Is There Something Magical in the Air?
Or are we experiencing toxic positivity
“Something wonderfully magical is in the air, isn’t it? … We’re feeling it here in this arena, but it’s spreading all across this country we love. A familiar feeling that’s been buried too deep for far too long.” — Michelle Obama, from her speech at the Democratic National Convention
No, Michelle, there is nothing magical in the air. Our country is being led down a road paved not with yellow bricks, but with lies. We will end up in the land of OZ, with a President as fake as the man in OZ behind the curtain.
TOXIC POSITIVITY:
Toxic positivity is the belief that people should maintain a positive mindset no matter how dire or difficult a situation is. While there are benefits to being optimistic and engaging in positive thinking, toxic positivity rejects all difficult emotions in favor of a cheerful and often falsely positive façade.
The "positive vibes only" mantra can be particularly grating during intense personal distress. When people are coping with situations such as financial troubles, job loss, illness, or the loss of a loved one, being told that they need to look on the bright side can seem downright cruel. (link)
It’s easy to look on the bright side when things are going good for you.
You may be facing surgery, but have an optimistic attitude because you have good health insurance coverage, and your surgery will be performed by a top-notch surgeon in a well-equipped hospital setting.
The person who requires that same surgery, but who has been anxiously waiting for months to see a surgeon, and who knows that after the surgery he will be faced with bankruptcy due to his medical bills, would be hard-pressed to find that same optimistic attitude.
And, even if he can tune into his “positive vibes,” his surgery may still result in a poorer outcome because he has to return to work immediately, and will get less sleep, and most likely poorer nutrition than the person who doesn’t have the same financial burdens.
Sorry, Michelle, there is no magic in the air. Positive vibes will not cure our country’s woes. In fact, they will just make the reality of “coming down” after the elections even harder.
I do believe in good vibrations in the universe. The strongest positive vibration we can tune into is the vibration of love. And true love is never false.
True love is about facing the bad times with courage and compassion for our fellow human beings. It’s not about pretending that a positive attitude is the cure for all our problems.
The person living on the street doesn’t feel the magic in the air. He is hungry, and often suffers from addiction, and is not even acknowledged by most people who pass him.
If we lived in a society that was truly embraced in positive vibes, our hearts would direct us to vote for a candidate who was promoting peace instead of war. For as long as we keep spending more than half of our tax dollars on military expenses, there will be no help for that person living on the streets.
Spending for war means not funding climate initiatives, universal healthcare, and infrastructure repairs.
For what the U.S. spent on our military during the 9/11 wars, we could have invested in a fully renewable national electric grid to slow the effects of climate change — nearly four times over.
Likewise, road, rail, and air traffic safety programs show signs of underinvestment, as became apparent during the FAA system outage that grounded thousands of flights, or the toxic threat created by a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.
And many K-12 public schools that are already facing staffing shortages and a student mental health crisis are dependent on federal aid to provide a bulwark against the heavily local, unequal funding provided by cities and states. (link)
Are you worried that less money towards military funding will leave the US less safe?
The Congressional Budget Office found that the U.S. military could achieve $100 billion in savings without changing the country’s national security strategy. The military budget has grown substantially since this estimate, meaning real potential for cuts could be greater.
A Department of Defense study found $125 billion in unnecessary back-office expenses (and the Pentagon buried the report) that could be trimmed.
Even Pentagon leaders have called for divesting from wasteful, ineffective, or dangerous weapons like the F-35 jet fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, and planned reinvestment in nuclear weapons. Savings could reach trillions over the next several decades.
Reduce reliance on contractors, who account for half of the Pentagon budgeteach year. Studies have shown that Pentagon contractors provide the same services at a higher cost than government workers. (link)
Did you hear any speeches about this at the DNC or the RNC conventions? Of course not! The duopoly keeps the MIC (Military-Industrial-Complex) churning along, with some billions of dollars from AIPAC greasing the wheels.
Are there candidates promoting peace in the 2024 presidential election? Yes!
Cornel West. Jill Stein. Claudia de la Cruz.
You’ve been told that third-party candidates can’t win. Well, your vote will very likely not result in a win for these candidates (our current corrupt electoral college system wouldn’t allow it), but your third-party vote will send a message to the duopoly that you are no longer going to support them or their forever wars.
Back in 1970, when the Viet Nam War protesters kept gathering in huge numbers in Washington, DC, buses were placed in a circle around the White House, as President Nixon was that worried that the protesters would breach the White House gates.
In 1971, continued anti-war protests kept the pressure growing.
At the time of the protests, polls showed that 73 percent of the public favored an immediate end to the war, and an astonishing 58 percent believed the war was “morally wrong.” The Spring Offensive aimed to pressure the man in the Oval Office.
There is considerable evidence that the Spring Offensive had a big impact on Nixon. From transcripts of then-secret White House tape recordings, Roberts discloses Nixon’s private thoughts about us: “little bastards,” “animals,” “bums,” “crummy-looking people, the lowest of the low.” For Nixon it was war. He was obsessed with our protests. He received hourly reports on our actions and made all the major, and many of the minor, decisions about how to handle the demonstrations. (link)
What we need in 2024 is a sustained movement of protest (much credit to those who are already doing this). For those who choose not to take to the streets, a very easy way to protest would be to vote for one of the above third-party candidates that are anti-war.
Third-party candidates are not spoilers. Voters have been propagandized by fear, which leads to panicked votes for the lesser of two evils. I don’t believe that a choice between two evils represents freedom. It’s only a choice to choose our enslaver for the next 4 years.
But, what about Trump? Do we want another Trump presidency? Weren’t we told that a vote for Biden in 2020 would get rid up Trump? Yet, here he is again. So, how’s the lesser of two evil things working out?
If you still have questions about voting outside of the duopoly, here’s an informative article by Ralph Nader that describes how his experience as a third-party candidate has informed his views on what needs to happen to encourage societal change:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/ralph-nader-third-party-politics-2024-interview/
Or, you can believe in the fairy tale of ‘magic in the air’, and the fallacy that the continued funding of endless wars will have no lasting effect on our humanity.