When Concern for a Cause is Confused with Concern for One's Politics
There are times Americans will hear a statement they agree with regarding how to make a better society--but then these individuals will respond by disagreeing with the message.
Today has been one of those times.
A message offered this morning is, itself, extraordinary: Donald Trump declared that the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East has been a disaster, with countless dollars and lives lost. He actually called it, "THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY!"
It's no surprise Trump would make any declaration a bombastic one. But over decades of debate about this issue, even presidents who've come out against such military involvement have made only modest reductions in these areas, always seeming to change their tune once elected. And certainly no president in recent memory has ever made as clear an anti-militarism statement as Trump did.
Getting back to the American people, Trump's expressed sentiment has long been a rallying cry for liberals and libertarians. I can remember liberal-leaning outlets like The Daily Show poking fun at the U.S.'s Middle East policy, how it was all an occupation for oil. And countless other citizens cried out against Bush's war in Iraq with yard signs and at protests and campaign rallies.
But because Trump is such a decisive, hated figure, many anti-Trump people on Twitter, who would normally agree with what he declared, have been replying with scorn...
A powerful aspect of the internet has been its way of bringing to the surface the emotion-laden motives of peoples' beliefs--the degree to which ideology (not one's principles) determines a stance. And so, because the ideology (belief system) of many is simply "anti-Trump", they're now declaring their support for American involvement in the Middle East. Just scroll down his twitter feed and read hundreds of them.
Many are doing so by suddenly expressing concern for the Kurdish people there, who are now in harm's way without American military protection. This sudden concern is a manifestation of this psychological-emotional phenomenon: Using the suffering of others as fuel to continue promoting one's ideology--in this case, using the harm coming to the Kurds to enable an anti-Trump position.
The primary concern in these situations is the political stance. Not the lives affected. The motive behind it is to appease one's insecurity and feel worthwhile, righteous, or even morally superior. Or, it's an excuse to lash out and express dormant desires of aggression--whether in the act of protesting or simply in the desire to see your target "pay".
It is twisted to use another's tragedy to bolster such a self-centered desire. But to be fair, most aren't aware this is happening. It's hard to detect this motive within oneself, as anger is justifiable when there is tragedy. (The question is: Why the anger?) Thus, we see this all the time. It's why we see a death at the hands of an illegal immigrant deemed more important to conservatives than a death at the hands of a citizens. It's why we see a white-on-black death being more important than a black-on-black murder to a liberal-thinker.
So, the lessons today are:
- In trying to get a point across, the messenger is often more important than the message--why Trump being the one to give the statement above is the sole reason many people are angry about it.
- Be mindful of your intentions when getting riled up politically. Are you upset because you feel for others' suffering? Or is your ego just taking you for a ride and making this about you--your attachments to a cause, your hope to be noticed, or your excitement in being angry about something?
In short, it's easy to let our fears outmatch our love as motivation for our thoughts and actions.
Read Trump's tweets here: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648