EP5B | Sorting the Language of Dynamic Citizenry

America needs an engaged and informed citizenry capable of defending democracy, but what if they aren't sure what democracy means?  Too many Americans have become disillusioned or disengaged when they encounter confusing concepts amid a fire hose of misguided conspiracies, fact-free opinions and disinformation.  In order to grasp the complexities of our political system, it's time to embark on a little “refresher course” of civic vocabulary needed to navigate today’s complex political landscape.

Topics Discussed in this Episode:

• [06:56] ideology
• [08:43] democracy
• [09:27] oligarchies
• [09:50]  autocracies
• [13:46] liberals
• [21:46] the Great Switch
• [22:20] progressives
• [23:30] communism
• [25:10] socialism
• [27:30] conservatives
• [33:20] independents
• [35:40] Libertarians
• [35:10] anarchy
• [36:58] dystopia
• [39:30] fascism

Episode Music:   An Epic Story, by MaxKoMusic | https://maxkomusic.com/
Music promoted by https://www.chosic.com/free-music/all/
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ 

Transcript

Episode 5B: “Sorting the Language of Dynamic Citizenship"

Welcome to American Musecast!  I'm your host, Susan Travis, exploring American politics using the construct of the hero’s journey and the archetypes of the psyche. 

In previous episodes, we’ve explored the escalating anti-democratic tendencies afflicting America.  The new momentum around Kamala Harris and Tim Walz bodes well for successfully defending democracy, but it also agitates anti-democratic players, increasing their anxiety.  Those unable gracefully lose an election become desperate.  The mask is off.  No more subtlety.

[TRUMP PROMISES NO MORE ELECTIONS IF ELECTED]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-I6YW_jWY

No more voting.  The plan is to eliminate that most awesome superpower of the American people.  It’s not flying or slinging spidey-webs from our fingers and toes; it’s the power of the vote. I mean,  heads up.  Because once the voice and choice of the people is silenced, that’s it.  Democracy will be lost to us. So. Americans of all parties and ideologies have an assignment, a mission, that’s right, a QUEST! 

As with any journey, some just want to get going, who  in these final months leading to the election, are ready to gather a posse and ride!  They have a Yankee Doodle Dandy in their pants, and they don’t want to game it out, they just want to jump on the horse and gallop ahead.  Others are still saddling up, not sure if they’ll need a jacket if this is a LONG quest, and wondering, “how’d I get mixed up in this?”  Well, today’s our little tailgate meeting to establish a common disciplined starting point.  For us, that’s the language of politics which sorts our discussions surrounding governance.  Now, I might get a little school-marmly, but it’s for your own good, so hang in there.

The average media network presents material at between an 8th and 11th grade level, to ensure clarity for a larger audience – but an 8th or 11th grade level thus yields an 8th to 11th grade comprehension of issues. A few, like the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC aim their writing to a post-graduate audience, and their analysis and vocabulary reflect that distinction.  On the one hand, the complexity of information is stronger, but that limits the audience and makes for fewer citizens with a robust understanding of issues. Now,  I’ve always leaned into an industrial strength vocabulary, trying to keep up with my brilliant cousin, but the creation of a dynamic citizenry means we’re going to need ALL of us.  We can’t afford to leave anyone behind, AND we need our populace to become more sophisticated consumers of information.  That 8th to 11th grade comprehension of our world isn’t going to cut it.  To that end, I suggest using BOTH complex AND simpler terms, even in our daily conversation.  A dynamic citizenry needs not only personal clarity, but also the ability to convincingly articulate our way through discussions with citizens across the spectrum.  So, when something is, “nuanced,” I’ll add that it includes “slight, but important, variations.” 

Now, Episode 5A included a poem called, “The Naming of Parts,” by Henry Reed.  I hear in it, the story of our own preparation, the learning of a vocabulary necessary to the journey. In my view, our unity of purpose requires this refresher of terminology and overview of our structure.  We lose people who might otherwise stand for democracy when they are befuddled by disinformation and their own rickety understanding of terms.  The problem lies not only in the lexicon, the vocabulary, that is, but also in the complexity of our political structure, much of which is misunderstood by Americans.  When so many people view the dark trenches of conspiracies and knotted logic as making more sense than reality, it’s time for a refresher on this stuff.  

