Pessimism on Politics

Postmodernism has lots of draw-backs. I recently skimmed over some books by self-proclaimed postmodern philosophers. I think I began to realize how fruitless much of the postmodern discussion is. I'm far from being the only one who has come to think such things. Yet, recently I did find one aspect of postmodernism that is deeply ingrained in me and that I think is good. Postmodernism acknowledges that basically everything is political. I repeat: everything.

The truth of the matter is that everyone by the very nature of being human has interests (read assets) that they would like to protect. All of us have a realm of control. We all have a natural aversion to losing that control. If you're a Dalit in India, your only realm of control is your spirit and occasionally your own body. Other than that you own nothing and have no rights. These people live in the severest physical misery, yet many still hold a hopefulness that can't be destroyed. These are the people that Ghandi made sure to call 'children of God'. They are beaten. They are made to perform jobs that no human being should ever be required to perform, and paid nothing for it. They live on the trash of higher castes. Yet, they still find control. In suburban America we have slightly more than that. We have mansions. We have families. We have more possessions than we could count. We have established rights. We have calculated futures. We have control over more than we can control. We displace God by default, and too often, on purpose.

All people feel some need to fight to maintain control over what they have. And, essentially this is all that politics is: fighting to preserve privileges and assets. We can dress it up any number of ways, but it basically remains the same. If we go before the cheif of our clan, or if we work our way through the exhausting beauracracy of American government, it is the same. Basically we are only looking out for ourselves and the party that is looking out for us.

This is why I think our bipartisan American mindset is extremely stupid. You can be a Democrat or a Republican, but basically either way you're concern remains the same. Both sides represent people vying for control; be that continued control of what they have, or extending control of what they desire.

There's a funny legacy that America is built on: that of the American Indians. I've often heard it pointed out that had even a small percentage of the Indians unified and not fought each other they could have easily destroyed the European colonizers. It was their dividedness that gave Europeans the ability to destroy them. Honestly, I find this to be the great tactic of the American corporate oligarchy. In America there are very very rich men. The system is basically set up now for them to get richer while most of the world plunges deeper into poverty. It is the very thing that the God of the Old Testament despised. The very thing that Jesus sought to combat. I find that most Americans fluctuate between disgust at the richest of the rich and a deep lust to be the richest of the rich. We think it boils down to political policies that are swayed by one of the reigning political parties. We get involved in a polemical debate over which party is better, which is moral, which is right. We divide. Rich people conquer.

Democrats are funded by rich men who would like to protect their interests. Republicans are funded by rich men who would like to protect their interests. Whoever wins calls the shots based largely on who paid for them to get there. Lobbyists and blackmail agents run our government. Lobbyists and blackmail agents are typically funded by people with large sums of capital. Either way, our "representatives" have significant influence to represent people other than me and you. Generally, they are significantly persuaded by people who keep them in office via campaign contributions.

Yet, on the street most people seem to think that there is this cosmic battle between the GOP and the Dem's. The people who influence our country the most don't care which party wins. Either way, they most likely maintain their control and likely are putting policies in place to extend it.

So, bring it back around to postmodernism. Postmodernism realizes there is no one who does not have an agenda. There are no "noble" parties, only parties seeking to protect assets and gain further control. People can bring morality into it. Perhaps the Republicans are the more moral party. Unless your agenda is to care for the poor and disadvantaged, and provide them with EQUAL opportunity. Are the Democrats better? Not if you place some value on the traditional Western concept of family. Do the extremely wealthy care? No, they have money controlling both sides. So, in the end I can vote for whatever party I think is right, and rich people will still systemically place policies that make me poorer and them richer.

There is such a thing as power in numbers, until the numbers are divided up neatly against each other. We spend all our time declaring each other to be the problem, failing to acknowledge the problem of greed that all are sick with, yet some in their sickness have decided to go out with a bang . . . a bang which kills all the others around them.

Unfortunately postmodernism does little to nothing to offer up any solutions or new options. It only points out that no one is innocent. Were I a billionaire, I would do what is necessary to preserve my fortune for my own sake, and slightly more nobly, for my kids sake. Yet, around the world poverty would increase.

Maybe that's what Christians have failed to learn. Jesus doesn't want us to vote for him. He wouldn't run in the first place because he is not out to protect his own interests. He gave up his interests for the sake of the worst society had to offer. He sought his Father's interests . . . , but! what were those, except the interests of humanity as a whole???

Let's make no mistake: Jesus was a Jew. I imagine he wanted Rome out of his home pretty bad. Did he fight for this?? Actually he did quite the opposite, because he realized that if the Jews won over Rome, Humanity lost. God lost. Jesus forsake his own religious/political law to touch the untouchable. That's right he went against his own country and helped out foreigners. He did this to the spite of his own countries immigration policy. Did this mean less jobs for Jews in their own homeland? Who the hell cares!! Jesus considered himself nothing. Rights were wrong in his eyes. He did not seek privilage, but a restored humanity.

I believe more and more that Christianity is not apolitical, but anti-political. It is seeking what very well might be the opposite of what is good for yourself. It doesn't matter who is right or better. It matters who will set the world right and better those other than himself. This extends beyond the countries own citizens, which sucks . . . if you're a citizen. Citizenship: a political means of securing one's own interests.

No, this is not practical. Dying on a cross to better the world is not really practical either, which I guess is why myself and basically few others who call on his name actually live up the glory of the one we claim.