While I seriously detest politics, I understand that whether we like it or not, it is this part of establishment that controls our world. So, I wanted to have a brief talk about a subject that is really important, though not in the way that politicians and the media typically covers it.
Take a look at the image below. What do you see?
Every election frustrates people on all sides because they hear the winners claiming the right to decide simply because they are part of the majority. I always wonder exactly what their majority really looks like – what is the bigger picture. Well, it looks like the NY Times has answered my question about the 2016 primaries that were so hotly contested by all sides. The claims of winning by the majority have been so vocal, and they have taken that claim as a mandate to make all of the decisions for not just the country, but also the world. The term “national politics” carry little meaning in a globalized world. It should be termed “international” politics when a country as “powerful” as the United States is the subject. Yes, I am putting the word powerful in quotations because that is not my word .
This year, the Democrats and the Republicans, have both had contested elections because there was competition amongst a range of candidates. As usual, power was the deciding factor of the competition. Money did play a large part, but it was overpowered by connections and stage control.
Each convention had the largest stage to put on a play that tried to control the narrative of this election. The winner wanted the nation to believe that they alone spoke for the populace, because their voters allowed them to win their respective nomination. But when you see a picture like the one above, that narrative suddenly can be called into question.
- “How can 9% of the votes become a mandate to make all of the rules for your party?
- Is the fact that both parties are private, as well as their various supporting institutions, an unfair advantage simply because they can use the laws to their advantage for complete control?
- How do we have a real conversation about what every person cares about, when the “majority” controls the national narrative?
- How do the minority ever get their concerns heard if the majority is not interested about their issues?
- When does the media take responsibility in their share of the narrative control that created a two-party system that does not represent every person in the country?
- When can we question the rule of law, when it is clearly controlled by groups who have captured the system?
- When can legal be questioned because it is detached from morality?
- How does “business as usual” change when it is successfully confronted by an alternative approach that is supported by more people – many who cannot have a voice in the current system?
- When do we recognize that the world is also captured by our actions and decisions, and that they rely on our responsibility to take the entire world into account? (Remember – globalization)
There are so many questions to ask, simply because of this one bigger picture. The NY Times has a further breakdown of those who did not participate in the primaries for a variety of reason. But none of them will be heard from because the majority does not speak for all of their concerns. The majority speaks for the picture that it wants to create. Hopefully, the NYT builds a story about this picture because it is an important one.
When the picture is of a country that once was, or maybe never had been, then how do we move to the future as we only look at the past? The vibrant promise of this country, and every other country out there, is the variety of people who make up the whole picture. Every person has their own background, their own lifestyle, and their own story. Every person is just a little different than the next person. But we only seem to look at similarities when we make an acquaintance because we want a common foundation to build on. When the common foundation doesn’t appear, then people tend to get nervous because they’re out of their comfort zone. When did comfort become the deciding factor for all rules in life? And when did we all decide that rules were the foundation for living life?
You’ve heard the phrase, “rules are meant to be broken“. It’s a pretty important concept because that is how progress (change) is made. Change is the way of life, as nothing about life is static. So, maybe now is the time to acknowledge that change is ahead and rules will not stop progress when it is being pushed by the future.
Only 9% of the population of the US voted for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. So, 91% of the voices are now held hostage by a minority. Somehow, their majority doesn’t look the same, does it?