Thought Experiment #1

Imagine a baseball stadium. Fill it with twenty thousand Americans. Demand that Democrats wear blue and Republicans wear red. At a podium at second base, ask someone to give a speech on, say, immigration.

Very quickly, fights break out.

Rewind.

Even twenty thousand people. Let them dress however they want. Instead of the guy giving speeches, put two baseball teams there. Instantly, it’s a different energy. Among Team One fans will be both liberals and conservatives, suddenly united in a common cause. Same for team two. There will be disagreements, of course, but since we have been taught acceptable discourse at baseball games, these will tend to be relatively good-natured.

Questions for discussion:

Regarding the first example:

Who gave the order to wear red or blue?

Who dragged that podium there?

Who chose the subject? And from which list?

Is it possible that “politics” has come to mean impactfully debating a short list of pre-approved topics (immigration, abortion, Cancel Culture, etc.), those topics having been provided, in one way or another? ‘another, by (let’s say) certain distant powers? , which also provided a rigid framework for discussing it, a framework intended not to resolve anything but to ensure perpetual disagreements, with the aim of agitation, agitation being, let’s face it, a big source of income ?

Thought Experiment #2

Sit four Democrats and four Republicans around a lovely local conference table somewhere in the heart of the country. (Put one of those golden American maples in the window, and every once in a while, let a fall leaf fall.) It’s a city council. Their topic is potholes. There are five thousand dollars worth of potholes in town, but the council only has three thousand dollars in the pothole repair budget.

These eight people are trying to solve a specific problem. Which potholes can remain empty? Well, what are the biggest ones? Shouldn’t we take care of this one in front of the hospital? These three, on this road on the outskirts of town, where no one ever goes, are going to have to wait.

The discussion is not theoretical but practical. (What’s the left’s opinion on potholes, anyway, or MAGA view?) It’s problem solvingsomething we Americans are good at (or at least think we are). Most people, regardless of party, know a pragmatic solution when they see one, especially if they have worked on the problem and have some idea of ​​the costs, choices, and sacrifices required to solve it.

What may result among this group of people is something like affection.

We, the Pothole Eight, will have gone through the wars together. We will enjoy laughing together. the ridiculous criticism of our work coming from a poorly informed population. Maybe we’ll feel a little proud of what we’ve accomplished. Sometimes while driving I spot a new big pothole and call Murray, my council friend, who may be a Republican, but I honestly don’t care. I just want to talk to him about this big pothole.

Questions for discussion:

What, or who, makes us hate ourselves so much?

Could it be that one of the reasons we feel sick right now is because our natural desire to love one another is being thwarted by distant, profit-based forces?

Thought Experiment #3

Imagine you are about to have a political argument with a close friend or family member. You are on opposite sides of the left-right divide. You’ve had this discussion many times before.

Several times.

Questions for discussion:

Don’t you sometimes feel like it would be easier if you each brought a small television and left it running in the kitchen, plugged into your respective network, while you both went out into the yard and talked about something? something that interests you. Does he have original knowledge? Once you’re there and talking like this, won’t it be nice to feel your preformed “political” shells fall away? And won’t it be disheartening and alarming when, as soon as one of you slips up and says a triggering word or phrase (“immigrant” or “Trump” or “political correctness” or “eating cats and dogs”, for example), you return to your canned “political” jargon, like actors suddenly aware that the scenarios entrusted to you must at all costs be honored?

At that moment, as you both stand there like Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em robots, battling with someone else’s phrases, often looking a little sad, even ashamed, who speaks through you?

Thought Experiment #4

Imagine one of our simple, pastoral predecessors, walking around, club in hand, smelling the flowers.

This caveman’s ability to construct opinions based on mental projections is what allows him to survive. This is also true for us.

But we get a lot more information than he does, information of a special kind, powerful information constructed far away, by people with agendas. It is broadcast invisibly, in a way that gives us a deep sense of belonging. It’s addictive. It’s overwhelming. This flows straight into the brain, essentially the same brain that Mr. Flower Sniffer was walking around with, and, like a stomach designed for nuts and fruit suddenly confronted with a TripleFlame Macaroni & Lard Burger, that brain starts to feel, eh well, digestive problems. , but try anyway.

Questions for discussion: