It's puzzled me that a considerable part of the American public has exhibited bad judgment by frequently being against our free-enterprise system, law and order, and freedom of speech. This movement, if you can call it that, seems to be against traditional democracy and open government in general. It is even more vexing when one considers recent history, where democratic governments have won two world wars while enjoying some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Since 2008, the American public has endured extreme stress. The initial focus has been political, but other stressors have encumbered these political issues since then. In 2008 a stock market crash intensified our political problems. In 2020, the COVID 19 pandemic increased anxiety regarding politics. Then, in tandem with political issues, the residual effects of the pandemic in 2022 produced stress beyond human endurance. Unpleasant emotions of this magnitude interfere with good judgment. In addition, the media magnifies emotion-laden messages, making the average person even more upset. When a group of stressed-out individuals experiences unendurable emotions together, it is often called group hysteria.
Why is it that our current stressors increase without letting up? Frustration builds as our ability to solve problems diminish. In the past, things were less stressful as we solved enough problems to be a healthy nation. We were, in a sense, self-governing. Today we appear to be a bunch of pretty sick cookies; we are afraid. We have no role models who seem able to solve problems. Seemingly impossible issues are before us, and we have no honest solutions to allow good judgment. To be sure, someone or something is not telling the truth.
However, something new seems to have occurred toward the end of the 2022 mid-term election. In the past, everyday stress and normal problem-solving required all points of view on any critical problem. Maximum information always facilitates effective problem-solving. However, in our new information age, unendurable emotions have erupted. Over time, as emotions intensify, many individuals or groups have become desensitized to all points-of-view. In addition to bad judgment, desensitization is beginning to occur; we no longer believe any point of view.
From 2008 to the 2020 mid-terms, extensive emotions erupted all over western civilization on and off from various organized shadow groups. Despite verbalized rage and name-calling associated with terrible judgment, significant groups managed some well-thought-out opinions. Elsewhere, out-of-control unpleasant emotions raged through the population unchecked, seeking pleasant viewpoints instead of unpleasant truths.
Scientific objectivity works fine under normal conditions when all the pros and cons of any problem are analyzed. However, the crisis that began in 2008 created a gross emotional shock that altered ordinary reasonableness and introduced lousy judgment. At the same time, the rule of including all meaningful viewpoints started to weaken as bad judgment increased. As a result, many people could no longer tell the difference between the pros and the cons.
In the beginning, even though unendurable stress created havoc for the uninformed, some hardy citizens did offer enough good judgment for hope that the crisis would pass and sanity would reestablish itself. But that did not happen; toward the end of the mid-term elections, when the pandemic wound down, emotionally raked Americans seemed to have entirely given up on reasonable solutions to problems. I think that voters no longer cared. They could not tell the difference between good guys and bad guys.
As ugly feelings bombarded them, their only thought was to end or avoid the trauma. As in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they were traumatized. The trauma had become so intense that many became mentally ill. There appear to be two primary political stories with unpleasant emotions attached. The first set of perceptions is often cited as conservative, while the second set is known as liberal progressives, shadow campaigners, or democratic socialists. These two issues are now polarized, with conservatives as republicans and shadow socialists as democrats.
The first point of view is a traditional viewpoint based on our constitution that includes freedom of speech, equality, and free enterprise. This first set of beliefs is familiar since most of us grew up acquainted with them. The traditionalists blamed the shadow campaigners as socialists, particularly when the media began canceling or censoring them.
The second set of beliefs has developed more recently since 2008 due to a dysfunctional perceptual shift that reverses traditional ideas. This reversal is a unique internal group attention shift guided by unendurable stress. After the perceptual change in 2008, political views polarized, and a blame game began. Theories about climate change, systemic racial bias with an emphasis on racial diversity, and open borders are all included in this reversal. As a result, undocumented immigrants stream across our southern borders.
This new loosely held shadow campaign group consists of much of the media, wealthy billionaires, WOKE organizations, the democratic party, the civil rights crowd, and some republicans. Their theory consists of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. However, their loosely held and largely inappropriate actions leave much to be desired regarding scientific scrutiny. It is clear that, in this case, there is an extreme gap between theory and practice.
The first group emphasized traditional theory, including freedom of speech, our free enterprise system, law and order, and equality as described in the constitution. The second group responded that law enforcement, climate change, systemic racism, and closed borders are slowly destroying the country. Finally, the shadow socialists cry out that our capitalist system is systematically biased and is polluting the planet. These two belief systems polarized and regressed into the emotional nightmare that we have today.
The traditional group accuses their antagonist, the liberal left, of dishonesty and name-calling. The liberal left then accuses the conservatives of terrorism and racism. All the while, people who should know better cannot determine who is telling the truth. This inability to perceive which story is true under extreme stress makes our problem unsolvable. Eventually, large segments of our population become insensitive to these crisis issues and bad judgment results. As a result, the American public is served up a witches' brew of confusing information and cannot identify which story is in their best interest. That is because they cannot distinguish between good and evil.
The American public could not determine who was telling the truth or who wasn't. As rampant emotion flooded the market, large sections of the people could not differentiate between the fact and the con. Blurring then occurred, but the effect was to desensitize both the good and evil. This wholesale desensitization was dealt with as if there was no good or bad. Most media, in concert with the democratic party, canceled conservative political issues without explanation. Problem-solving, in general, was diminished by excluding the traditional part of the data, and our emotional crisis continues. Western civilization continues to be unable to solve any semblance of a problem.
America and most western civilizations have run headlong into a problem-ridden progressive future fraught with unendurable emotions. Therefore, a clear, detailed plan that involves the entire problem-solving process is necessary to help solve our current political morass. For example, the other night, I watched a TV program on PBS about climate change. The central theme was evident as it presented data near the arctic circle in Siberia, Russia, and northern Alaska, USA. It explained the Arctic permafrost melting that is associated with climate change. Furthermore, it suggested that as the permafrost melts, methane gas is released, which is a danger to us all. That explanation clearly described the problem but only offered adverse outcomes.
There was no mention that methane gas is similar to natural gas with which we heat our homes or that methane is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The idea is to articulate our climate change problems not only as descriptive, truthful data but as data that is also pleasant. There are many possible ideas, like building pipelines and transporting methane, not unlike gas, to power our civilization. This plan should communicate objectively as much detail as possible. There should be a separate plan for each problem area. Descriptions of the cultural benefits that the public might enjoy as the project becomes a reality should enhance the pleasantness of the program. What has been missing from the political marketing ploys since 2008 are the objective details of our cultural problems
What has been missing from the marketing ploys since 2008 is the accurate descriptions of our political problems, the project solutions, and the projected benefits of solving these problems. Instead, both sides are stuck in the unenviable position of verbalizing high anxiety, name-calling, and exaggerated accusations. What is needed are a few elected politicians willing to do some heavy intellectual work that is not biased or dishonest. This work must be good for us all.
I hope my thoughts about the idea that things will improve are more enlightening than the unpleasantness of being aware of future dangers. If not, I think "hunkering down amidst the fray, to live to fight another day" is appropriate advice.
Floyd Sours is a retired clinical Psychologist who has published two books and several articles. In addition, he has a manuscript titled "Perceptual Shift" that will be published soon. That book explains in detail what a dysfunctional Perceptual Shift is all about. His last book, "Burnt Offerings" is on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. His website is burntofferings-book.com.