It is the eternal debate: is the glass half empty or half full?
Within my own overactive and restless mind, this dialogue is robust and endless. Over the long years, I have tended to be an optimist. I wake up most mornings looking forward to a good day. My inherent inclination is to think that most problems will solve themselves.
However, in recent years, the inner pessimist has grown stronger. This voice increasingly gives the optimist a run for his money. Whether you view this depressed instinct as poisonous or simply cautious and cautious, it has grown stronger and stronger inside.
So here is an invitation to join me for a brief tour of this inner chatter and ongoing discussion. Enter at your own risk.
The inner pessimist observes: “Our political division grows ever deeper and calcified. For many, polarization is no longer an adequate description. It’s more like outright hate. The connective tissue of our country cannot withstand endless years of this.”
To which the internal optimist replies: “The division is intense, but certainly not without precedent. Southern states seceded from the union. We fought a horrible Civil War. Union prevailed and the nation came back together. Fractures can be healed.”
The pessimist states: “But today there are many more tools of division. Many more media reinforcements. So many who find meaning or profit in factionalism and discord.”
The optimist retorts: “Perhaps it is human nature to live in the tyranny of the now. We are conditioned to think that this moment is unparalleled. That every event is either salvation or apocalyptic. It is not in vain that professional football promotes a ” game of the decade” at least every two years. Maybe we all need a breather.”
The pessimists say, “Okay, but it was only two years ago that we witnessed an organized effort to overturn the results of an election. The whole idea of a peaceful transfer of power is no longer taken for granted.”
The optimist makes it look pretty easy: “True. But no matter how stressed, our institutions held on. The courts didn’t give in. Neither did the press. Many of those who attacked the Capitol are sitting in jail cells. prison. Those who spurred them on can join them.”
The pessimist notes: “Autocrats seem to be having their day in many parts of the world. Some of them have nuclear weapons in abundance. Or they’re chasing them with gusto. That’s not very reassuring.”
The optimist acknowledges, “You got me there. But it’s not implausible to have confidence that even bad actors have a powerful instinct for self-preservation.”
The pessimist plays the hole card: “I guess all this only matters if we don’t make the world uninhabitable through climate change.”
The Optimist replies, “That’s a threat, to be sure. Although I’ll still place my value on technological ingenuity and human adaptability. When under the gun, humanity has long demonstrated an ability to find out. Not so many decades ago, we thought human population growth was a ticking time bomb. Over the past 50 years, the global fertility rate has been cut in half. Now some countries are literally in a spiral of population death and out-of-control population growth really remains a condition only in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Tired, both voices take a break to refuel, though they agree that Major League Baseball’s efforts to speed up the game have been spot on, even though the designated hitter rule remains an unnecessary innovation and unwanted Thank goodness for minor concurrences.
Then they come back.
The pessimist points to accelerating wealth disparity and nihilism born of many factors, but fueled by a lack of confidence in younger generations that they will have it better than those of the older vintage. The optimist admits a good deal of this and is more concerned that artificial intelligence will likely add to the gap between the haves and the have-nots. So more agreement here, if not the happy kind.
Both pessimists and optimists worry about the destabilizing effect of the wealth divide. Regarding artificial intelligence, the pessimist points to global upheavals generated by young, idle hands, especially men’s, while the optimist takes a look at societies where a lack of concern for economic subsistence has allowed people to pursue cultural wealth.
The dialogue heats up again.
Pessimists offer: “How can you be optimistic about a country with 400 million guns in circulation and children regularly subjected to lockdown drills?”
The optimist replies, “Point taken. There’s a disease going on. Even if the odds hold, a student is far more likely to be injured or killed in a traffic accident than by an active shooter.”
The pessimist maintains: “Our immigration system has been a disaster for what seems like ever. We have people crossing the border who shouldn’t be here and people who shouldn’t be contributing who have a lot to contribute.”
The optimist counters: “Surely there is a way around the impasse. But I know two things. First, America has more often than not been too stingy rather than too generous with border crossings. Second, a significant portion of the world would come here if given half a chance. This must be an antidote to all self-doubt.”
It’s the turn of the pessimist: “Nearly 250 years ago as a country, we are still plagued by prejudice and intolerance of various kinds. Opportunities and progress remain very unequal.”
Back to the optimist: “Cheer up, mate. Of course, there is still some distance to go. But America today is not the land of Dred Scott or Jim Crow or Little Rock 9. Every once in a while, you can take a little satisfaction in how far we’ve come.”
Go on and on. But this guided journey has come to an end. You are excused and I wish you, dear visitor, an interlude of mental peace and tranquility.
Eric Sondermann is an independent political commentator from Colorado. He writes regularly for Colorado Politics and The Gazette. Reach him at[email protected]; follow him to @EricSondermann
