They Should Party

by Epiphany Fellowes

I propose a new federal and provincial political party called "They Should".  This would bring a lot of Canadians together.  

We love to say what "they" should do and will participate in politics as long as all we have to do is talk about what others should do.  

"They" are the ones who cause the problems in our world. We notice everything that "they" do and we are not happy about it.

We, on the other hand, are struggling to get through the day's "shoulds" to help the friends we like and the family we would love if "they" did what we think "they" should do.

As Party supporters we make sure we are well groomed before we leave our house. We get our news from network television so that we can make "responsible" choices. We join groups that are just like us because we don't want to be part of a group who cause problems by being different or expressing disturbing points of view.  And mostly we don't want to tell them what is wrong because that would make us feel we are not nice.

The more we participate in our like-minded groups the more we are convinced we are on the right track. We can focus on becoming better people by becoming better at the things we think we can do.

We become more convinced of our goodness as we age - as long as we are not surrounded by news of problems we might have caused  - such as climate change, injustice, lack of compassion, apathy, greed. How can we be responsible for things we don't understand?

Because there is so much news now about the risks to our future we really need to come together. Clearly, the answer is to focus on what we already know others should do. These things are easy to agree upon.

They should:

• engage in sex only if and when "they" can afford to raise a child, 
• work hard so "they" don't lose their jobs, 
• abstain from drugs and drink when "they" drive, 
• discipline their children, 
• discipline themselves, 
• wash every day, dress well in clean clothes, clean their teeth twice a day, even if "they" are homeless,
• say please and thank you at all times, smile at neighbours and retail staff, and be polite to public servants such as police officers and politicians.

It is vital to understand it is "they" who should do the things that we have learned, through intelligence, wisdom and education - how to be better citizens for a better world. However we should not be told what to do because that would be undemocratic, authoritarian and socialist.

(Posted with permission from Epiphany Fellowes)

Psychopathic Invasion of Political Leadership

In George Monbiot's post on outer turmoil he lists and analyzes the biggest problem of our age: the corruption of leadership.

"A few years ago, the psychologist Michelle Roya Rad listed the characteristics of good leadership. Among them were fairness and objectivity, a desire to serve society rather than yourself, a lack of interest in fame and attention, and resistance to the temptation to hide the truth or make impossible promises."

The Journal of Public Management & Social Policy list the characteristics of leaders with psychopathic, narcissistic or Machiavellian personalities which is something I have observed even in non-profit societies and has deeply disturbed me. Manipulation and a talent for deceit without remorse which has turned the world from one where we struggle for social fairness to one that reveals a complete contempt for life.

We must be vigilant to the ways that politics (with the support and help from media) misrepresents trends in human values. The display of hate towards women in Congress in the US during a Trump rally is a captured moment "showing support" for his racist ideas.

If we are willing to believe that this president has majority support in the US he can keep behaving like a pop star instead of the leader he is supposed to be, while the masses accept the degradation of the nation, under the pretence that this is what greatness means.

People who support movements of hate either want power at the cost of social justice and freedom for their community kin, or they don't know what they want and are happy to follow whatever trends are presented to them. People who believe that celebrity is leadership and those who rise to the top must be worthy of the adulation promoted by their publicity teams are dangerously naive.

It's past time for us to evolve beyond the circus trickery of politics and understand that the easy way out is never out but down. This means taking responsibility for our part in the drama.

Please advise: How did civil society become so dispensable?

Canadian climate change opinion is polarized, and research shows the divide is widening. The greatest predictor of people's outlook is political affiliation. This means people's climate change perceptions are being increasingly driven by divisive political agendas rather than science and concern for our collective welfare -  writes David Suzuki in Rabble.ca.

We are addicted to the mirror myths of our selves, and our addictions are sending our planet to hell. Addictions to fossil fuel, alcohol, drugs and power.

I saw a post somewhere that said it looks like our planet is a giant mental health ward where the staff are silenced or have left.

There are about 200,000 nurses registered, almost 5,000 psychiatrists, just under 15,000 veterinarians and thousands of teachers, in Canada. Add to this the people who have invested their time in healing arts and sciences.

How many people are trained to fix our cars, drive our buses, clean our schools and hospitals, fight fires, police the streets, plan our cities, and volunteer at community services.

Think of all the labour that goes into the care and nurture of this country. How many people work for the common good? How much energy and effort does it take to keep our country running even without the special skills of our top leaders?

Why is the news exclusively about the rich and famous or the bleeding and damned? It's evident in these narratives that celebrity breeds sociopathic behaviours. Why are we so impressed with their power no matter how harmful and stupid it is?

Why is analysis about the state of our world so dismissive of integral intelligence? What does power actually create in our society? Is it protection, comfort, food and warmth? Or violence and fear? Why is community activity portrayed as dependant upon the market?

Who is it that insists the sum of human activity is not worth paying attention to unless it creates money or rises to the top?

To answer this we must look at the ways we have been played, who has benefitted and who pays for it.

Social democracy versus “populism”

From the Broadbent Institute:

"Contemporary right populism succeeds by weaving together two forces. On the one hand, a sense of identity threat among majorities directed against ethnic, cultural or religious minorities, or immigrants in general; a threat which plays to attitudes that often lie dormant beneath appeals for tolerance and openness. On the other, a sense of grievance at growing inequality, or a loss of status, income, or security in relation to the recent past." Charles Taylor.

After WWII workers and other non-elite citizens believed they could act effectively within the political arena to meet their needs and to invest in a system of social justice. Left, Labour parties in the UK, and social democratic parties in Europe relied on the engagement of people for support and the people believed they had the power and responsibility to be involved by learning about the issues and voting. 

The emphasis on the economy created a fear that social responsibility would make  jobs scarce, and mainstream propaganda ignored voices of reason, and replaced meaningful conversation with sensational coverage of the most demeaning behaviours.  Entertainment promoted "exciting" drama with more graphic violence and pornographic images.  All this lead to people turning away from social organizing and becoming cynical. 

Each decade revealed a widening gap between the haves and have-nots, until the hope that our children would lead a happy, safe and comfortable life was difficult to sustain. Furthermore, people believed this is because media offered what people wanted, therefore this was the choice of the people.  

Charles Taylor writes that we cannot go back to the post-war era of social democracy, but "the work that parties did in that era has to be secured through a synergy of parties, social movements, grass-roots protests, local community organizations, among other instruments."

This means if we don't care enough to work through our social problems, if we don't meet, listen, express ourselves honestly, and organize - the instruments of oppression will make it very difficult to reclaim later.


Read more here