Thoughts on ‘democratically justified bias’

Here’s a thought I had:

To me, the U.S. is very biased.  This bias, though, is of a particular and unique form which, I don’t think, exists anywhere else (though western Europe has similar qualities).  As far as I’m concerned it is rather bazaar and weird.  This is because it is a bias based in political and legal theory and principles.  Normally, any bias has a basis in aspects of human nature and society and the conflicts between the association between people.  This bias, on the other hand, is based in abstract intellectual principles.  In this way, it gives it a unique form and quality often seeming cold, distant, and detached.  It primarily uses democratic principles as its basis which is why I call this bias ‘democratically justified bias’.  Its main manifestation is to favor certain people in the name of democratic principles, such as minorities and females, and still calling it “equality”.  It is really a “politically justified inequality that pretends to be equality”.  What has always bothered me about it is that it professes to be democratic and “equal” when its not.  In this way, its a hyprocrisy and a lie.  In this way, “equality is not equality” and is, in actuality, a from of inequality.  Its for this reason that I have always emphasized a need for “fairness”, not “equality” (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘myth of equality’ – the need for “fairness”“).   Not only that, I think “fairness” is more reflective of what is meant by “equality” as well as the basic spirit of democracy and many other social governments and institutions.

A good example of ‘democratically justified bias’ are remarks some black people said at the Academy Awards.  Apparently, there were no black people nominated.  This, of course, must be “racist” or something like that (remember, we’re in the U.S. so everything has malicious intent).  They complained about it and said that black people “should” of been nominated.  So are they saying that we are supposed to nominate people because of who they are (in this case, black people) whether they deserve it or not?  I remarked that what we ought to do is to determine the percentage of the people in the society (so much for white people, so much for oriental people, so much for black people, etc.) and the number of awards given out should be according to their percentage in the population.  Of course, this is a joke but this thinking is very descriptive of how ‘democratically justified bias’ works . . . that people should be favored for who they are whether its deserved or not.

This bias is primarily a result of conditions created during the cold war, particularly in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  The social, and political, problems of the cold war era caused the use (or, rather, abuse) of the idea of democracy in the U.S.  Democracy began to be cited much like the Bible was quoted in the past, for just about every cause and situation.  A person could mold it anyway they wanted.  As a result of this tendency, the principles of democracy were distorted and warped to fit a persons situation and “cause”.  In this way, democracy, much like the Bible, was undermined . . . a person could interpret it and twist it anyway they wanted.  In this way, ‘democratically justified bias’ actually began an undermining and slow destroying of democracy.

The conditions of its creation – the cold war – also gave this point of view a very sinister, dark, malicious, and serious character.  To put it simply, the environment which caused the ‘democratically justified bias’ is one of “the world is about to end” (namely, the panic of WWIII).  Because of this, the ‘democratically justified bias’ has attitudes closely associated with this.  One could say that, because of this, the ‘democratically justified bias’ tends to be dark and can become paranoid at times.  This has caused things such as:

  • Things are made out worse than they are.
  • Things are exaggerated.
  • Abuses are invented.
  • People are needlessly and innocently accused and villanized.
  • An assumption that things are done for malicious, dark, and terrible motives.

In this way, ‘democratically justified bias’ tends to cause social tension and problems between people.  In fact, I’m inclined to think it has actually caused a lot of problems between people these past 40 years.  This is rather ironic as it professes to prevent it.

The victim of this bias is actually made up of different groups of people, not just a single group.  This seems to depend on the situation.  Common groups of people include:

  • The white American male.
  • White people (or, rather, people of European descent).
  • The male.
  • Anyone in authority.

We see a pattern here as it all refers to the traditional or established power structure of the society.  In fact, the ‘democratically justified bias’ amounts to an attempt at excluding the traditional or established power structure in society.  This exclusion is done in ways such as:

  • By decreasing the power and influence of these groups of people.
  • By criminalizing, villainizing, and accusing of these groups of people.
  • By favoring people that are not in this group.

In these ways, it causes the exclusion of the founders, creators, and maintainers of the society in favor of people who do not do these functions.  In this way, it favors people who, in a sense, “haven’t done anything”.  One could compare it to a company that gets rid of its management system and puts the assembly line worker in their place.  Doing things, such as these, tends to cause things like:

  • An upsetting of conditions.
  • A confusion.
  • An ineffectiveness.

In short, things don’t work as well.  In this way, ‘democratically justified bias’ has caused a impairment of society.  I’ve often felt that what kept the U.S. going is that it has become an inhuman system of machines, policies, laws, etc.  If this were a purely human society the ‘democratically justified bias’ may of had drastic consequences for this society, in my opinion (more than likely, though, if this had happened something would of happened to reverse its effects).  I have repetitively watched this society put the “wrong” people in positions of influence just because of “who they are” (usually, minority and females).  I watched many white American males, especially, who were more than competent pushed to the side and given various false “reasons” why they weren’t qualified.  Watching this year after year has devastated my belief in this country and what it “professes”.

