As a species, we change. This change is not necessarily perpetual but is nonetheless necessary to our survival. Generally speaking, change is not elective: If you do not actively participate in change, change will change you anyway. This is similar to understanding the notion that, by not making a decision, you are still making a decision.
As citizens, our role in the cycle of change is up to us as individuals. People who do not wish to consume news and learn about events happening in the world are wishful passivists. They cling to the idea of not knowing as synonymous with not happening, especially as it pertains to them. Of course, this is illogical.
Until recently, this attitude for much of the United States, was the norm rather than the exception. The masses were even okay with being told what to think or believe. However, suddenly, the veil has lifted, and the masses are seeing what they couldn’t or wouldn’t see before. This, of course, doesn’t mean everyone agrees, but what it does mean is that there is an elevation in awareness.
So, what happened, and how is it manifesting in our world?
We discussed in a previous episode/editorial, George Lakoff’s theory from his book The Political Mind. We learned that people make a lot of decisions based on emotion, especially in the political arena. During the Obama years, the far left gained a great deal of success by employing a type of politicking that finds its foundation in empathy. By applying an empathetic angle to each issue, they appealed to the actual political mind described in George Lakoff’s playbook.
So, what happened so quickly that gave us Donald Trump?
Clearly, there is nothing about the Trump presidential win that screams “empathy.” In fact, it is pretty much the opposite.
Trump is a populist, which means he represents a pragmatic idealism that mirrors the business practice of negotiation. He, like any good businessperson, goes to the bargaining table to get as much as he can. He sure doesn’t walk away without anything, especially as a matter of principle.
In fact, principle is at its root emotional. It was and is Obama’s form of government, defined and taught by progressive linguist and philosopher George Lakoff.
Trump is a nationalist who believes America is first. Nationalism is logical — birthed from a discipline that is almost Biblical at its roots, even as Cain asked God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” One can argue, nonetheless, that, at least Biblically speaking, Trump appeals to a logical idea among a lot of people: Take care of your family first; community, second; country, third; and, lastly, the rest of the globe.
On the other hand, Obama and the progressive left do not differentiate or prioritize, as they simply believe in a strongly empathetic stewardship that spans the globe equally.
“Drain the swamp,” Trump’s mantra, means no more of the “Deep State,” “Old Shadow Government” that thrives on a form of political blackmail that has good ol’ boys calling the shots in the background and that is, by design, resistant to change and creates nothing more productive than political stalemate. In this anti-establishment, anti-swamp, anti-powerbroker, anti-empathetic approach, a new kind of voter has emerged.
So, what happened to George Lakoff’s voters, all with emotionally charged political minds?
Can you say “evolution”? You might if you reside on the right.
Can you say “regression”? You might if you reside on the left.
Certainly, both have taken place in the history of our species.
Still, this all seemed to happen very quickly, but so did technology. Could technology be rewiring our brains? Are we becoming more aware of the change that affects our lives? Are we becoming less emotional? After all, technology is feeding us transparency that leaves little to no room for conjecture or need for hypothesis. On top of that, many questions that once received an empathetic human ear now have us Googling for an answer to forward in an email attachment, in lieu of a personalized, friendly piece of advice with some conversation.
It’s no wonder that we quickly evolved or abandoned our emotional state that was characteristic of the “Old Enlightenment” and traded it in for the logic-based “New Enlightenment.” Of course, the coastal elites hate it, and that is all the more reason to embrace it.
The real question is: Which is preferable for a nation — emotion or logic?Listen to the podcast here….