Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Why "Anti-Establishment" isn't Enough

Being raised in Davis, California I totally "get" the “Bernie Sanders” allure.

He’s so …. easy. You get to be edgy without actually saying anything about anything.

And if that isn’t the liberal millennial slogan I don’t know what is.

As a politician running on primarily “anti-establishment”laurels, this appeared (To some. For like 0.5 seconds) to be a unexpected step for the pro-life movement.

Wrong. Duh.

Bernie is absolutely pro-abortion in the name of “women’s rights” (but only women who can prove they have a viable way to live … or are more than a “clump of cells” …or are… wait, what’s the argument today? And also only women who aren’t women. Because if a woman says she’s a woman and different she’s ignorant and a Bible thumper, but if a man says he’s a woman and different he is inherently a woman. Grammar check is ironically completely underlining those last two sentences. Unfortunately, they are, in fact, representative of our culture’s thought process currently. Sorry Grammar check. You sexist establishment. Sorry, I digress. This is a really long parenthetical paragraph.), and where he stands on the mega-corporation PP is left to remain clear as of right now.

All people have a common longing for the (perceived) underdog, because I think that we all, to a certain degree oftentimes feel like the underdog ourselves. When you are unhappy with current administration (course that’s not quite the way Bernie spins it) it is so simple to become wrapped up in “anti-establishment” woes.

“Establishments” are easy scapegoats because what does that even mean? Who are “they?”

Are you talking about companies? The government? The laws? Societal norms? Perception of those societal norms?

Yes.

Too fickle to stand on a certain charge or principle voters can now, with the click of a button, just merely be “anti-establishment.”

“What establishment?”

“Just…the current ways. Power. Big-pharma. People with money. Wall Street. THE ESTABLISHMENT.”

“Okay but what exactly are you even saying?”

Clayton Christensen is quoted saying, and is rapidly becoming one of my favorite quotes: “It is easier to stand your principles 100% of the time than 98% of the time.”

Our nation has taken that last “grey” 2% and completely run away with it.

A sane person cannot be “anti-establishment” 100% of the time, because “establishment” means 100 different things to 100 different people.

It doesn’t MEAN anything. It means you’re for changing the status quo, or the current “establishment.”

It's like saying you’re “pro-moon.”

“Okay, but what about the moon?”

“Just…the moon. In general.”

It reminds me of

…those fortune tellers that start a reading by saying “You….are trying to contact someone with the letter….l…..m…..n…. (you start nodding)…N! Of COURSE N!”

…the rebellious teenager who is against what their parents say simply because they say it.

…the executive of a large merger who indiscriminately eliminates the previously autonomous company’s strategies and policies because it had “failed.”

It’s an easy and SO completely obvious way to say “I’m just against… whatever we should be against.”

The easiest political stance I have ever seen ever.

It means never having to commit to anything or to anyone.

No names mentioned. No principles mentioned. Just “things will be better.” What are we against today?

Oh yeah, me too.

The Bernie proponent might say, “Nu HUH, Kaitlin, look at his website! Here are his stances on this this this this…”

Okay.

But what are they based on?

God? The Bible? No?

How about The Constitution?

Still no? (I couldn’t find the word “Constitution” on his website at least.)

I don't think I'd offend either political party by saying that our voting and our issues and our politicians should be making not blanket decisions but decisions based on something more than our whims. 

We cannot afford to be indiscriminately “anti-establishment.” 

We must be seeking God given discernment. On each issue.

Let’s pull apart each issue one-by-one and put aside our own individual agendas and look at the big picture here people.

Let’s stand on principle and on not on pacifying empty promises.  

It’s easy to say “I’m anti-establishment because votes.”

It’s harder to say “I’m pro-life because God.”

Do we want someone in office to take the easy road or the high road?

You can’t just hate the establishment because it’s successful.

That is immaturity by any definition.

You have to hate the establishment because it does something morally obtuse.

P.s. Also, if you’re “anti-establishment” as a campaign move at what point to you become “the establishment?” I mean surely at some point…but at the VERY LEAST when you become President of the United States right? C’mon people. 

P.s.s. This train of thought above is very similar to the train of that that ultimately led me to Jesus. Unfulfilled and unsatisfied with a "just because I want it" mentality I had to reach outside of myself to find the ultimate litmus test. I was terrified that if I put the Bible and God to the test that I'd find a logical hypocrisy, a flawed argument, an erred view, but in the last (almost) decade of following Him, He has never disappointed me once. 

No comments:

Post a Comment