Going To The Dogs: Pit Bulls, Primaries, & Politics
I’ve previously written about our “chain letter society”…my own hypothesis that our society has become obsessed with winning, the notion of number one, and all that can be associated with the position at the front of the line…such that little else seems to matter.
The process is initiated by parents who instill such thoughts in the minds of their children and then push them to attain nothing less. In my theory, over time, the mechanisms which hold a society together are eroded to the point that singular objectives overwhelm the pursuit of collective goals…devolving into the classic scenario of dog eat dog.
As I was sitting at my computer, surfing the web and experiencing a nondescript feeling of frustration, I suddenly realized the source. I’ve been watching a number of situations unfold that have all the makings of the growing excesses one might expect from a “chain letter society”…complete with healthy portions of self-serving irrationality.
Initially, the connecting points might not be apparent, but bear with me as I attempt to weave a coherent argument. Let me begin by identifying the topics of note. The first has been the anger directed at Atlanta Falcon quarterback Michael Vick as a result of his involvement with dog fighting. The second is the endless jockeying on the part of several states to enhance their position in the presidential primaries…and the third is the effort being launched in California to divide their presidential electoral votes based upon the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives as opposed to the existing process of awarding them all to the candidate who garners the most votes.
The Michael Vick situation provides the necessary backdrop for discussing the other two issues. In the Vick case, from the outset, there was a clear and consistent criticism of his actions and countless people came to the defense of dogs which are abused or killed in such operation. I believe that reaction is valid and reasonable by most measures of civility.
As one deciphers the outrage, the underlying basis seems to center upon the imposition of injustice and the infliction of cruelty. Further, I would contend that most individuals believe it is wrong to subject these dogs to the whims of those who own them and who presumably seek the psychic rewards that may come from having the toughest dog in the circuit. In essence, the owner is consumed with the notion of Fido being number one…such that the welfare of Fido is secondary to the needs of his master.
In pointing to the Vick situation, it provides evidence of three things. One, most people have an innate moral compass which recognizes injustice. Two, most people dislike it when others live out their insufficient egos by victimizing those they can manipulate. Thirdly, most people have the ability to recognize when others are excessive in their pursuit to be viewed as king of the hill.
Pivoting to the other two news items, we begin to see signs of a subtle, though significant, inconsistency…an inconsistency which begins to distinguish and divorce individual self-interest apart from the need for a society to monitor and exhibit self-restraint and self-discipline. Further, the fact that we are now dealing with human beings as opposed to our canine companions is undoubtedly relevant to the analysis.
I believe it is safe to conclude that the actions of a society or some identifiable segment of that society reflect the predominant beliefs of its members. Such subsets can include our child’s soccer team or, with regard to the presidential primary, it can be an individual state. In both cases, it isn’t difficult to see the emergence of self-interest and the de-emphasis of self-restraint and self-discipline. Suddenly, the empathy which elicited a measurable compassion for our four legged friends seems to evaporate when the aggrieved are fellow human beings.
In our current societal construct, we have apparently elevated the principle of being number one to a desirable trait…one to which we do not attach the same outrage which was reserved for Michael Vick’s behavior with regard to his dogs…one which doesn’t seek to penalize those parents who act similar to Michael Vick with regards to their children and the traits they endeavor to instill within them.
Specifically, ingraining the instincts of a pit bull in our children with regard to success and the achievement of number one status suddenly supersedes the attachment of any deterrents to unbridled self-interest and the pursuit of dominant status. As such, we abhor the Michael Vick’s of the world whose actions are arguably selecting for the same outcome we embrace with regards to our children’s human interactions…actions and outcomes which of course are applied to entities like soccer teams and individual states. In the end, injustice and cruelty in our human interactions is therefore ignored and outrage can rarely be found.
It now becomes easy to see how our primary system is symptomatic evidence of the ailment identified by the concept of a “chain letter society”. It is also fraught with the pitfalls of any pyramid scheme…meaning that a select few can ascend to the top and getting there must be done upon the backs of those sacrificed in the process. Logic tells us only one state can arguably be first…but when the mechanisms of self-restraint are removed, chaos is bound to ensue. The objective of electing a competent president becomes inferior to the self-interests of individuals and groupings of individuals such that the fundamental goal is now fully obstructed and virtually irrelevant.
As if that isn’t a sufficient bastardization of the intent upon which our society is predicated, the scramble for success knows no bounds and is further evidenced in the effort to alter the equation for apportioning electoral votes in California, one of the largest states…one that has the potential to alter the entire election outcome in order to assure that the highest position can be secured.
Taking it a step further, those who are pushing this change are not doing so because they believe all states should adopt the same system. They are acting to obtain an advantage and their selection of the state of California can be equated with Michael Vick’s selection of superior dogs…which of course spells irrelevance…or in the case of the dogs, death…for those who haven’t chosen to participate in the rush for dominance regardless of ethical considerations as well as the well being of the existing entity…the United States.
As with the primary dates, when the selective altering of the electoral system overshadows the objective of preserving and promoting the national interest, then the nation becomes inferior to the self-interests of individuals and groupings of individuals such that the fundamental and primary goal is now fully obstructed and virtually irrelevant.
Michael Vick’s actions were wrong and they shouldn’t be condoned. The same is true of the efforts to alter the primary system and the distribution of electoral votes. All are indications of the ailment I’ve identified as our preoccupation with the precepts of a “chain letter society”. The struggle to be number one…whether that begins at home with the instruction of our children or whether it is has become a foregone reality which has infiltrated every fiber of our political system…is nothing more than a recipe for failure.
While we seek to defend Michael Vick’s dogs from the infliction of injustice and cruelty, we simultaneously have justice locked in our lethal jaws…attempting to shake from it any semblance of our commitment to the ethical treatment of our fellow human beings. Perhaps our outrage at the savagery of dog fighting is little more than a reaction to an unwelcome glimpse of our own bloodthirsty barbarism.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Daniel-Who are you referring to when you write
“Perhaps our outrage at the savagery of dog fighting is little more than a reaction to an unwelcome glimpse of our own bloodthirsty barbarism. ”
If you are saying this is how Americans are then they wouldn’t be as appalled at as most were about what Vick did and animal abuse althogether. I put them in the same class as children. Helpless and defensless without any say so.
It sounds to me like you are comparing his actions to Americans emotionless.cruel and downright mean. It’s a shame to label people like that.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
tos,
Before I can answer your question, I think it would be beneficial to expand upon my thoughts. I don’t know if you read the link to my piece on the “chain letter society”…but I’ll assume you haven’t in offering this response.
First, one has to establish some basic givens. I contend that the society we have is a product of the individual choices we each make. As such, the actions of a society can be said to represent what we collectively accept (in the case of the U.S. that is achieved by a representative government through a somewhat democratic process).
In other words, we each have some responsibility for the actions taken and the decisions made…all of which reflect our national identity. The fact that we participate (or at least remain inhabitants) suggests a form of tacit acceptance.
When one looks at the mores of our society, one can also assume that they generally represent a majority view…or in some instances a minority view which has been adjudicated in relation to the constitution and the bill of rights despite the fact that it lacks majority support.
The burden we each face is finding a point of balance such that we either each individually agree with the majority of our laws and values…and therefore accept them as they are…for the moment (perhaps until such time as they can be changed) or we reject them and therefore refuse to embrace some of them individually (to the extent that is possible; for example one need not have an abortion but one is necessarily obligated to honor the speed limit). Regardless, one may well elect to honor the social contract despite some disagreements.
If we elect an outright rejection…meaning both individually and of the social contract..one can choose to leave the country…or one can stay and engage in civil disobedience with the objective of drawing attention to our objections in the hope of effecting change…knowing one is violating the social contract…or one can elect an attempt at insurrection by denying and defying the social contract and intending to rewrite the principles of the society altogether should the insurrection succeed.
With that said, how we treat the Michael Vicks in our society must reflect our values…though there is no guarantee those values are consistently applied throughout the society (I am not speaking of race…though that can and does happen…but in this instance I am speaking about relative morality).
Often times, our values are inconsistent…which must therefore reflect other factors or considerations (call it the principle that good men may well not be all good…the adulterous husband may be a magnificent father). This condition can also be true of the society (call it the principle that good societies may well not be all good…the society rightly outraged by dog fighting may condone actions which circumvent the intended structure of the political system in order to gain advantage (generally to acquire power).
Coming back to the individual…if the individuals of a society become more focused upon individual gain and the acquisition of more power than would normally be equated with a democratically elected representative government, the social contract is being altered by unintended means (this can be a legal act which violates the intent of our fundamental founding values, principles, and intentions…or an outright illegal act which violates law).
Applying this to the Michael Vick situation, in my posting I mentioned that his motivation may well have been to have the toughest dog in the dog fighting world (a means to achieve the status of number one)…and to do so by violating the social contract. In other words, he chose to elevate his individual objectives above those established by the social contract.
Similarly, the efforts to alter the primary system or to change the allocation of electoral votes in one large state may have the very same motivations (a means to achieve the status of number one or the winner of the biggest prize)…and to do so by violating the social contract. In other words, individual states or those supporting the altered electoral allocation in California have chosen to elevate their individual objectives above those established by the social contract.
In comparing the actions of Michael Vick to shed the blood of dogs for individual gains with the actions of those who would seek to alter the social contract by seeking a political advantage in order to gain power for the purpose of imposing one’s own beliefs…without utilizing the established processes and procedures…such that the system upon which our nation was founded is defiled…then the blood shed by our forefathers is being discounted by those pursuing their own thirsts for power and thus they are draining the life blood which sustains the nation and secures the social contract.
Finally, one must make a moral judgment which recognizes that the latter action may well be more immoral than the former (that is not to validate the former; but to simply impose a requirement for an evaluation of relevant morality).
