Greed, hypocrisy, and idiocy

Let’s cut to the chase. The Roe v. Wade overturn by the US Supreme Court is an atrocity and a terrifying insult to the sovereignty that women have over their own lives and bodies. Ever since the news broke and even way before that, many have articulated their arguments against this decision way better than I will ever do. I’m only attempting to discuss another issue at play here, which I by no means suggest would surpass on a personal level the main consequences faced by anyone deprived of their reproductive rights (as a woman I could very well be one of them). I’m disgusted not only by the pernicious impacts that the SCOTUS ruling causes on a mass scale, but also by the way greed, hypocrisy, and idiocy have somehow taken over the way a government makes choices on behalf of its citizens. And let’s face it, incompetent and undeserving governments exist everywhere. Yet, when a nation claims to be a beacon of democracy, competence, and liberty, this situation only proves further that the system is already broken and that all these values are being eroded right in front of our eyes as much as some of us want to deny it.

Someone who isn’t familiar with the debate on abortion rights will first wonder: WHY is there a debate and WHO are representing the two sides of the argument? Aborting a fetus has always been done throughout history, but depending on your religious beliefs, you may find this act comparable to killing a life (and “comparable” not in the sense that the two things are “similar” in their effects but that they are the same thing). There are nuances in this comparison which the laws have attempted to discern: a fetus isn’t an actual human being up until a certain point in the pregnancy. But sure, many will not hold the same understanding. Personally I don’t find it a worthy battle to challenge the grounds of certain religious beliefs, particularly in the realm of policymaking; everyone is entitled to what they believe in and the laws are only to neutralize and be dictated by common sense. So, to explain the anti-abortion sentiment in the debate, one can acknowledge its roots in the moral teachings of some religions, which isn’t something we should necessarily challenge when legislating laws.

On the other side of the debate are the proponents of legal abortions. They may hold the understanding that aborting an early-developed fetus isn’t an act of killing, or they may oppose a mass imposition of abortion restrictions, or most likely, both. There are of course those who would not undergo an abortion themselves for personal reasons or beliefs, but they accept that their reality isn’t the same as everyone else. This sentiment of personal choice prompts the “pro-choice” label, versus the belief of ‘saving life’ on the “pro-life” side. Already there is a gap in thinking here, where one side isn’t particularly interested in the moral basis of what a “life” means (only perhaps for logistical rationale), while the other side ignores everything BUT that moral basis. So there is truly no way to move the debate forward satisfactorily when people are already existing in two different dimensions but trying to walk together.

What I have described so far isn’t really to say that we should all give up and move to another issue. People are currently being harmed directly or indirectly by this particular ruling, just like many other decisions by authorities. We will never cease to face these dilemmas and we will have to resolve them by constantly putting these through critical review and debate. My point is that, while doing so, we should not lose sight of other implications in this situation, especially those that will affect almost everyone, regardless of which “side” they take. From my vantage, these implications now involve a sickening amount of greed, hypocrisy, and idiocy that are poisoning whatever ideals of democracy or freedom or equality Americans are fed since birth (strong words, but hear me out).

Greed can chase after power or money or both, and these two factors are (conveniently) the stronghold of America. The US takes pride in being one of the most powerful nations in the world, competing neck and neck against other powerhouses to maintain their number one position – in military, science, technology, and whatnot. On a more local level, the ideals of freedom and self-sovereignty teach Americans to work hard and earn their position in society – basically to have enough power and money for themselves to not be subject to anyone else’s influence. Money is also possibly one of the biggest of all the big deal in America. Free market ideology connotes that everything is to be bought and sold, including freedom itself. So there’s no strangeness here if the authority in the US explicitly plays with these two notions of money and power; indeed, that has always been the case. Government is of course where power is concentrated, where authority figures literally practice the power to make and execute laws. Government also needs money to operate, to distribute, and to cycle its personnel, so money is heavily embedded in all of its processes.

These rationales don’t exactly absolve the wrongness of letting the government, who is in charge of the people’s safety, wellbeing, and livelihoods, revolve solely around the two notions of power and money. Yet, when one digs into how these two things are channeled into the hands of political figures, and how many of them are more driven by the power/influence and money/rewards they get than actually “serving the public”, it’s quite an ugly can of worms to open. Many politicians buy into certain agenda when they want to earn support from lobbying groups and a chance to stay in their powerful position. Money is inevitably shifted around in some of these processes and transactions. Sure, there are “good” politicians out there who are genuine about their political agenda, and there are the “corrupt” ones. What is unsettling here is how this corruption driven by greed has the capacity to control and manipulate our civic engagement and our votes, as long as we believe that we are exercising a certain form of “democracy”. We may ignore the ills of the system because greed is somehow justified by the foundations of American values and principles.

Hypocrisy in many cases is born out of greed as well. Politicians who make the conscious decision to seek support only to remain in their position are self-serving hypocrites. Politicians who promote an agenda even when they don’t believe in it or practice it themselves are hypocrites. Politicians who pretend to identify with the communities who support them only to dismiss their beliefs and lifestyles behind the scenes are hypocrites. And politicians who act and decide without consistency in their rationale are also hypocrites. Many have pointed out the lack of logic in endorsing a “pro-life” stance while also opposing every other policy agenda that directly correlates with the safety and wellbeing of people’s lives. American bipartisanism further amplifies the inability to make good judgment on distinct issues when it seems that one needs to support every single position popularized by the party they have come to identify with. It becomes increasingly difficult to go against the currents when it appears that everyone in either party blindly follows the herd without critically questioning the inconsistencies that exist among their stances on completely independent issues. This desire to fit in, coupled with the rewards of money and power, leave many of the active politicians mere hypocrites who willingly bypass their own agency, self-respect, and morals.

Idiocy operates in the same way as hypocrisy, but in this case awareness is absent. If hypocrisy is the individual acting with full (albeit hidden) acknowledgement of their own inconsistency, idiocy simply implies zero awareness of this. In other words, an idiot behaves indiscriminately and without intention, but somehow feels secure in their decisions. When we discuss and voice opinions on political decisions, we sometimes throw around labels like “idiots” or “hypocrites” to insult the people behind these decisions. In some ways, we are pointing out the issues with the individuals, whether it’s about their incompetency or their faulty moral compass. But we need to realize also that attacking the individuals are not going to resolve the roots of the problems. There are so many threats to a democratically elected government even when (especially when) it proudly advertises such democracy. Being aware of these threats and how they are very often overlooked may be the first step to safeguard the government from being plagued with personal greed, intentional hypocrisy, or the inability to make informed, logical decisions. From there, we can begin to exercise better judgment when electing our government, create a transparent system to keep these reps accountable for their actions, and foster policy conversations that eschew irresolvable biases or unhelpful dead-ends. The challenge of making laws may (should?) never see an easy, uncontested resolution in a democratic society, but we are responsible for creating a system where our debates remain fair, inclusive, well-informed, and beneficial for the masses rather than for a select few.