For instance, surveys tell us that many people follow the logic that “democracy” is the side of the Democrats, because it sounds similar, and that since  Biden is a Democrat, Democrats are “in charge of everything,” and thus Democrats overturned Roe, so, uh, down with democracy. Eh?  Well, we’re winging it, and as you can see, it’s a motheaten mess. I can ask scores of people “what is due process,” and I will be stunned, but not surprised, that so many don’t know.  My friend’s kid looked alarmed, and asked, “Does it have to do with my truck?”  He finally settled on “it’s a process that you’re due, no matter what.”  He’s big context clues and tight hopeful restatements, that kid, and he came closer to explaining due process than many I asked.

When I challenged a former police officer of 36 years who publicly advocated vigilante justice against a local arsonist, I posted, “we cannot take the law into our own hands, we must use the rule of law – vigilantism is not justice.”  His reply?  “Yes, it is, do your research!” followed by a scathing Facebook schooling according to his pitchfork way of thinking. Yeagh. Sometimes that thin blue line is a bit too thin!  So, many believe either that their opinion outweighs actual definitions, and/or that their vague understanding lines up – it’s “good enough,” or “more or less,” or “common sense.”   In this post-truth world, facts and specific definitions increasingly soften to and accepted mush, somehow replaced with random “as I see it” opinions.  Well, while vast swaths of people may do this, it doesn’t really change the mind of the great Merriam-Webster.  

America can’t afford this level of ignorance. So, let’s look at few things, shall we?  First, understanding our structure is like a treasure map for our hero-populace.  How will we find our way?  What are our tools?  What dangers lurk in the shadows, and beyond the map edges?  We need our charts, and guides and mentors for any journey, personal or collective. So, let’s unfurl our parchment!

Let’s first understand “ideology.”  Our ideology is how we relate to the world. It’s our personal or collective philosophy, and, like a belly button, we all have one.  Our ideology explains our system of ideas and ideals, particularly related to forming the basis of economic, political, and social theory. We uncover an ideology by asking some rather ancient questions . . .  

Do we want a government to act like a parent, or as a referee, or a protector, or do we see it as an evil villain? Do we see ourselves as victims of the government, or as employers? Is the government separate from us or are we the government?  What is this relationship - are they the enemy?  Is the press an enemy?  Are people generally good or evil?  What threatens us? How do we want to relate to other people?  Our money? The world?  Who should be allowed to tell us what to do? Are we better than other people?  How far have we strayed? To what degree are we manipulated, and by whom?  Do we deserve what we get?

The answers to these and a thousand other questions explain our personal ideology.  Some spend a lifetime seeking and defending the answers they find.  At the same time, to the extent that the answers fall into certain patterns related to a country’s government, they will explain that country’s ideology, its system of government, and the challenges faced by its people. There are too many to review here, but I’ll give a shot at addressing the more common ideologies which apply to our current discussions.

Let’s start with democracy. When the people govern themselves, is a rule by the many.  A rule by the people, of the people, for the people.  Odd that so many of the people object to that.  We organize democracy into four categories, four pillars of democracy: the rule of law, free and fair elections, civil rights and liberties, and the separation of powers, also known as checks and balances. The idea is to ensure a fair and balanced distribution of power.  For Americans, this is the treasure we’re sworn to protect! 

Contrast democracy, the rule by the many, with an oligarchy, which is the rule by the few or even an autocracy, the rule by one.  Oligarchs and autocrats seek power OVER the many, denying them a voice or a vote, tend to wealth and corruption. When narrowed to a rule by ONE, such as in Russia, we see an autocracy, president Putin is “elected,” because although the citizens vote, elections are just for show.  In Putin’s Russia, oligarchs and members of the press who step out of line tend to fall out of windows or be suddenly jailed or poisoned.  

We use the word “resonate” to describe a feeling of compatibility with an idea.  A feeling that something is deeply relatable or holding a personal meaning, a strong connection based on experience or upbringing.  In sound, resonance is a strong vibration.  As we move forward, think about what resonates with you among these ideologies.  Many people THINK they hold an ideology based on the label, calling themselves one thing, but when they discover the actual characteristics, they realize they are really in a different camp altogether.  Many people spend a lifetime voting against their own interests, simply because they are winging it.  Somehow, understanding civics has become a game of gossip among citizens, and there we are, at the end of the line, with a scrambled understanding of how it all works. 

When we think about a belief system, there are several important perspectives to consider.  First, how do we describe our own beliefs?  Socrates said, “know thyself.”  What is the underlying morality and characteristics of what we believe about ourselves?  Certainly, self-reflection helps us to find our own hypocrisies.  The other thing, is “how do we describe others?’  And, “which is the truth?”

