How many divisive categories can we come up with in the debate of US vs. THEM? My friend, Christopher, and I were discussing the phenomenon of watching ‘adult’ behaviors as this election season is drawing to a close. Clinton vs. Trump, there’s one. We found it was less about the individuals as nominees but rather what is happening in the American culture that has brought us all to this point of divisiveness.
A reference to the dictators throughout history is inevitable. In the early 1930s, as men began their rise to power, the society as a whole is what appears to have created the fertile ground for the events to unfold as they did for Franco of Spain, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany and surrounding countries. These perpetrators took an extremely troubled society for the sole purpose of power and dominion over all they surveyed. History shows us how this works then doesn’t work for the masses of individuals who blindly followed the ‘inspiring truth’ of the man who stood before them. Those who disagreed early on were insightful and clear minded, we can see that now with even CNN interviewers shaking their heads and continuing to speak to those who continue to vehemently support the maniacal.
Is Trump the worst choice out of pretty much no choice at all? It isn’t even about that troubling scenario. It is, we’ve seen, from the menaces above mentioned that from these extremely divisive populations those who disagree begin to remain silent at the rallies. When these men of the past came to power there was no making that country anything other than worse for everyone. The human beings who were the most in danger in all three situations were those who were the most different than what was decidedly ‘normal’.
With Franco in Spain, people were jailed for opposing the ideology. With Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany, the goals were to have dominion and eventual power over the masses who decided early on to believe what was being propagandized with no effective explanation from any of the ‘leaders’ as to ‘How?’
It is now, as it was then, obvious that ridicule and shame are to be passed on for judgment on those who disagree. Recently Christopher went to a rally for a nominee and could sense that he was in the minority. He did not agree with the fervor of the crowd and the political workers at the event who encouraged holding signs and ranting against the opposing side. Common sense and clear thinking gives way to blind faith in a person least equipped for the position of saving a nation, a look back in history is all we need to have the probable outcome of such dictators. Both his followers, near crazed with adoration, and the crazed himself, believe he’s the one.
Those seeing history repeating itself, begin the process of planning some form of escape from the worst that can be seen as the foreseeable future. Learning from the not so recent past seems lost on the culture of today. From older voters and young alike, people see an answer to financial and national identity in what appears to be what it is obviously not.
US vs. THEM, here are other examples of where hatred has ruled in who is acceptable and who is not:
Men vs. Women
Sane vs. Insane
Heterosexual vs. Homosexual
Young vs. Old
Addicted vs. Non Mood Altered
This list can go on for a very long time with a clear yes and no as to which one is the winner and which one not. I credit my friend Christopher with inspiring this writing and the intense open-minded discussion we had from what is being seen in the media as acceptable. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Let’s look back in history to when the bully won out over the people who disagreed. AND, let’s talk about it.