Saturday, 12 November 2016

AN IMAGINARY CONVERSATION WITH GOD, ABOUT PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP. PART.13







This is a continuation of Taku2u's imaginary conversation with God. In having this conversation, Taku2u is working on the premis that, like a father or mother to their children, God would not object to his children - based on the proposition of the creationists - having an frank and honest conversation with him/her/deity. 

G.: Of course it is, T. The ascension of ‘The Don’, the man whom you have compared to ‘the Anti-Christ’, ‘the Damien’, is about many more things. Yes, he is another example of how you can achieve the highest office in America, if you have the right amount of money, whether yours or other people’s, and have the powerful backing of one of the two main political parties behind you. 

It is also about the frustration of the poor and the unemployed classes who are frustrated with either not being able to buy a share of the American pie, or, for too long, being reduced to having to contend with the crumbs falling from it. 


Yes, ‘The Don’ has been able to benefit from the tsunami of electoral discontent which the past 8  and more years of economic hardship has generated. It has been said, by an American, that you cannot ‘fool all of the people all of the time.’ However, that does not, of course, mean that you cannot try. Which is arguably what ‘The Don’ is now trying to do, by promising to ‘Make America Great Again.’ 

T, you and I and all cogent humans know that, like how some are dying while others are being born, like how some are having a ball enjoying themselves, while, at the sametime, somewhere else, even not far away, some are bawling in great distress, so it is with the economy of any country.


T.: So, G. do you mean to say, that all of the people cannot be helped at the same time, or that they cannot all be helped at the same level and duration? Do I understand you to be saying, for example, that the American Pie can only be spread very thinly, to the all, or the many, or be spread thickly, to the few, e.g., the elite and the middle classes? Or, conversely, to the unemployed and the poorer classes?

G.: Well, T, what do you think? Have I said anything which seems illogical or irrational to you, T.? If you share a dollar between two Americans, do they not receive more than if you share the $100 between one hundred Americans?

T. Of course you are being logical, G. But, if you give one hundred Americans only $1, they cannot do much with it, whereas, if you share the $100 between 2 or 4 of them, they will have more options.


G.: Exactly, T, so you have the option of helping only 2 or 4, and making them happy or less disenchanted, or helping 100, who, because the help you have offered them is so small, will do little to appease or prevent their frustration and disenchantment with the system. And so it is that the politicians have decided to promise to help everybody, but in fact have resigned themselves to helping or only offering real help to some. 

Usually the politicians prioritise helping their favourites, the people with more power. Which usually mean the middle classes and the elites. At the sametime, they do all they can to block the empowerment and effective mobilisation of the disenfranchised sections of the community; except for when they want to use them as electoral fodder.

T.:Quite so, G. What can I say, you have gotten it down to a G, and talking like a revolutionary. Do you mean to say that, despite all the  anxiety and high expectations surrounding Donald Trump’s and the Republicon’s victories in the election, you are not expecting them to deliver on their promises or on all of them?



G.: Look, T, not even the Republicons are expecting to be able to deliver on their promises or on all of them. It would not be realistic for anybody to expect them to do so. And, even if they were able to deliver what they have promised, once the Democrats become President, say, in the next 4 or 8 years, they would simply roll back what they do not like about what the Republicons have done. 

You see, T, unless there is a consensus between the political parties about what are the essentials, in terms of the economy, health, education, housing, employment, criminal justice, race relations, etc, all you have is a system of ‘doing and undoing’, ‘building and destroying’ or one in which the status quo is maintained by both parties. Which, of course, prevents any progress being made. It is why you have different political parties representing different classes of citizens, or to different degrees. However, all parties are class-based and have their own elites, middle-classes, and disempowered classes.

And, yes, T, you could consider me as a revolutionary; how else could I expect to remain relevant to contemporary and enlightened humans?



No comments: