Amadeo Sogni

“Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. “
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil’s Dictionary

Hey kids. I thought I’d talk about something else that’s been on my mind for a while. While I am a law abiding citizen there are some forms of crime that I admire. Cat burglary and Cons are easily two of my favorite crimes. See If I want to commit armed robbery…it’s pretty easy. Just about anyone can accomplish this. A Con artist, however, is so much more beautiful at work. Just think of it. Instead of taking your money by force…I’m going to convince you to give it to me and I’ll make you think that you’re actually winning in the situation. That is until you realize you are a sucker and I have all your money. I’m certain most of us get the feeling that politics is basically a con. Consider the profession that breeds many politicians…the law. Rather lawyers becom politicans. People who have been trained to interpret and turn facts until they suit that person’s ideal desire. While some cases may have a more set outcome based on the facts, others are worked simple from two different points of view based around the same set of facts until one either plants doubt or instills confidence in order to bring about an outcome they desire. As much as people hate lawyers, I’d rather thin the herds of politicians. Mind you, my biggest issue with politicians is…us. Even a Con man has a hard time beating someone who is rational and observant, remember the saying, “If it’s too good to be true…”.

To the point then: The Hegelian Dialectic is the invention of artificial extremes (”thesis'’ and “antithesis'’) which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to appear to be the product of consensus. Or a shorter summary, is promoting two opposing forces with your end goal being what results from their struggle. Or for a better example….it’s modern politics. The names have changed but it’s the same principle. We used to focus on Republican and Democrat, now the shift is increasingly towards Conservative and Liberal. The thing is this…both are just opposing sides of the same arguments pushed to extremes. It becomes most clear when we talk about wedge issues. Issues that are used and thrown out to polarize various groups in effort to bring out as many voters as possible. The thing is the wedge issue isn’t the goal of the person who puts it into play. They have used a form of propaganda to energize a conflict…the fallout being a goal beyond the inital vote. I’ve thought about it more because it’s clear in recent events. 9/11 and the lead up to Iraq is perfectly explained in the above quote by Hermann Goering. However, it’s more prevelant in our politics. Two sides crashing against each other neither truly forwarding their cause. The thing is to see who profits. I see alot of debates over politics and policy. Debates that become heated and often seem to only be debates for the sake of the thrill. The back and forth has no ending. Thus one synthesis is stagnation. Meanwhile the world keeps turning. The debaters just anchor it they don’t determine the direction. Which is even more ironic. When you consider most wedge issues tehy rarely have an effect on one group. Pro Life vs. Pro Choice…if a woman is Pro Life what effect does legalized abortion have on her? If 50% of marriages end in divorce…does giving gays the right to marry really have a negative effect on marriage? Does teh effect change when you rename it something else? These two issues are actually pushed forth by one of the oldest wedge issues…religion. So the question becomes, with the back and forth who profits? Hell, just follow the money.