There is a mindset historically common amongst R voters that goes something like this: “If you have something, it takes away from me in some way; therefore, I will try to keep you from having that thing.” We see it in the discussions about civil rights, about healthcare, and about education access. This punitive “gatekeeper” mentality says that there is only so much to go around here in the richest country on Earth, and if you get a piece of the pie, that's just that much less that I could have. I see this mindset spreading to the left, and wonder if I'm the only one who notices. “That candidate is getting press coverage at the moment. I prefer a different candidate, so I'll attack the one in the limelight and her/his supporters and tear them down.” “People are sad about something, but I want them to focus on a different thing I think they should be sad about instead, so I'll shame them for caring about the first thing and imply that they're bad people
This is where we are today: Huge swaths of the population are stunted in their development. Like teenagers who think a short fuse and foul mouths are signs of “badassery,” grown adults are walking – and voting – in our America with a swagger that belies their failure to thrive in a social system that has served our society since its inception.
Their sense of self-worth is so threatened by their failure that, like every maladjusted adolescent since time immemorial, they adopt a “cash me ousside” ethos, desperately hoping someone will believe that they couldn't care less. They fancy themselves the biggest, the baddest, society’s renegades - but everyone knows that you're not boycotting the dance if nobody asked you. You're not forfeiting the game if you're losing.
Most of us go through a similar phase somewhere around early high school. We are enamored of our own rebellion, and think we're clever and shocking. And then most of us grow out of it. There's always one, of course - in “Dazed and Confused” (and an alarming number of other movies, now that I come to think of it) it's the Matthew McConaughey character. Like all American phenomena, it’s been covered by “The Simpsons.” It's common enough to legitimately be called a trope: that kid who never grew up, the one who used to be cool - until everyone else outgrew him. The one who was too afraid of losing to compete.
These are the “deplorables.” And that's where Hillary got it just a little wrong. You can’t deplore them, because they're basically just overgrown troubled teens. Everything they do and say is for a reaction, and every bit of it is a (grammatically incorrect, syntactical nightmare of a) cry for help.
What they want is order. Boundaries (like kids, they'll always test them). Rules. So here’s a start:
You don't get to lay hands on someone because they annoy you. Or because they're somewhere that you wish they weren't (e.g., nearer to you than you'd like). You can yell, you can walk away. You can ignore. But you can't touch.
That's the boundary. That's the line. And on the other side of the line are consequences - even now, even in this America.
There's a great truth that goes unspoken, ironically for fear of upsetting the sensitivities of those who call others “snowflakes.” It is this:
If they could just be honest with themselves about what it is they really want and take a little personal responsibility for their own development, maybe - just maybe - they'd start winning.
Comments
Post a Comment