Of course, others will help us with that, but it’s in our best interest not to just bat away criticisms.  We have a stake in both sides of this equation that involves looking inward at ourselves, and looking outward at others, as well as how maturely we cope with what we find.  We need to understand how we come across, how our views may truly warrant some changes, and how a biased interpretation by others may either accidently or deliberately misrepresent our understanding of the world.  When we examine the perspectives of others, we need to look not only at what they say is their view, but how they act and behave in the context, the framework of their view, and we need to be tighter, cleaner, and more honest about how we characterize both.  It’s part of being better citizens, and we need to commit to that habit. Our bad habits of spreading disinformation and demonizing others are dragging us down.

Deliberately mis-representing a party or an individual’s view, in a negative light to gain favor toward our own view, is disingenuous, dishonest, and in bad faith.  It’s really quite a despicable thing to do.  Lying stirs division. It’s gas-lighting – and it’s behavior from the lowest ground.  Imagine if we were to  ALL act in good faith, the true merits of all positions would be strengthened, and the drawbacks of all positions would receive due weight and worth.  Collectively, our decisions would yield the best outcomes for all.  If only. A girl can dream, can’t she.  Anyway, we should always check ourselves.  Look for our own blind spots, and for our biases.  It’s a hallmark of healthy dynamic discourse and discussion.  To do that, we can’t be mushy in our understanding of ourselves or of others, and that takes good faith dialogue with people who think differently.

[MUSIC]

Now, generally, we lump social and economic perspectives onto a horizontal line, a one-dimensional continuum, with only length depicting how far we go in either direction.  In this simple model, the extreme left includes strong governmental control of the economy and a loosening of social control.  Be yourself, and down with exploitation.  The extreme right includes a tighter control of social behavior and a loosening of economic control. On our horizontal continuum, Left as Liberal, the middle as Centrist or Moderate, and Right as Conservative.  

I’ll explain, left to right, like reading a line of text.

We use the term “LEFT-WING” to describe that space that is left of center, and describe those ideologies as “liberal,” (L = liberal – that’s how to remember that one) which means the same thing politically as it does anything else.  A liberal helping of ice cream would be generous.  A liberal education holds the same principles as liberal politics.  A generous helping. Lifelong learning.  Academic freedom to learn whatever interests us and to think critically with the freedom to express our thoughts, no matter how random, kooky, inventive or questioning.  The importance and practice of freedom of thought, spiritual freedom, and freedom to move throughout life according to our choices.  It’s a generous intellectual foundation of breadth and depth.  The idea is to hone skills to navigate the world’s complexities and to address challenges with innovative solutions.  The aim is to expand to our full potential, accepting what we learn about ourselves and the world. The liberal journey requires an availability of information, books, and a robust education for all.  Liberalism particularly emphasizes the rights of individuals as necessary, available to all, and equally before the law.  Generous with empathy and compassion, liberalism embraces the idea that we are a diverse society of many races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, etc., and that that diversity should be inclusive and represented equitably – fairly, that is. That our democracy doesn’t just belong to or cater to specific segments of the population.  To be liberated, is to be set free of social limitations and exploitation by others. Liberals hold strong support for unions, groups that empower workers to secure safety and wage security, again, protected from corporate exploitation.  The idea is that taxes are meant to level the playing field, and to ensure that we address the needs of challenged populations and social inequities. 

Those opposed to liberalism use the word, “liberal,” as a pejorative, that is, as a term of disrespect, but liberals generally wear that term proudly, because it speaks to their curiosity about themselves and the world.  Critics use the terms, “bleeding heart liberals,” “liberal elites,” or “libtards,” to paint liberals as smug, entitled, and using their education in a condescending way to others.  

Critics often characterize the liberal association with generosity as automatically preferring an overly generous, expanded, large service government, which they call “the Nanny state”, but most liberals argue for generosity only enough to accomplish common goals, encouraging efficiency, noting that it’s not about SIZE, but rather about competence and effectiveness.  Critics describe liberals as coddling the undeserving.

Critics are against the idea of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion,) and have recently eliminated that language and requirement from all manner of social and commercial systems, claiming that it overly accommodates and favors minorities while excluding . . .  well, those who already hold power.  Hence the claims by conservatives that Kamala Harris is a “DEI hire” – someone who holds a position based on race rather than professional merit.  Consider, however, that patriarchy is the established system that empowers whiteness and maleness over merit, and is specifically characterized by denying diversity, equity, and inclusion of others.   