Michael Vick’s infraction is visibly egregious…while the actions being facilitated to alter the process by which one accedes to power are seemingly accepted as a function of the current state of politics. To understand the legitimacy of that process, one cannot simply look at where we have arrived politically…there is a requirement to look at where we began. Once that comparison is made, one can sufficiently evaluate the moral equivalence of the latter actions relevant to the actions of Michael Vick.
My contention is that the outrage with the current political manipulations is insufficient in comparison to the outrage exhibited towards Michael Vick’s behavior…and I argue that results from the dissonance that exists in our comparative measurement of the accepted treatment of dogs and of human beings.
The fact that dogs do not participate in the politics of our society allows us to apply a heightened level of compassion without any significant individual cost…whereas the acceptance or rejection of the actions to alter the primary structure or the allocation of electoral votes is likely influenced by our individual considerations…which arguably have the same motivation as those of Michael Vick…that being winning and achieving the status of number one. Therefore these political pursuits are intended to afford one the power to control society and the social contract…rather than acting to enhance and support the moral intention of our founding precepts. In that reality, I contend the latter is equally outrageous. Moreover, I posit that it is arguably more outrageous.
In the end, our society has more to lose by virtue of these political manipulations than in the actions of Michael Vick. Worse yet, our apparent focus on the latter coupled with our indifference to the former indicates the extent to which we have slowly drifted towards a self-serving morality…hence our moral compass has metaphorically gone to the dogs.
My apologies for the length of this response but my thoughts are an amalgam of many years of contemplative examinations. Attempting to provide an abbreviated summary is rather difficult.
I appreciate the feedback and I thoroughly enjoy the dialogue.
Regards,
Daniel
September 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I know you are upset about the Electoral votes in CA. I guess if it left as is it would be fair? I can read through your lines to see your point being the republicans are evil power grabbers and it trickles down to Michael Vick in their quest for power. I still don’t see the comparison as being even remotely similar and you cannot convince me of it being the same or comparable.
The horror of dog fighting is more than power ,It is illegal and he knew it otherwise he wouldn’t have disguised his yard.. If this went to trial we would get a glimpse of the true horror this is. It’s also about beagles thrown into a pen with their snoots taped shut and being torn to shreds to determine if a dog is viscous enough to fight. Not just body slamming dogs and electrocuting them and hanging them.
We have a right as Americans to convict this crime and use Vick as an example as was done with Martha Stewart.
But as a society we do have as much to lose if we can;t even show compassion for a defenseless animal. There is alot more crime attached to this. There are guns,drugs,gambling and it encourages violence. To me not acceptable for society.
I hope you can also see the point I and alot others feel about this and see it for what it really is.
If we want to be a self serving culture as you wrote I am not sure this is a good example of that as much as it is of disregard for life.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:18 am
tos,
We’re apparently not communicating. You seem to think my posting is about Michael Vick or evil Republicans…but it isn’t. Nothing I have written is intended to minimize the offense Vick committed. I believe he should be punished for his actions. The posting is about my disappointment with the state of affairs in the U.S.
The posting is about our society’s selective morality. Vick is used to make the point that we don’t often apply morality consistently…not to say that his treatment is too harsh; but to say that we are often too lax in our other moral considerations. All too often we narrow morality down to issues of sexuality and violent crime…but morality is far more encompassing.
As to power grabbers, they exist in both parties…and your propensity to assume every word written has to be partisan is your own failing. I’m opposed to the primary changes and the electoral vote changes regardless of who is pushing for them…not because I’m a Democrat or a Republican…but because there has to be a limit to the partisan political wrangling.
I think elections ought to be about what is good for the country…not what is good for the GOP or the Democrats. If we want to change the electoral system, then let’s change it nationwide. Honestly, don’t you get sick and tired of all the B.S.?
Frankly, I get sick and tired of every dialogue having to be about us vs. them. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this OUR country? Hey, if you support the status quo of politics, then you deserve the eventual outcome…a screwed up mess that has nothing to do with the good of the nation.
At times, I find myself thinking I don’t give a crap if the country is little more than a daily dog fight…but I do care and I don’t like it. As my dad has said for years, if everything has to be about conflict, let’s just give everyone a damn gun and get it over with. In that comment, he is simply pointing out the need for reflection and clarity…in other words when and where does the bickering end?
I simply think we’ve become so engaged in partisanship and twisted moral justifications that we no longer stand for much of anything…except winning at all costs…regardless of right and wrong…and I don’t mean legal vs. illegal…I mean basic human decency and civility. I find the state of affairs sad and disheartening.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Regards,
Daniel
September 5th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I do agree with your point about how everyhting has become partisan on both sides. It’s too bad we can’t do away with parties and their special interests and decide what is good for all people not just certain groups.
But has it alway been like this or is it just that we have more means of communication and resources to get our information from and not to know the difference of what we are being told is not always neccesary for the greater good.
We will all never agree on the same thing because one thing doesn’t always work for all.
I don’t really support politics in general because to me democrat or republican most of them are really all talk anyway.