Games and Politics: Make Your Choice
An Easy Navigation Page, Unfortunately only Optimized for IE 4 & IE 5
Old Fashioned Plain Text Navigation
June 99 Editorial: The Debate
When I first started this site a few months ago, I always intended to write a page about the media's anti-gamer bias. But, I haven't done it, until now, because it is an extremely complex and subtle thing to write about. The media, newspapers, television, radio and magazines, are supposed to be the front line soldiers in battles over the First Amendment. So the big question is, "What went wrong?" The media is doing its level best to shape public opinion into giving power to government censors. Why?
Well, to understand this I turn to my current beliefs about the nature of American politics. The fact is, American politics are in a state of transition. In the old days, there were a lot of clear distinctions between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals wanted government to protect US citizens with a social safety net, they preferred being conciliatory to the Soviet Union to building up the military, and the tended to favor a secular, humanist way of thinking. The Liberals accomplished a lot, and the United States as it currently stands shows many products of their social architecture. For example, everyone in government has pretty much come to accept the notion of the Welfare State, the idea that the government has the right to siphon wealth away from people in order to prevent people from starving to death in their old age or going without medical treatment because they can't pay the bills. Arguments about the Welfare State are currently about how much to spend on it and how protective should it be, no politician who wants a future is going to say "We need to do away with Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and all other such government programs." On the issue of the Welfare State, Liberals have won, and that was their biggest issue. They don't really seem to know how to handle their second biggest issue, civil rights (though they've had some success there, they've also had many failures, like busing), so they mostly just work on trying to expand on their winning issue, the Welfare State.
The Conservatives, though, have also won on one of their big issues; the Soviet Union is no more, and they were beaten not through appeasement but through the Arms Race. The Soviet Union lost because they were unable to keep up, technologically, with what the US military was doing. The Arms Race has also had a positive impact on the United States, from Interstate Highways to the Internet, there are many things that just would not exist today if not for the peace-time arms buildup during the Cold War. There are a lot of things left over from the Cold War, like the CIA, the NSA, a large volunteer military, and tons of nuclear missiles that don't have as important a use anymore. Conservative really don't seem to have any other major issues, at least not one that they agree with each other about. Tax cuts are nice, but they are really just part of the Welfare State/Cold War debate, because after all our taxes go to pay for social programs and to build up the military. So, the Conservatives lost on the Welfare State, won on the Cold War, and don't seem to have any replacement issues. Some in the Conservative movement want to make religion (i.e. forcing their own spiritual beliefs down everybody's throats) the new issue, and some want to make Libertarianism (i.e. slimming down our bloated government, and restoring American freedoms that have been lost or protecting liberties that are in danger of being lost) the new issue. Unfortunately, these two issues are contradictory, you cannot force people into church and also reduce the power of government, since the government needs power to force people to do things they don't want to do.
The great legacy both of the Cold War and the construction of the Welfare State is a new American authoritarianism. Both parties have had reasons to limit people's freedoms. The Liberals, for example, wanted to use government regulation to prevent businesses from destroying the environment with pollution, so they came up with ways to regulate business for the common good. Conservatives have wanted to keep dangerous technology out of the hands of East Bloc countries which could use these things in a war against the US. No one argues over whether some kinds of regulations for both these reasons were necessary, just how necessary and how far they need to go. Unfortunately, this has led to something called the "Nanny State" mentality, in which people in the government have lost touch with the idea that they are there, primarily to protect American Liberty. No, now many in the government believe they are there to be parents to a nation of children, who must be guided and educated by people who know better. Things like seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, surgeon generals warnings on bottles of wine, and the FCC exist because after people in the government take care of real problems, they hunt around for other things to do. After a while, there are no real problems, and people in the government just start to micromanage other people's lives. No one in the government seems to understand that America is the land of the free anymore, they seem to think that Americans would rather live in the land of the protected. Unfortunately, this kind of government paternalism is what exists in all authoritarian governments, from Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm to England under King George. Our country fought wars in the past against these kinds of governments, against rulers who believed in just this sort of ideology. I take great pride in our overthrow of the tyrant king, George III of England. I am ambivalent about the American involvement in the war against Kaiser Wilhelm, because it really wasn't an American problem and there was an ugliness and moral dirtiness on all sides in that conflict, but I agree with the ideology that made Americans want to fight that war. Hearing stories about the men who went to France and said, "Lafayette, we are here!" (referring to the aid we got from the French in our own war against an authoritarian king) fills me with Quixotic pride in being an American. Now, though, we are creating this kind of government for ourselves. An oligarchy in which our rulers are not full of malice (King George and Kaiser Wilhelm were not evil, they just had an ideological point of view which is incompatible with a republic of proud, free people), but full of egotism and the belief that they know better.
So, the real debate in modern American politics is not between Liberals and Conservatives, but between Authoritarians and Libertarians. The people who want to be fathers (or mothers) to us all and the people who think that we are capable of taking care of ourselves. I'm with the people who aren't out to destroy my Liberty for "my own good," how about you?
Next month, I really will write that article about mainstream media bias against gamers, but I figure this article is enough to digest for now. 8-)
Previous Editorials
Navigation Tools
An Easy Navigation Page, Unfortunately only Optimized for IE 4 & IE 5