“Boredom”

[ndrosen]

I remember, decades ago, reading at least parts of a book by Paul Johnson, in the form of a series of dictionary-like entries at greater or lesser length, including “Boredom,” which he called an insufficiently recognized factor in human events. People rebel, or engage in other disorderly activities, partly because they’re bored. (I hope that my brief paraphrase is not too far from what the author actually wrote.)

It occurs to me that this is at least a partial explanation for what has happened in the United States of America over the past decade. Voters got bored choosing among a bunch of senators and governors, who, whatever their shortcomings, were at least reasonably well informed about public affairs and how the government operated, and instead elected a grifter and reality TV star who entertained them. Some second rate intellectuals and would-be thought leaders got bored with constitutional government, conventional leftism, responsible conservatism, and classical liberalism, and instead came up with the Dark Enlightenment. For some minds, it’s a lot more fun, at least so long as they don’t actually have to live under it (under it, as opposed to on top of it). Some people would rather be subjects of a king or Caesar than citizens of a functioning republic with due process of law; at least it’s a change of pace, and lets them own the libs.

I wish that I had a good solution to the problem, and could get people to gratify their itch for something new by reading a new kind of book, listening to a new style of music, visiting a distant country with different landscapes, food, and architecture, or something of the sort, while treating politics and their civic responsibilities with proper gravitas. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to accomplish this, and, so long as the human race is what it is, there may not be a good answer.

Comments

[selenite0]

I suspect rather than boredom, it's that none of the governors and senators were willing to seriously offer the voters what they wanted (a major reduction in the number of illegal immigrants present in the country). There'd been promises of that followed by failure to deliver, going back to ex-governor Reagan. If the borders had been controlled for the past few decades, I'm sure Trump would still be hosting his own TV show.

Note that this isn't a US-only problem. France and Britain are seeing non-establishment political parties surging over the same issue.

[ndrosen]

Fair enough, I’m not saying that boredom was the sole cause, but a responsible and well-informed citizen would likely have said, “No, even if I agree with Trump about X, he is appallingly ignorant, and grossly unethical. Such a man cannot be trusted with the presidency.”

I also recall from online discussions MAGAts claiming that under Biden, we had open borders, which was not the case.

Furthermore, when it comes to hardcore alt-right types, I don’t think they’d be satisfied with a relatively normal politician who took a firm position against illegal immigration. Their ideology goes beyond that.

[selenite0]

I've never voted for Trump. But telling anyone who cries "asylum" "Okay, you can come in, you'll just have to see a judge at some future date" is a close enough to open borders that it matches my definition.

[ndrosen]

You have a point, but I remember online discussions in which people reported that more aliens were being deported under Biden than had been under Trump; there was an effort to enforce the laws. There is a distinction between permitting entry by more people than a large segment of the population wants to be allowed in, or by the wrong sort of people, and having actual open borders.