What do you want America? Solution or Division?


What do you want?

by Mustang

There are essentially two models for achieving social progress: a cooperative model, suggesting that social progress is only possible when opposing sides (of an argument) are able to lay aside their differences and find ways to cooperate with one another … and a conflict model, suggesting that true progress is only achieved through clashes with opposing points of view, one of which will (in time) become dominant.  

Which of these is correct?  Or, are they both correct, with the only real difference being in the speed of achieving consensus?

A large part of our problem in modern society is our inability, or our unwillingness, to engage with one another in meaningful dialogue.  Before we reach the stage of dialogue, we must first achieve a generally acceptable view of the “problem,” and its origins.  If we do not know what the problem is, or how it evolved, then we cannot hope to solve it.  Cooperation, for its own sake, demands that people relinquish their principles; that they compromise with others at the cost of their core beliefs.  

There is no benefit to society in this, unless the goal of social engineering is to produce human drones incapable of rational individualism.  Likewise, conflict as a demonstration of anger or frustration produces angrier people and levels of frustration that easily lead to violence.  There is no permanent solution to social issues through violent behavior.

Our founding fathers realized that the likely result of authoritarianism would be a “pressure-cooker society,” so they provided ways in which people could demonstrate their dissatisfactions without having to resort to extremism.  One may recall the aftermath of the French Revolution, whose carnage is today memorialized and celebrated by the French nation as Bastille Day.  

American founders wisely acknowledged our inalienable right to have and express an opinion, especially unpopular opinions.  They provided for the right to associate with whomever we choose.  We have a right to peacefully assemble, emphasis on the word “peacefully.”  

Is it enough to express an opinion or demonstrate?  My answer is, “Not unless you have your facts right about the nature of the problem, its origins, and have identified common sense solutions.”  Otherwise, you’re part of the problem.

So, a cop with a spotty record behaves in such a way that he’s taken the life of a citizen.  Good citizen or not, this is not the kind of behavior we want from our public servants.  Obviously, the police department or city that hired this cop used poor judgment by keeping him on the payroll.  This is a matter for the citizens of that city to address, and while it may be appropriate for people on the opposite coast to demonstrate, there is nothing they can do to solve the problem within that city.

Fact: there are about 850,000 lawmen in the USA … federal, state, and local.  If only ten percent of these people are bad apples, then we do have a police problem in our country.  My guess is that the percentage of bad cops is around one percent, but even if the number is higher, it pales in comparison with the number of bad citizens who violently assault members of their own communities, including police officers.  What are we (as a society) doing about bad citizens?

Fact: we did have a civil war in this country.  The top tier issues were constitutional in nature: the right of states to govern themselves beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government, and the right of men to live free of shackles.  How shall we address this history?  

We cannot change what happened.  The issue of states’ rights remains an open issue, as we have seen federal encroachment into the affairs of states.  We struggle with this today through the courts, which is an appropriate venue.  We resolved the issue of human bondage in 1863, at a great cost in human lives.

Those who endured slavery are now dead.  The number of those who remember anyone who endured slavery is miniscule.  There can be no atonement for the dead; justice was denied to them.  What we can do, and have done, is to recognize that every citizen is free to choose for themselves a pathway through life.  Whether every citizen chooses wisely is another matter.  I am not responsible for someone who unwisely pursues a dark, unfulfilling lifestyle and no amount of public demonstration will convince me otherwise.

If we are to solve problems in society, no matter whether we cooperate or conflict with one another, then we must do so within the framework of mainstream society.  If we choose not to address them from within the body of society, then we have no reasonable expectation of resolving our problems at all.  

The question remains: what do you want, America?  Do you truly want solutions, or are you content with noisy, destructive, hateful rhetoric or behavior that solves nothing more than to divide our fragile society further?

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

15 Responses to “What do you want America? Solution or Division?”

  1. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    Mustang succinctly laid out the problem.
    Bill Heffner may be right about the blame, but there is still some question as to why Floyd had to be restrained in such a manner for so long. If he hadn’t died, would he still be in that position? Would he have been given potty breaks?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Acceptable police procedure restricts the use of force to that which is necessary to restrain someone in custody, and no more than that. Whether this was the standard applied will (hopefully) come out in trial. Sadly, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the accused will receive a fair trial.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bill Heffner Says:

      He was restrained until suitable transport arrived, since he could not successfully be put into a squad car. Eight minutes for that transport to arrive in a city the size of Minneapolis is by no means excessive. Keep trying to blame it on the police, but you’ll have to come up with something else, because that nonsense is not going to fly either.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. peter3nj Says:

    Black on black crime alive and well in NYC as a 1 yr old dies with a bullet to the stomach issued by a black trio clad all in black 11:30 last night at a black family picnic. Should we fixate on blaming whitey for the bullet or blaming whatever whitey is guilty of causing a family to picnic with a 1 yr old at 11:30 PM?
    Most likely de Blasio will show up at the funeral and rather then take the blame for disbanding the NYPD crime unit which had a propensity for stopping these incidents he will justify his wife’s call for doing away completely the NYPD. There will be no dialogue; the next NYC mayor will be a “progressive” democrat.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. peter3nj Says:

    As always Mustang-right on!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Bill Heffner Says:

    “So, a cop with a spotty record behaves in such a way that he’s taken the life of a citizen,” assumes facts not in evidence. The media says that, but there are almost countless ways to dispute the veracity of such a claim.

    The easiest, of course, is to dispute the source; the media lies constantly. One can almost guarantee that the statement is false merely because the media said it.

    Second is that the method is not known to kill. It has been used thousands of times without the subject dying. In fact it has been used that many times without the subject suffering the slightest harm. That is precisely why it is described in the police manual as an acceptable method of restraint.

    Third is that Floyd was speaking while that restraint was being applied, and doing so for some great length of time. The cop even commented to Floyd while Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe that, “You’re talking to me just fine.” To assume that a person can speak while he is being choked to death is idiocy.

    I’m disappointed in you that you would perpetrate the BLM and Democrat lie that the cop killed George Floyd.

  5. Linda Says:

    Great post, Mustang.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. kidme37 Says:

    Put me down for the Scorched Earth solution.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. markone1blog Says:

    Ok. It’s my turn to apologize for the rant. I’m sorry — sort of.


  8. markone1blog Says:

    One thing that struck me was the way the media deified someone who was far from god-like and demonized a whole class of people who similarly did not deserve that much condemnation.

    I live in a community North of Houston and my wife has a habit of watching the news from the local main stream media. During one of the weeks where I was forced to work from home (my employer set a 50% occupancy rule in place at the workplace), I overheard a broadcast covering the Floyd George funeral. In that broadcast, the mind-numbingly vacuous reporter stated that certain design on the coffin and headstone meant that Floyd George would be going to heaven.

    Really?? You don’t have to believe in God. You can be a thief, drug addict, and beat pregnant women and — if you get your relatives to buy the right funeral equipment — you can go to heaven. (If you can’t tell, that lie set me off just a little more than most other lies proffered by the media.)

    Liked by 5 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: