Bullying and Politics

Bullying and Politics

Bullying has always been deeply engrained in political institutions like most other institutions. In democratic countries, bullying works at a more subtle level than in dictatorships. It tends to be more in the form of "spin" rather than "propaganda". There was a recent case where the UK government attempted to gag and bully a government funded anti-bullying group by insisting that it sticks to a narrow remit and not criticize the government for bullying! "The politics of fear" and "dirty tricks campaigns" are well known political phenomena. It isn't about a class war or war between competing economic systems or civilizations, but a war between types of personality. This cuts across all these other conflicts.

A "war on bullying" or "war on abuse" would be much more worthwhile than a "war on terrorism" but of course politicians won't do it as they are bullies themselves.

 There is a strong belief that leading politicians have a bullying trait to them. These politicians are very thick skinned and can seemingly sustain any level of criticism. They also have an unshakeable belief that what they are doing is right. Politicians are often referred to as a "control freaks" because of these bullying streaks.

 While many politicians may appear to be intelligent with a high IQ, they are frequently incompetent and use their bullying ways to cover up this incompetence by shifting the blame for their failures onto others. They frequently make serious mistakes as they perform their duties and functions.

  The real problem with many politicians and other people in positions of power is that their Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is probably low. This may be why EQ has not become mainstream yet. EQ may be seen as a threat to leaders whose low EQ would become exposed. Also they may have problems relating to EQ.

 Measures such as Anti-social Behavior Orders are always going to have limited effectiveness. Anti-social behavior is caused by deep-rooted social attitudes and EQ training should specifically address these issues.

 Stop the presses, Politicians are liars

 So politicians are liars, next you’re going to give shocking news like; a week has seven days, two plus two is four, or cheesecake is fattening. Of course politicians are liars.

Is one party more dishonest than another a difficult question? Each party makes promises, promises to lower taxes, make government more accountable, and reduce crime and so on. Once in power, the politician enjoys immunity from prosecution and can do anything they want. Promises are forgotten and spin us used to make lies appear true.

A municipal government may brag that they haven’t increased property tax in many years, but everyone knows that property tax is a percentage of the value of your home, so the tax goes up as the value of your home goes up. A home that was worth $100,000 five years ago may be worth $150,000 today and cost significantly more in property taxes, yet the government will say the tax didn’t go up. The same can be said for income tax. In fact, any tax that is based on a percentage of the value of a product or service is going to go up as the value does. Look at gasoline. The GST is based on its price. Do you think the government isn’t collecting more GST on gasoline today than they did five years ago?

 Politics is the art of determining how organized force is to be used in society. Force is essentially a negative thing. It destroys things and prevents things from happening. Life, however, requires the production of positives-wealth, knowledge, ethical values, social bonds. While politicians, tell the people, oxymoronically, that government can be a force for good, government cannot be such since its only tools are negative-threats, imprisonment, roadblocks, shooting, bombing, strip searches and lethal injection. Politicians continually try to convince people of the truth of a metaphysical impossibility: that violence and the threat of violence can produce wealth, peace, happiness and social harmony.

 Abraham Maslow said, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail”

 There is one thing government is good at; creating conflict. Government is good at conflict because conflict creates destruction, not production. Production is hard; destruction is easy. It takes intelligence and leadership to be productive.

 “Great planning and thinking is needed to build a house; any idiot can blow it up in seconds”

 If you gave a politician truth serum and asked him what he did for a living, he would quote Tolstoy:

"I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me and assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means – except by getting off his back." James Ostrowski attorney.

 Politicians and why people don’t vote

 Why people don’t vote or vote for the same person can be described in one phrase “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”

 We have all experienced the visit of a politician at our home or a phone call interrupting our supper during an election. The visits and calls come once or twice a week until the election. Each call or visit usually contains questions about what we need to see or hear before we will vote for them. No matter what we ask for, we are usually told that everything will be better if we vote for them. Promises are made, commitments are made and assurances that after the election, should they win, they will be back to talk about and fix the problem. It all sounds great and would be if it were true. The only problem is the fact that the politician will do the same thing at the next house and the next. In other words, everyone is promised everything. After the election, it will be the very rare person who actually comes back. The rest will forget they even talked to you a few minutes after they leave your home. Once elected, the politician will do what ever they want, regardless of what they said because they know that they can’t be touched for at least 4 years.

