brainwashing" find a proper place in all this---along with the old familiar strategy "divide, then rule"? Is this divide in someone's interest to make America weak? I don't know, and I won't pretend to know either.
In my very first sentence I said this article was going to be about some "logic" to be possibly found in this huge and unexplainable national divide. So I have to say that there is no damn logic at all, because people have no reason at all to be divided over a game that was never meant to be logical from the very start.
And allow me to say it, with all friendliness of a neighbor who truly loves America---your biggest enemy is your believing that you "know" something there. I keep reading this incredibly eloquent, educated, and so "highly informed" commentaries by the people, and in disbelief I see how no one will step back to see something very ordinary repeating itself in your political reality.
I mean, there is nothing to be "smart" about---you already had so many presidents before who were liked by some--- and disliked by some. All of them used political lies to get to the top---just like every of our prime ministers did.
Indeed, folks, your thinking that there is something to "know" there---what others don't see--- is the thing that keeps you divided. Your smartness keeps you divided, because each side wants to outsmart the other---while there is nothing to be smart about. It's business as usual in the White House---whether you are ready to see it or not.
Nothing is happening in there that hasn't already happened a number of times.
Anyone Thinking Beyond the Conflict?
To be honest with you, sometimes I wonder why people get so passionately engaged in this game of political outsmarting. What's the payoff? Suppose Donald gets enough of all this sabotaging at each and every step of his presidency---and quits. Then what? Do you really believe that the next dude or dudesse will make everyone happy?
I understand the role of the opposition to keep the political game in balance---but, while it used to be that in the past---don't you think it has turned into a major exaggeration this time around? Back there I was poking fun at everyone trying to be a qualified psychiatrist. I wish people would stay with that imaginary qualification, but they also pretended---and still are pretending---to be psychics.
I mean, somehow they can see into the future---predicting all kinds of things that Donald is "bound to do". So, right from the start their role of the opposition was to oppose to something that he "might do", and he got hated even more for that. How is that rational?
Imagine a cop stopping you and asking you if you've got a knife at home; and when you say "yes", he arrests you under suspicion that you "might" use it some day soon to kill someone. Maybe just because you look like a macho-type rough around the edges---maybe a librarian in real life. But your looks, your tone of voice is "indicative" of your "criminal insanity". You got my point?
Well, what can I say, every nation has their own favorite pastime, but maybe widening this gap is not the most beneficial one. The wider it gets, the harder it will be at the next election to get people to agree over anything. Don't you think so?
I'd like to hear your opinion. But, please, try to be logical and objective, don't give me any of those used, overused and abused slogans that parties are parroting around with. People have to start thinking for themselves, otherwise their individual identity will be drowned in their political one, and that leads to de-personalization.
In my days of army service---which was mandatory where I came from---I couldn't stand that uniformity of my life, with everybody looking and doing like everybody else. Then I turned into an out-of-box thinker, and that intellectual freedom turned out to be the only real freedom there was.
America was not built on thinking that was duplicating someone else's---but on one that dared to be different. So, when I ask you about your opinion, be a true American, let it be your voice---not an echo.