Now let’s note that ideologies (such as liberal or conservative) are different from parties, which are organizations built around an ideology.  Again, starting at the left, the party most associated with left-wing liberals is the Democratic Party.  The party most associated with right-wing conservatives is the Republican Party.  Alphabetical order; L – liberal – Democrats; R – traditional/conservative – Republicans.  People don’t necessarily join the party organized around their ideology, but it’s pretty rare to find they’ve joined the opposite party, that’s for sure.  Usually, they just leave their party and move toward independence.

One question I hear often is, “Why do Republicans call the Democratic Party, the Democrat Party?”  Well, this is another pejorative or slur, a term of disrespect alleging that Democrats have no right to claim “democracy” in their name.  So, it’s just a dig. But Democrats never say the “Republic Party” because in addition to being a silly, petty response, it would be using the same willful disregard for grammar.  Republicans aren’t keen that Democrats have their name associated with democracy, and will often claim, “it’s a republic, not a democracy!”  That’s a sort of petty ownership issue, that the US is not YOU, Democrats, you with your democracy, but rather a republic, like Republicans, holding the real credibility.  Democrats don’t really care about this argument, since it’s really a difference with very little distinction, because, we are both.  

The Constitution establishes the government of the United States as a federal democratic republic.  What’s that?  Well, the constitution establishes that we are an indivisible union of 50 sovereign states. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.  In a direct democracy, we’d all vote on every little dinky thing, but in a representative democracy, the winners of our elections have our proxy, our agreement and trust that they will vote in the best interest of ALL of us.  Doesn’t always work that way, but from president to city council member, once elected, an official’s job is to serve their entire constituency, ALL the people they represent, that is, not JUST the ones who voted them in.  

Here, I want to note something that isn’t given enough attention, and it’s a bit of collective amnesia around something called, “the Great Switch.”  In its early years, the Republican Party followed a liberal ideology, while the Democrats were known for staunch conservatism. This is the exact opposite of how each party would be described today.  For instance, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, while Democrats were the party favoring slavery and segregation. Republicans often claim that they freed the slaves, which is technically true, party-wise, but ideologically, conservatives, were decidedly the party of the southern slave holders. The switch happened slowly over time and until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For different reasons, there have been other switches in US history, which makes it often more accurate to refer to ideologies, rather than parties.

Anyway, let’s continue. Some liberals are “progressives,” named so because they’d like to see fast progress toward establishing a more transparent and accountable government.  Progressives are often eager to improve U.S. society by revising laws regarding civil service reform, food safety laws, climate change policies, wealth distribution and increased political rights for women and U.S. workers.  Critics find progressives particularly irksome because progressives see many changes supporting a more equitable society as long overdue and requiring immediate and swift attention.  Progressivism is about creating a more equitable and just society.  This group is considered “woke,” or alert to injustice.  In the US, progressivism is depicted as far-left, but in other western democracies, progressivism is a centrist moderate ideology. 

Now, Republicans often accuse Democrats of holding views to the far extreme left and way at that furthest left end of the spectrum we find “communism,” where economically, everything – resources (food, utilities, gas, etc. and revenues) are pooled for the state, for the nation to distribute. Of course, some DO believe that this would be the best way for everyone to have a slice of the pie, but places like the former Soviet Union, and China are famous communist countries, where the people get small rations, and government officials take a much larger share.  Most everyone gets that somehow, communism never really works.   History shows that the bulk of all those pooled resources and revenues stay at the top, while all the little people get a small equal portion of not much.  At the heart of the Republican accusation that liberals desire communism, is the fear that no matter how hard someone works, the fruits of their labor might become part of someone else’s undeserved pie.  That said, there are PRECIOUS few Americans AT ALL, who believe communism would be our best path forward.  Generally, there are at most a few thousand  communist sympathizers in America, about 50 to 100 of whom are active.  So, the vitriolic – sort of curse word characterization of liberals as communist is hyperbole, an exaggeration.  

A more common conservative characterization of liberals is that they lean toward “socialism,” which is less harsh and more believable than accusations of outright communism.  Socialism still involves pooling resources and revenues for services provided by the government, and indeed, while the United States is not a socialist country, we do have many socialized programs based on a generally accepted understanding that common needs are best met through cooperation and the pooling of resources.

Our current law enforcement, fire, education, library, and many utilities are socialized, because we don’t want private law enforcement or fire departments privately owned with the incentive to  profit off of how many criminals they catch or how many fires they put out, AND we want those services, and books, and education available regardless of race, income, or church affiliation.  We use tax dollars to address common needs, so that we all have equal access. 

Now, the more services we want in this way, such as “free” college for all or “free” health care, the more we have to contribute.  The conservative criticism is that Democrats want “free stuff.” However, we all understand that social services are not, “free,” but are cooperatively funded due to a common desire for an equitable product available to all rather than only to those who can afford the service with someone’s profit added in.  But what if I’m not sick, or don’t want to be educated, or have no children who need education?  Why should I have to pay? Well, do we want a healthy, educated society, or do we believe each person should get only what they can afford?  And should everyone retain the full fruits of their labors, as conservatives believe? This is perhaps the great question of our democracy, and lies at the heart of all political debate.  Who should get what – when, where, how, and why?  Our economic controversies stem from that tension. 

[MUSIC]

Finally, we’ve made it to the right side of our spectrum, the RIGHT WING, where we find “conservatism.”  A conservative helping of ice cream would be a smaller limited portion.   Ideologies on the RIGHT are understood to be “conservative,” emphasizing a smaller, limited government principally of a size to accomplish the military protection of the nation, and the collection of limited taxes for that purpose and little else.  They describe this as a government the size you can drown in a bathtub.  Guns, and the protection of the second amendment giving us the right to bear arms are key to the notion of protection.  The conservative ideology encourages individual responsibility grounded in traditions and moral absolutes.  For instance, conservative educational values include traditional teaching materials, strong discipline, and policies that focus on authority, history of American leaders, pioneers, and cultural traditions.  Scientific exploration, thinking outside of the box, and innovative social, economic, or political models are openly discouraged. Conservatives tend to advocate a sort of Christian-based analysis, extracurricular activities and a focus on family ties, as well as encouragement of patriotism and love of country.   

On the nature of conservatism, Russell Kirk’s popular 1993 book, The Politics of Prudence, has become a classic regarding conservative ideology.  His ten principles offer insight into the hearts and minds of conservatives. These include a notion that moral truths are permanent, and that human nature is constant.  In this light, liberals are seen as morally adrift, intent on gratifying their appetites.  The conservative understands the world as linked among generations by custom, convention, and continuity, and thus, change is best undertaken gradually and cautiously.  Considerable value is placed on the idea that things are established by immemorial usage, that rights are sanctioned, or validated by antiquity. Conservatism favors slow, cautious, tempered progress and glorifies, “the good ole days.”  These are key points in Russell Kirk’s explanation of conservatism.

Critics of conservative, “moral truths” point to the moral shortfalls written from the beginning into our constitution.  The idea that blacks were three-fifths human, and thus natural slaves; that women were not counted as all, legally subject to the financial and physical abuses of men, not to mention systems of colonialism, native reeducation schools, Japanese internment camps, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and environmental pillaging.  Environmentally and economically, conservatives consider natural resources as raw materials to be used in conjunction with hard work, and profit. Critics of conservatism resist “returning” or perpetuating unjust systems simply because they were once “tradition.”  The conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation has created a manual called Project 2025, for governance deeply grounded in these principles, and we’ll discuss that in an upcoming episode. 

OKAY, so liberals to the left of our continuum, liberals describe themselves as open and generous, often eager to resolve injustices toward others, and to establish policies that aid the general populace, particularly those less fortunate.  The liberal ideology focuses on deregulating social behavior, and regulating environmental and economic concerns. Criticisms hold that liberals are morally loose, wanting “big government” to take from hard workers and give to lazy takers.

OKAY, so conservatives to the right of our continuum describe themselves as closed to change, viewing history as the best test of time-honored morality, and resources as a natural gift and source of profit.  They prefer policies that aid the those who work hard and believe that inequality is a natural outcome for those who are lazy or morally undeserving.  The conservative ideology focuses on regulating social behavior based on their chosen moral standards, and deregulating environmental and economic concerns. This includes the deregulation of guns and the view that the smallest regulation will lead to “taking away our guns. This is the self-description we hear from conservatives.   They receive criticisms characterizing conservatism as punishing, trigger-happy, exploitive and stingy.  Because they are less sympathetic to minority injustices, they are characterized by critics as racist and misogynistic – that is prejudiced against women, people of color, etc.  In general, the criticism is that conservatives pretend a moral justification for selfishness and power.

