The Policy of Conflict

This past week has seen the replay of strategic politicking in a seemingly endless array of instances.   The strategy is the same, universally applied, with a universally anticipated outcome.  Whether it be Health Care, Financial Reform, Banking Reform, Jobs Bills, Economic Reform, States Rights, States Financial Quagmire, various Political Abuses/Indiscretions and so on. 

Yet, I am reminded as I view each of these examples as they appear in Media Release Form, that nowhere is the most serious question every posed.   “Why” and “How is this possible?”  Does it seem to you, the reader, that there no longer exists any prohibitions?  Has the fundamental “filter” one exercises in the process of discerning between and among various choices complete been excised out of the Public Conscience?  You know what I mean don’t you?  The “filter” that one confronts that says something like “no,…you can’t do that, it’s wrong!”  Or, the filter that one confronts when they observe an unlocked vehicle with a set of keys in the ignition that preventing you from hoping in the car and taking it for a “joy ride”.  Better still,  the filter that keeps you standing by the car until the rightful owner returns. 

I suspect that the dialogue as, dare I say, evolved to such a degree that we no longer expect integrity in Politics or Government.  It may be that we now think of it similarly as did Hyman Roth  (the character made famous by the “Godfather” series). As I recall the scene, he’s in his Cuban hotel room sitting on a sofa ailing from some unknown malady, his query of Michael Corleone relates to the missing suitcase loaded with cash and he says (paraphrasing): “…when he turned up dead, I didn’t ask what happened, it isn’t personal…this is the business we’ve chosen,…, it’s strictly business….”

Well then, I suppose it makes it okay then doesn’t it!  Situational Ethics, always a convenient mantra!

The practice, it appears to me, of government has been to adopt a process that contorts to a logic all its own.

“Government has become nothing more than the illusion of governance masquerading conquest with the tool of conflict!”

An example of this, in actual practice, is the two party (Democrat/Republican) approach. As we know, the two-party concept is not a constitutional mandate; it is its own mutation and clearly not a means of perfecting the republican from of government. It is, moreover, only a means by which the purpose and outcome of government can be splintered. Having done or by doing so creates a vacuum of intention whereby the seemingly absurd becomes common practice and the distortion of government becomes, in this instance, the only thing it can ever be.

This mutation occurs naturally and in a great many forms; it also, most conspicuously, has occurred right before your very eyes:

“And then, something that once was, once altered, becomes something else!”

I am greatly offended when I hear members of Congress referring to a fellow congressmen as “…my esteemed colleague from across the aisle….” I find the “member of the club” notion a not so subtle stab at the Ideal of “common purpose”. These types of comments are completely disingenuous particularly as they are often only a precursor to what follows – which is typically adversarial in nature. In short, it simply becomes a subtle cover for its own brand of mob rule which in truth, does not produce the best possible outcome and more often than not, the outcome is typically mediocre at best.  

I can think of no better way to express the concept of Selective Ideals than this:

“We can make it mean whatever we want so long as we don’t have to say what it is!”

Study political rhetoric closely and you will discover that this concept resonates in nearly every forum of government! The idea, which I’ve labeled the Policy of Conflict, may be thought of in this way:

“We shall secure our place by insuring there is no challenge to our doing so!”

Another way of assimilating this notion is to consider the “crab theory.” This theory suggests that a bucket full of crabs will not require being covered to secure its content. It is said that if a single crab would attempt an escape another will pull it down. The crustaceans, now being in conflict with one another, are effectively neutered and pay no mind as they are whisked away to the steamer-pot! In this way, well orchestrated as it is, the system masterfully lubricates the transmutations of sound governance in to the charade of political indifference to the same.

It is, thus, not only the art form that provides the image of the dog chasing its tail, it also enables the dog to be constrained by blinders such that the animal can be made to chase any tail or no tail at all! The good news for the system is so long as the pack is busied chasing what it believes to be its tail, the system is now free to engage in inconspicuous practices ( I refer to these as “Selective Ideal”) free of oversight!

One might ask, “Why?” and “How is this possible?” Well, it’s really quite simple: the dogs are made busy with the illusion (these we will then identify as “Conflict”) of chasing a tail that may quite possibly be another’s, may even be their own, or perhaps no tail at all!

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in On Point and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.