Kate's Six Principles of History

Election Day is nearing. And I've become aware--all over again--of how much I dislike political rhetoric. Seriously, if you want to persuade me to do something, just send over your opposition to hammer me with rhetoric.

I'm not completely susceptible to reverse psychology, and I'm not completely immune to well-reasoned arguments, but the argument, "But this must happen or society will fall to pieces" has never, ever succeeded in convincing me to do anything (no matter which way the pieces are supposed to crumble).

My reaction is, to a degree, based on my study of history. Here's what I believe about history. Some of these things may seem contradictory, and, well, they are (superficially), but they all happen to be true (I think), so contradiction smontradiction, I still believe in them all:

1. Individuals do make a difference. An Abraham Lincoln or a Marie Curie can change the course of future events.

2. Society survives because ordinary people get up and go to work . . .

. . . or whatever they are supposed to do. Politicians do not enable societies to survive. England went through the War of the Roses, the Tudors (Henry VII, Henry VIII, those kids who lasted two seconds, Catholic Mary, Protestant Elizabeth, not to mention the Spanish Armada, and whatdoyaknow, England (part of Britain now) is still there. And it's still there because people got up and tilled fields or baked bread or sharpened swords or mined or traded or had babies or whatever. If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been much of anything for the politicians to "save".

3. The world has been slated to end many, many times. It hasn't yet.

In case no one noticed.

When I was growing up, the world was supposed to end when the Soviet Union nuked us. There was even that movie on television--The Day After--and everything.

It didn't happen.

4. If the world ends, it will be in a way no one imagined.

Call it the Black Swan effect--but it's true. When the Holocaust was going on, survivors and witnesses coming out of Europe told the British and U.S. authorities about the camps. They weren't believed. This has been put down to antisemitism, and that was a factor, but I don't think it was the only factor. The Holocaust was simply not imaginable. It was nothing that anyone had anticipated; therefore, it was nothing that anyone could imagine being true. Call it a failsafe device to the human capacity to suffer mentally. We can think up atrocities, but we can't anticipate them.

Not to mention, we can't even anticipate less horrific things--like the weather or the stock market.

5. Paranoia never did anyone any good.

Which means that expecting the world to end in THIS PARTICULAR WAY THAT FREAKS ME OUT isn't very helpful. Historically speaking, it's hard to get anything done when people think that THIS ONE PROGRAM/PIECE OF LEGISLATURE/DESIRED OUTCOME must or mustn't happen, otherwise, the human race should toss in the proverbial towel. Such thinking tends to make said people somewhat irrational and a tad on the non-constructive side when they don't get what they want.

6. On the other hand, sometimes things are over.

This is actually a problem that fascinates me since there's no one right answer. There are times when it is right for a country to have a revolutionary war, and there are times when it is dead wrong. There are times when it is acceptable for a couple to divorce and times when it is callous and cruel. There are times when it is right for someone to leave a job and times when it is a really bad idea. There are times when it is right to say, "Continuing in this direction must stop now," and times when such a statement is simply hubris.

My general rule of thumb--which is why, probably, I am a more conservative than liberal Libertarian--is that it is usually hubris, and if it's not, the people involved should be very, very, very careful. So careful, in fact, that time might actually solve the problem!

American Revolution = good idea
French Revolution = not so much

All this is to say that if someone approaches me and says, "You MUST do this right now or everything will unravel!!" I tend to go, "Ye-ah, right there, what you said, that's a good reason for me not to believe you."

When I get it from both sides, I either sit the issue out or vote my gut, I-just-can't-vote-any-other-way reaction. (Example: Maine had an anti-bear hunting ordinance up a few years ago. I'm not a big hunting fan, and I think trapping bears is kind of mean and not very sportsmanlike; I have this Medieval idea that hunting should involve horses and dogs and javelins, not rifles with infrared devices. On the other hand, a lot of Mainers are pro-hunting, and a lot of Mainers, especially upstate, make their living off of hunters, including bear hunters. The ordinance would have hurt them badly, particularly since the anti-bear-hunters are mostly the same people against bringing industrial jobs to Maine. So I couldn't decide. I got in the booth, and every piece of 19th century literature about high and mighty lords sending poachers to prison to preserve their lovely estates popped into my head, and I voted for the poachers--I mean, hunters.)