Can there be law (and order) without politics? It sure seems there could be some greater sense of order without it all. By that I mean it's pretty easy to imagine people actually getting along instead of just sitting around arguing all the time if politics were somehow eliminated from the scene. How could a republic function without politics? Or is it even possible?
It seems like a place without politics would have to be a location free from opinion. For aren't opinion and differences of perspective the parents of politics? If everyone agreed on everything what would be the need for politics (if any)? I feel that I grew up largely in a blind bubble when it comes politics. Now, mind you, this bubble is not a place where politics was nonexistent. Rather, my eyes were closed to politics and its effects both in my life and the community. It is strange to consider that reality today, but at this moment I believe that it is true.
Yes, politics stem from differences of opinion and perspective, but why are politics necessary in this 21st Century world? I understand the necessity and value of varied perspectives and a wide spectrum of tastes and interests, but politics, is that something we need? Maybe there is a different system that could work more effectively and efficiently. Perhaps something like a balanced system that swings like a pendulum when necessary. Maybe I'm a romantic idealist in all of this or maybe this is none of my business to discuss.
On a someone tangential note, has anyone every truly considered the phrase (title?) "leader of the free world"? I think it's rather interesting that we (the United States) consider the US President the "leader of the free world." This has nothing to do with the current individual holding the office, but rather the sentiment behind a statement in which a supposedly democratically elected person is the leader of all free people. I know it is a rather generalized statement, however has anyone considered that rather than the elected official being considered the leader of the free world, perhaps it is the constituents that ought to be considered the collective leader(s) of the free world?
With this thought in mind, I assert that the constituents in mind would be not only those of the United States of America, but all voting eligible people throughout the world. After all, democracy is meant to be for the people and by the people, is it not? I understand that the US is seen as the great democratic experiment, but it is not even the largest democratic nation. I also grant that the United States exercises a profound amount of influence on the geopolitical stage, however how often do we consider why this is? Is it because it is the present empire at the peak, the proverbial puppet master at this time in human history?
Who is to say that in 50 years time the president of China or its people won't be considered the new "leader of the free world"? I recognize that the previous statement may hold a lot of weight for many people for numerous reasons. To consider the leader of a Communist (or Socialist really) nation a leader of the free world may be big stretch for some when considering countless crimes against humanity the Chinese government is likely guilty of. However, can't the same be said of the United States? The US has climbed has not climbed the power ladder like an innocent child on the slide down at the local park.
Just some thoughts I had to release tonight as the new normal is baking behind the scenes, in the public eye, and quarantined with its family for who knows how many more days.
No comments:
Post a Comment