Throughout history, despite many varieties of philosophical veneer, the cogent question has almost always been in whom do we entrust power?  Is an egalitarian power structure more beneficial for society?  It's harder for the powerful to abuse such if power is more equally distributed, and if history is any indicator, strong and centralized power has paved the way for outrageous atrocities and behavior.  On the other hand, treating every individual equally by default doesn't guarantee freedom from tyranny.  There's plenty of examples of majoritarian mobs terrorizing, raping, pillaging, and killing those in the minority or those perceived to be outsiders.  Of course, this ends up functionally betraying the goal of treating everyone equally, since equal-by-nature individuals quickly realize they can remedy their relative powerlessness-in-equality by consolidating their power to form mobs.

This is the very reason why we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights overlaying our democracy--to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

Other philosophers allude to the fact (few feel comfortable stating it explicitly) that not every person is educationally, intellectually, or temperamentally fit to govern, and thus society's elites should have an increased role in governance.  This view automatically assumes that society's elites are educationally, intellectually, or temperamentally more advanced than the general demos.  This assumption is very obviously not always true, but it's also probably not completely false.  Some could argue that growing up with the shelter and privilege of being upper-class makes you less fit to govern--not having to work as hard (or at all) to be able to enjoy the pleasures in life that most people aren't allowed to enjoy even if they do the work expected of them and more.  Nevertheless, those in society's elite that don't take their position for granted have access to (fairly or not) educational and intellectual resources that likely lead to more thoughtful and refined views on how to responsibly manage a society.

This particular inaugural post isn't meant to pinpoint exactly how much equality is best for society.  That number is hard to quantify, and probably fluctuates somewhat given the context and background of any particular society.  But I do want to assert that I don't think either extreme is the answer.  The answer lies somewhere in the middle.  I also suspect that our society is currently too far to the "right," economically speaking.  This is true even though a lot of people feel that we have drifted to the "left" culturally.  But more on this later.

We now have a national political debate that's, at least on the surface, centered on the growing socioeconomic and political divide between the elites and the masses.  For the first time in decades, income inequality is at the very least, one of the top three issues of the times, if not #1.  I don't even need to cite examples, as this should be painfully obvious to anyone on the Internet.  One narrative that reflects this reality is that of the "99% versus the 1%."  This narrative isn't just politics: it's entirely valid.  American wealth (and thus political influence) is more unequally divided than perhaps at any time in modern history.  There is class warfare going on in this country, but it's not solely the poor attacking the rich.  The rich are attacking back, and have been attacking back since the dawn of this nation.  And over the last four decades, the rich have been winning.  And in case you're not sure which side you're on, if you're paying more interest or rent than you're collecting, you're not rich.

The "99%" message is important, because it signifies solidarity.  The only way for the less powerful in a society to exert their political power is by sticking together.

But the sad reality is that, despite this narrative, and despite both "sides" recognizing that the power of the "elites" has gotten out of control (as long as you consider the nomination of Trump and the surprising-at-least-to-some viability of Bernie Sanders in a party that's already partially committed, at least in rhetoric, to more egalitarian governance as evidence), our 99% have never been more ideologically divided.  They're divided on cultural issues that get people angrier than economics.  However, when put into context, the spoils of these cultural battles are incredibly minute, petty, psychological, egotistical, and fleeting.

So then the question becomes, "Why are we fighting each other so hard over nothing when everything is being taken away?"  While our nation's economy and culture are being hollowed out by a variety of factors?  Thus is the "twittling," the modern-day technology-infused form of fiddling.  The semi-anonymous moral and political sniping at one another through a medium that by default restricts the complexity of thought, the form of which only deepens the divide.

While many of the short-sighted elites may be laughing (both with glee and all the way to the bank) at the folly of all this, this kind of petty cultural rot is compromising the foundation of our entire country, especially in a new world economy where critical thinking is key.  It's hard not to believe that this country is headed for a disastrous collapse.  The "here and the now" power compromises made in our incessantly Machiavelian political battles leaves our political future unattended.

While the challenges to this (and the world's) economy from globalization and technology are inevitable, our failure as cultural, societal beings is not.  When all of this global financialization does in fact come crashing down (matter of when, not if--we can't even sustain economic growth these days without some sort of long-term-fraudulent sort of financial bubble), it will only be culture that can save us.  And in that regard, the foundational pillars of our society have been knocked out from under us.  Which will also be a topic for future blog entries.