[MUSIC]

Now, having looked both left and right, let’s explore a special group of voters called the Independents.  Many people are complex enough to enjoy aspects from both ends of the spectrum.  Maybe they hate taxes AND are pro-choice. We need to understand that people are more than simple definitions on a continuum. Some belong to a specific party, but others are outside party designation, and may hold liberal, moderate, or conservative views, or maybe a bit of both.  They are the wild card in elections, because they make up a huge swath of the citizenry; they are the swing voters, because their votes can make all the difference, and yet they often make their decisions at the last minute.  Without a consolidated platform (established  agreed upon ideas and policies), they have no party, so, they can’t vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, that’s those early elections that help chose candidates.

We do have other parties, such as the Green Party (who focus on the environment) and the No Labels Party (which pretended to be neutral, but was caught funded by extreme conservative donors, so it lost some steam.)  Many think that we need more parties, so that this US v THEM polarization, polar opposite, good v evil mentality might loosen the tension and allow more ideas to emerge.  When we talk about someone or a group being “partisan,” we refer to a hard commitment to their party with little compromise.  When there is bi-partisan support of a budget or a bill, that means that there is at least SOME support from the opposite party, even if it’s only one person. Someone saw enough merit in the other viewpoint, to publicly stand with that view through their vote. 

[MUSIC]

Now, let’s look at a few other terms from the political lexicon, the political vocabulary.  I want to briefly look at a state of being, rather than a system of government, and this is the idea of ANARCHY = NO GOVERNMENT.  There aren’t a lot of people who believe in anarchy, although they might SAY they do.  The idea is to get rid of ALL laws, either because “nobody tells me what to do,” or because of a belief that people can easily live harmoniously.  The Libertarian Party is most likely to hold this view, believing that we need an absolute minimum of taxes and services, everyone for themselves.  I remember once asking a Libertarian, “well, how will we pay for roads if there are no taxes,” and he said, “the government can pay for them.”  People don’t always think this stuff through.  And for those who have, well, we can look to places like Somalia for examples of how well a society functions without laws, an infrastructure, an economic system, or a governing structure.  It’s chaotic and horrifying, because where there is no recognized authority, a vacuum – an emptiness exists for something, generally terrorists, cartels, business or country to move in, eyeing anything of value – land, resources, people, as ripe for exploitation and a shallow rule by violence.  So, anarchy is an “anything goes” without leadership.  Be careful what you wish for.  Anarchy creates a state of chaos as a result of a collapsed government, and it’s no way to be.  

Most see anarchy – that absence of government, as dystopian – the opposite of a utopia.  While a utopia is sort of an aspirational “heaven-like” situation where all people are gracious and acting in the best interest of one another, a dystopia, holds that prefix, dys- as in disease, dysfunction, disrespect, dysentery, and dis-information.   It’s a negation of its root word.   Dystopia is malevolent, mean, and unhealthy.  Survival is harsh.  Authoritarian or fascist regimes, as we discussed in the last episode generally bring dystopian policies. If you watch The Handmaid’s Tale, on Hulu, it is a prime example of a dystopian society.  In Margaret Atwood’s own words, 

“Somebody asked me on Twitter recently, ‘How do you come up with this shit?’ My answer was, ‘It’s not me who has come up with it, it’s the human race over the past 4,000 years.’”  

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/margaret-atwood-on-the-dystopian-novels-that-inspired-her-to-write-the-handmaids-tale

MARGARET ATWOOD, Author, "The Handmaid's Tale": I made sure that every horrific detail in the book had happened sometime at somewhere. So, think of it as a cake in which I made the cake, but all of the raisins and chocolate chips are real.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dystopian-handmaids-tale-warning-new-generation-not-take-rights-granted

So, you’ll remember dystopia as the opposite of utopia, holding that prefix of dysfunction and disease.  Other dystopian films would be Sweet Tooth, now on Netflix, Mad Max, and Waterworld, though you can google for hundreds more.

Dystopian societies can exist in other situations outside of anarchy.  Many view our own democracy as headed into a dystopian future where the rule of law has become so cruel as to be unhealthy for its citizens.  

Let’s list a few current dystopian situations in America.  Women denied reproductive care in times of emergency, doctors facing life imprisonment for assisting with reproductive care, environmental disasters exacerbated (made worse, that is) through unfettered profit motives, migrants shot or caged at the border, peaceful protesters facing imprisonment, death threats aimed at politicians, execution threats made toward political opponents, and tribunals against political opponents, normalization of mass shootings, imprisonment threats against journalists, legally dismissive of scientific expertise, single religion indoctrination in public schools – these are only a few examples of dystopian characteristics emerging in America.  By our vote, we will either seek to reverse these problems, or vote to make them worse.  

Any discussion of dystopia, inevitably comes around to fascism.  The word rings alarms, despite HUGE numbers of people, perhaps MOST, not knowing what it means.  It’s a fearful Bogyman word.  Fascism is a right-wing issue, VERY far right, and while most people, even conservatives are not in favor of fascism, they often can’t define it. That doesn’t stop conservatives from accusing liberals of being fascists, but well, that’s like accusing the ocean of being a desert.  Makes no sense, added to the same people calling liberals antifa.  “You’re a fascist, you’re antifa.”  The word ANTIFA, used by conservatives as a curse word against liberals, is literally shorthand for “anti-fascism,” and for the record, there is no “antifa” organization, only anyone who knows the definition and is against the idea of fascism as described by any dictionary.  The only reason to oppose antifa sentiments is to support fascism.  Now, historian Ian Kershaw once said, “trying to define fascism is like trying to apply jelly to a wall.  Nevertheless, there are some relatively obvious captures of the fascist jelly, and while most people do NOT want fascism (whatever it is) many conservatives lean toward fascist ingredients…. a positive view of violence along with the promotion of hyper masculinity characterized by a dictatorial messiah (a leader sometimes called, a strong man), it includes a disdain for human rights by identifying enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause, it includes avid militarization, obsession with national and border security, and an obsession with crime and punishment, it includes religion tied to ruling elites, the protection of corporate power through rampant cronyism and corruption, and embracing fraudulent elections to perpetuate power.  Fascism holds a disdain for and suppression of intellectuals and the arts, it carries rampant sexism and the desire to control mass media.  Above all, fascism requires obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.  

We’ve already talked about authoritarianism, which does its own little tango with fascism.  Each move toward setting aside laws, and the pattern or precedent created as our laws are interpreted.  A primary aspect of justice is that when we interpreted a law a certain way, we follow precedent by consistently interpreting it the same way moving forward.   But from school boards to the Supreme Court, our laws are getting the teeth kicked out of them.  Precedent be damned.  There’s a new, “’we want it this other way, so we’ll change how we interpret the law.”  Constitutionality, norms, and justice are losing a battle called “lawfare,” a new term that means using legal means for undermining the very democracy that the rule of law is meant to protect. More on THAT later.

Without a basic grounding and understanding of the forms of democracy and our own governmental structure, the fundamentals are too easily distorted for manipulation into divisiveness and intellectual mushiness.  If we’re not sure how to define “due process,” or “federalism” or can’t name the three branches of government, then we’re not that worried if they’re on the chopping block, and when we can’t really describe what we claim to treasure, we neither able to recognize nor deter threats.  

So.  This episode begins that clarification of our framework should you have a few gaps, and I hope this tidies a few things up.  As our vocabulary comes more easily to us, we have a more robust toolkit of understanding for debate and analysis, and for imagining a new healthier path forward.   

This stuff is complicated, especially as we “get into the weeds,” as they say.  But up top, here in the place of the overview, I think you can see that there is method to democracy that attempts a fairness intended to keep the madness at bay.  This structure, when used in good faith, provides the healthy guardrails of democracy. . . you’ll hear that phrase as we move forward.  Anyway, this is just a little snack, hardly the whole of it, but I didn’t want to spoil your appetite for the work ahead.  

In the upcoming week, listen for these terms with a new ear to what is happening around them.  Think about what these terms mean to different people, and whether criticism are warranted, or whether criticisms inaccurately and unfairly demonize for political advantage. 

Our next episode will look at Timothy Snyder’s book, “On Tyranny,” which will provide a foundation for what we will see subsequent episode on Project 2025.   Now, for my dear listeners please, follow, share, and mention  this podcast to your friends.  I welcome your comments and there’s a link to text me in the podcast description.  Just mind your manners.  I’m a real person, you know, not a chew toy!  Now, buckle up buttercups!  Let’s get out there, and steward democracy!