The Theatre of the Absurd is a dramatic genre that developed in Europe after World War II. It was particularly popular in France and was characterized by its exploration of the human condition through illogical and nonsensical scenarios. Characters were placed in meaningless situations, addressing the perceived absurdity and inherent lack of meaning in human existence.
If anything can be described as absurd with nonsensical scenarios, our current political theatre fits the playbill. Existential confusion exists within the deep polarization on both sides of the aisle as people feel they are caught in a deepening vortex of conflict without resolution. Our expanding division over issues such as immigration, healthcare, the economy, and national debt are discussed only as problems, and any discussion of resolution is meaningless rhetoric. Much like the theatre of the absurd, there is a complete breakdown of logical discourse.
The rise of misinformation, echo chambers of partisan gossip, and the fracturing of common ground are commonplace. Political speech seems disconnected from any shared reality. Tweets, soundbites, slogans, and name-calling serve to further polarize the nation, not illuminate it.
But perhaps that’s the point. What if it is all just a distraction to better serve a more simplistic goal? What if that goal is to enrich an elite group of lawmakers and the wealthy who support them in their objective of wealth accumulation? Now that is beginning to make some sense of absurdity. Political gridlock serves a purpose. We can’t get you “X” so you have to take what we give you. Accept your role in all of this, tighten your belts, and eventually you will see why this is the best outcome.
If politicians share a common skill, it is their ability to “spin” something distasteful in a way to make it seem more palatable. The metaphorical “don’t piss on me and telling me it is raining” is an expression that rejects the spin and calls out the lie. It would seem that far too many citizens are willing to accept the “warm yellow rain” theory if they are blinded by some other hatred or prejudice.
The only clear objective in the current “Big Beautiful Bill” is to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy, increase the national debt, and pay for some of it with cuts to social safety net programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP (aka food stamps). Cuts to the Department of Education don’t hurt the wealthy, their kids are in private schools now subsidized with tax dollars. The tax cuts for those making under $35k will be around $150 [less than 1%] while cuts for those making over $200k will be around $12,500 [6.25%]. That latter group will be getting about 60% of the total tax cut benefits. Those making over $1.1M will get about 25% of the total cut benefits. The SALT or State and Local Tax deduction in the new bill expressly benefits those making between $200k and $500k in states like New York, New Jersey, and California.
Politicians have mastered the art of opposing a bill publicly while voting for it. Lisa Murkowski, for instance, found her vote to be crucial in this very tight conflict and obtained a “carve-out” exemption for Alaska. She then expressed her dislike for the bill in interviews after voting for it. Now that is a curveball that Clayton Kershaw would envy.
How can the current administration convince the people in the Republican strongholds of Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alaska that deep cuts to the Medicare benefits enjoyed by over 25% of their populations, is a good thing. It takes a special skill to rob the poor, give to the rich, and convince the poor that they are now better off. Now that is absurd.
No comments:
Post a Comment