Watching as things in Washington become increasingly more surreal, I’ve been doing a lot of “spitballing” with friends — from various stages and different industries of my life.
We discuss what each of us thinks is a reasonable outcome in the latest attempts to “reset” the country.
Fear, for example, is seldom an indicator of long-term success. Start telling me “bad things will be happening” if I don’t do something, and the skeptical me takes over the conversation. Expect hard questions. I’m an optimist but accept nothing as indisputable without proof.
It’s getting harder to put a positive face on lots of things I see. Especially when I know the amount of media “spin” being applied to facts. Spin comes from both sides. And truth most usually lies in the middle of the opposite spins. The almost qualifier is in play these days, and there are few neutral observers.
In 1947, Kurt Lewin described three phases of changing business culture like he was remaking an ice cube: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. In 1947, that was revolutionary thinking. Today, CATS (changing as three steps) is considered “overly simplistic.” It still works.
Watching the news is like watching Lewin’s change model being applied to our society.
Step one, unfreezing, saw politicians introducing changes “beneficial” to societal subgroups. The whole group isn’t needed. But subgroups can begin the thawing process. Watch how politicians play to voting blocs. They convince those blocs they’re working for their best-interest, then let the blocs do the work going forward.
After locking down that support, moves you on to step two: making the changes.
Step three, the refreeze, means making your “new” the norm going forward.
Sound familiar? If not, reread the headlines and see our constantly being divided against each other.
Ethnic or belief groups are marginalized the same way. They’re progressively marginalized: socially, then economically, and finally, politically.
Political marginalization is “neutering” that group. A more final solution is the outright elimination of the group.
If you look at the world through the lens of a gun owner, this concept should at least be intriguing, if not concerning. I’m well past “concerned” and approaching “alarmed.”
Responsible gun ownership was fundamental in my upbringing.
Owning guns was no big deal. Guns weren’t totems, they were tools. They were plentiful and seldom used for nefarious purposes.
They were sold — legally — in all sorts of places.
My first rifle came from the Snappy Grill in Springfield, Kentucky. It was bought so I could get my Boy Scout merit badge in marksmanship.
My first handgun (also in .22 caliber) came from the Western Auto where I worked after school. I bought it out of my (minimal) wages. My mom was not pleased. She confiscated it until I could demonstrate “sufficient sense” to be trusted with it. I “owned it” another five years before that standard was met.
Society has been thawed/guided away from the idea that “sufficient sense” is enough to allow someone to own a gun. The gun, not the person using it, has been made responsible for the bad actions of both crazies and criminals.
But, you counter, guns can’t do anything by themselves, they are inanimate objects. Doesn’t matter.
In today’s slushy society, guns -and gun owners- have been stigmatized by “change” agents in society.
At my high school, we took our .22s and .410 shotguns to school (locked in the trunks of our cars) during hunting season. Because we planned to go squirrel/rabbit hunting directly from school.
Today, an elementary school student drawing a picture of a gun -or pointing a finger and making a “shooting move” toward other kids is begging for expulsion and/or a ride in a police car.
That’s how much times have changed. Zero tolerance really means intolerance of anything not fitting the new model we are being “thawed” to fit.
Step three of marginalization is political. Think “Ultra MAGA” or “right-wing extremist” or “crazy conspiracy theorist” and you get the idea.
Conservative once meant not supporting spending money you didn’t have. Today, it’s a marginalizing moniker hung on anyone who disagrees with the “liberal” viewpoint.
FYI, “liberal” didn’t use to mean what it means today, either.
We weren’t always in a pitched ideological battle pitting them against us. Liberal/conservative used to simply mean two different philosophical approaches to life.
Liberals and conservatives actually talked — civilly — about their differences.
In Washington, they weighed the merits of both sides; took the things both sides agreed on, and created laws reflecting that common ground. It wasn’t a perfect, but that kind of legislating kept us out of the ditches for a very long time.
Today, the very organizations we once trusted to keep all of us safe from threats “foreign and domestic” are being thawed and refrozen with the new idea that many of us now pose threats to the nation.
Personally, I’m not excited at the thoughts of the FBI, ATF and IRS being beefed up and weaponized for the intent of dealing with a threat that looks a lot like….me?
I no threat, I’m a citizen. Treating me — and the millions of other law-abiding citizens like me — as threats because of what we earn, what we do for recreation or where we live is threatening – to us.
It was explained to me years ago, “that mistaking civility with weakness can have a negative outcome.” Our already thin veneer of civility is starting to show thin spots. But I’ve yet to see any hope that cooler heads will — once again — prevail.
Taking an informational blackout day today. Mental health thing. Recommend it heartily.
As always, we’ll keep you posted.
— Jim Shepherd
Read the original article in its entirety at theoutdoorwire.com.
Leftists want Civil Discourse, ala “trolls”.
Theyre the ones who argue & when U offer other they CANT WONT respond