The Best Political Rant I Can Write at the Moment [Archive]

[originally published March 5, 2012] 

When I began marketing my novel Pitch, I made a vow to cease and desist the discussion of politics, not because I lack interest but because it has become such a conflict-ridden subject.  In the aftermath of a presidential election that was won by a mere 53% of the vote, the country is more divided than ever, and people are hyper-sensitive about their belief systems.  Regardless of my own ideologies, I find spirited discussion of issues in short demand, and instead the current culture is that of tilting at windmills, with each side imagining the other to be the manifestation of pure evil. 

Recently, I began following more people on Twitter, targeting those with shared passions: baseball, horror movies, yoga, meditation, wellness, rugby, and cats.  To my shock and surprise, very few of these Tweeters want to Tweet about our like interests.  Rather, they are more interested in a profusion of politics.  Look, I like a good lively conversation about the issues as much as the next guy, but no one is interested in progress.  What does seem to excite them is conflict, discord, and any sort of energy that eschews unity and harmony.  Principles take a back seat to personalities, and their disdain is directed not at failed dogma but at the professed leaders who embrace it.

To read the abundance of "political" Tweets that proliferate the Tweetosphere, one common theme stands out: what's wrong with our country is not "our" fault, but rather the fault of the people "you" voted into power.  Seldom do human energies seem directed at influencing positive change.  Instead, the focus is on how we need to "work together" to get the evil "other party" out of power.  You see what they did there?  They lure you in with the positive message of unity ("work together") but then twist the message into conflict by suggesting we "unite" against a common enemy ("other party").  

This attack appeals to what I believe are two of our basest psychological needs: to belong to the herd, and to have an adversary to push against.  Think I'm wrong?  Imagine trying to sustain your ideology--your deepest, most profound belief system--if people neither supported you (the herd) nor opposed you (the adversary).  You would be beyond alone, beyond ignored.  No person--no, not one--would care what you had to say.  You might proudly assert, "I don't need their approval!" but even this boast is a lie.  I knew plenty of pseudo-nonconformists in college, was even one myself, and do you know what we were seeking?  Someone to pay attention to us!  Even if that attention is negative, even it is from someone who wants to pick a fight, at least it means that we do exist and that our existence is acknowledged.  

But back to politics and my decision to eschew them.  At first, this decision was practical--a strong political stance would alienate anywhere from 47% to 53% of all potential readers of Pitch.  But the longer I stay away from politics, the closer I am drawn to things that truly matter to me.  As such, I have come to an epiphany of sorts, which I believe is best illustrated with a movie analogy:

The above image is from one of my favorite films as a child, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, beloved by me because of Ray Harryhausen's seminal special effects.  In the image above, two monsters, a cyclops and a dragon, square off for the film's climactic battle.  This confrontation proves rather fortuitous for it enables Captain Sinbad and the lovely Princess Parisa (not pictured) to escape and reunite with Sinbad's crew.  

Here's the analogy: Sinbad, Parisa, and the crew are the American people.  The two monsters in the picture above are the two political parties.  But which monster is which party?  Let's look at the facts:

The cyclops has only one eye, so he is myopic in his point of view.  He has the legs of a satyr, suggesting he easily gives in to Bacchanalian desires, and the cloven hooves suggest he is in league with the Devil himself.  He does walk upright, however, so he is more evolved than the dragon, which must still walk on all fours.

As for the dragon, he is more majestic and powerful.  Nevertheless, he has two horns, suggesting he is also in concert with the Devil (unless we equate them with the horns on the head of Michelangelo's Moses, the result of a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate Bible).  Note also the collar around the dragon's neck, suggesting he is enslaved by some unconstitutional policy.

So which party is which?  I imagine 47% will have one answer and 53% will have another.  As for me, I don't know.  What I do know is that the dragon wins this battle by crushing the cyclops' neck in his jaws.  The dragon then storms onto the beach in pursuit of Sinbad and his crew, but the men shoot the dragon in the side with a giant crossbow, killing it. 

Both parties are vanquished, and the American people are free to go their own way.  You never knew Ray Harryhausen's films had such political subtext, did you?