Polarizing?

An op-ed in today's newspaper (Yep, I've already read it, having been up since 3 AM.) notes the polarizing effect of "climate change."  I initially didn't see the "climate change" angle, but thought, "Of course Americans are polarized.  That's been the political strategy of the past few decades, hasn't it?"

Rather than stressing the more traditional values of hard work, etc. that bring to fruition the opportunities that abound in the US, Americans have been increasing led to believe that they are "owed" something, that they "deserve" something.  I don't know exactly why they are owed or deserve something, but apparently they are.  Heck, don't we even see it, overtly or otherwise, on our television commercials.  "...because you're worth it."  I know I've gotten into some trouble over the years when I asked some who have repeated something like this, "Exactly why do you 'deserve it?'" or "Why are you 'worth it?'"  The implication in my question is "What did you do to earn it?," whatever "it" is.  Everyone gets a trophy.  Everyone gets a varsity letter/jacket, regardless of the activity or effort required or minimally required.  If someone has something, well, he/she shouldn't have it if the rest of us don't.  Perhaps that's the groundwork for so many callous shootings of people.

Divide and conquer.  Isn't that a strategy that's been used throughout the ages?  And American politics employs that, for the benefit of a few--namely, the Establishment.  And those who are rising up against this strategy are diminished as "bigots" and "racists."

I had a great conversation on my run yesterday AM.  It involved gov't mandates/laws that force people to do things that are against their beliefs, be they religious beliefs or even personal philosophies.  Although the immediate topic was gay marriage, it extends to beyond.  Why, we asked, can or even should gov't be allowed to force people to do certain things?  That is, why can or should gov't force, say, florists or bakers to cater gay weddings?  Extending that, why can or should gov't force employers to pay for health insurance that provides coverage for abortions or even birth control?  If those things fly in the face of others' belief systems, why should they be force to go against their own beliefs?  Now, taking the gay marriage issue, I am not at all opposed to gay marriages.  I do have a problem with the transgender bathroom issue.  But there are means to deal with any perceived bigotry, as my running partner noted.  We can boycott businesses we think are bigoted or racist or whatever.  We don't have to do business with them, taking our money elsewhere.

Now, this isn't, as we discussed, as simple as it seems.  What, she brought up as I was thinking it, about civil rights back in the '50s and '60s?  Should gov't have stepped in then?  Hmmm......  And, to really extend that, what about the Civil War?  Maybe this seems contradictory, but perhaps there are places for gov't action.  Would slavery have ended in the US without the Civil War and its 700,000 deaths?  Likely it would have.  But, the important question is "When?"  Would it have taken another 40 or 50 years if not longer, with the advent of industrialization in America?  So, should we have subjected all those people and the next couple of generations to lives as slaves?  What about the moral indignation of one person owning another?  What about the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, our founding document?

In the '50s and '60s, states, esp in the South, were compelled by federal legislation and court rulings to extend civil rights.  On the other hand, major gains in the civil rights movement were gained by economic boycotts of sorts, namely the lunch counter sit-ins that began in Greensboro, NC.  Were those fast enough?  big enough?  I don't know.

But the conversation is worth having.

BTW, I enjoyed Gus' comment about Nixon and the Clintons, that when "you have [their] egos, you are bound to fall."  I think so, too.  The problem is, how much harm and evil is committed before their fall?