 Just like Jean Chretien got elected with his promised to get rid of the GST and Stephen Harper got elected with his promise not to tax Income Trusts, and your local councilor or Reeve may have gotten elected by promising to shut down that neighbor’s home business from hell. A lie is a lie. But there is a bright side. Jean Chretien, after being elected could have said he needed to raise the GST to 10%, Stephen Harper could have decided to raised all taxes including Income Trusts and your local councilor or Reeve could have taken away your rights instead of doing nothing.

 Because politicians can’t be trusted, can’t be held accountable, and can cause lots of damage, people will either vote for an existing politician or not vote at all. It’s sad when people seem happy that a politician keeps his election promise to do nothing.

 Bad Decisions for good reasons (politics of dead children)

 Politicians frequently make bad decisions based on what is popular instead of what’s proper. When it comes to bullying, politicians know all to well that many bullies are popular, and have popular parents that bully. These politicians know that doing anything to prevent bullying will enrage the parents and could set off a series of protests that could cost the politicians their careers.  Because of this, politicians find themselves in a difficult position. Should they practice prevention or should they wait until proof exists that bullying is a problem?

 Daycares are a serious source of bullying, but daycares are also in short supply and people want more daycares not fewer daycares, people want cheaper daycares not expensive daycares and people want fewer rules for daycares not more rules.  Imagine what would happen if our government suddenly enforced all the rules surrounding daycares and introduced new rules to protect children both at the daycare and living next to the daycare. Imagine if rules were introduced to ensure that daycares taught children respect for neighbors rights, taught them that trespassing was wrong and that other people have a right to privacy and a peaceful existence and that neighbors have a right to the best possible quality of life and not have to deal with excessive traffic and noise. People needing daycares would cry foul and accuse the government of over reacting. Parents would demand that the rules be removed, that there is no proof that the changes are needed. Opposition party members would jump on the band wagon and promise to remove the excessive rules if they were elected. For the ruling party, nothing good would happen and they would become very unpopular and would be forced to justify something that that is designed to prevent problems that haven’t happened. Because of this, governments will make all kinds of impressive noise. They will introduce “zero tolerance policies”, “bully-free zones", more acts and by-laws, all done for photo opportunities and publicity with no real substance or chance of enforcement. Parental demands for more daycare space have caused the government to look the other way when complaints of bullying are made and frequently use fake investigations to silence the victims.

 But what if a child was bullied to death at a daycare, what if a child was run over and killed by a car as he tried to get away from bullies at the daycare? What if a neighbor’s child was run over and killed in his own driveway by parents using it to turn around to go to the daycare? Suddenly, the same parents that would condemn the government for overreacting would demand an inquiry. They would want to know if the same thing could happen to their children and what the government was going to do to prevent the same tragedy from happening again. Now the government could do anything they wanted and suddenly every action would be seen as a positive move and very popular, no one would protest. The government would say they were doing things to prevent another death and everyone would cheer them on for doing the exact same things that would have gotten condemnation without a dead child. Everyone would be happy except for the parents and family of the dead child. But to the government, it’s just one dead child, a couple of voters, no one of any importance.

 What if?

You were a politician and were asked to make a decision and 20 families were involved. 12 of the 20 families would be very happy if you said yes to the decision, 7 families couldn’t care one way or the other because the decision wouldn’t affect them, but one family would be devastated. A yes decision would destroy their quality of life, put their children in serious danger, and introduce the potential for vandalism and harassment. What would you decide?

 There are so many political commentators who write in newspapers giving their solutions to criminality. They have nearly all been tried and failed. Isn't it time to try something new and crack down systematically on anti-social behavior and therefore reduce crime as well?