In some respects, ‘democratically justified bias’ is something like an “attack” on the traditional or established power structure as it tends to undermine and devalue it.  Some of the effects it has caused include:

  • A fall of the power of authority.
  • A fall of the image and faith in authority.
  • A fall of morality, right and wrong, etc.
  • A fall of social structure.

In this way, ‘democratically justified bias’ has, in effect, caused an undermining and deterioration of society as a whole.  In its wake has appeared a society that is fragmented, disconnected and, on the human level, broken down.  One could almost say it has caused a “lost society”.  Look at American society since its appearance!

Another reason why it has caused an undermining of society is that it tries to make a political system a way of life, as a guide to how life should be lived and practiced.  Political theory, though, is wholly insufficient for this (see my article “Thoughts on how political theories do NOT reflect human life – the insufficiency of political theory as a model for human life“).  This attempt at making a “political-based lifestyle” has only undermined this society (or any society for that matter).

I once said that living in America is like watching things like these:

  • We must give everything we have away to people who don’t have it.
  • We must let other people (foreigners, minorities, etc.) have their way.
  • We cannot say anything bad about the problems other people (foreigners, minorities, etc.) cause, or anyone else for that matter.  They, though, can say bad things about us.
  • We are blamed accused, villanized, etc. for problems these other people may cause.  They, on the other hand, get no blame.
  • We end up paying the bill for other people.

These all amount to “I must suffer for other people”.  This attitude is Christian in origin.  This is not surprising as much of the basis of the ‘democratically justified bias’ actually has origins in Christianity, showing the hidden influences of Christianity in this society.  Some Christian qualities it embodies, which are seen above, include:

  • The idea of self denial (such as that we must pay for everything and be villanized for saying anything bad).
  • The idea of “the last shall be first” (such as how foreignors, minorities, etc. are favored).
  • The idea of “people first” (this becomes the basis for democratic thought).

Many of these ideas are prevalent in the idea of democracy.  This is not surprising as democracy is really “Christianity turned into a political system”.  Because of this, Christian belief and attitude permeates democratic thought.

Personally, I consider these points of views an abuse of the general population of America.  This is primarily because Christian attitudes have become political and legal policies.  Its like making “I must suffer for other people” a law that everyone must practice.  The U.S. government, for example, spends billions of the taxpayers money on other countries without asking the people, often justified by the Christian idea of charity . . . billions of the peoples money have been squandered.  The legal system, for example, can allow me to be sued just for saying something bad about someone else (such as a minority) though if they say the same thing about me no one cares.  Where’s the “equality” there?  In much of the mentality of the ‘democratically justified bias’ the theme of “I must suffer for other people” is there.  Anyone who knows anything about older Christian dogma, though, knows that the “I must suffer for other people” must be a voluntary act to be useful.  I must choose to do it.  This is “free choice”.  Making it a political and legal policy takes that away and, in so doing, makes it invalid and worthless.  Now its just something forced upon us.

I, being a white American male, has seen much of this bias.  I’ve talked to many other white American males who mentioned it.  In fact, its widely known.  Its something, though, that is “known but not mentioned”.   Contrary to the tenants of ‘democratically justified bias’, which seems to say that white American males have all this favoritism, I have seen little, if any, favoritism to me as a white American male.  To me, its been the other way around.  Any favoritism that there is seems to be is a result of the fact that I’m part of the group that created most everything.  In this way, I “fit in” easier.  This is because I was brought up with the attitudes, knowledge, and such that tends to “favor” me (interestingly, most of these seem based in attitudes of western intellectual tradition).  I see little evidence of me being favored purely “because I’m white American male”.  In reality, it seems, to me, that I have had to fight for many things in life, as much as anyone else.

I’m particularly offended by these things:

  • How we are villanized and blamed.
  • How we are excluded, restricted, or prevented from doing things.

To me, these are wholly unjustified.  I’m not the only one who has said that “we have become the scapegoats for this societies problems”.  This seems a result of ‘democratically justified bias’.  In some respects, ‘democratically justified bias’ is rooted in the villanizing, blaming, and accusation of the white American male.  Its this that gives it its power in this country.  One reason for this is that the white male (or the male who is descended from Europeans) is what built this country and, accordingly, is in the position of influence.  When the problems appeared, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, guess who was in the position of influence to be blamed . . . the white American male.  Because of this, the image of the white American male becomes the person to blame, the scapegoat.  In this way, ‘democratically justified bias’ is rooted in making the white American male a scapegoat.

Here are several articles I wrote that describe some observations I’ve made:

Thoughts on my statement: “My whole life in America is learning that I’m never good enough” – the addiction to charisma – this describes how I never seem to be good enough or “qualified” to do anything.

Some thoughts on why I consider the U.S. a fallen country – denying its own people – this shows how I was denied entry into the U.S. Army because I was a white American male.

My introduction to the working world . . . – this describes how a teacher told us guys that we were worthless and “out dated” because he favored females.

What’s particularly unnerving about the observations described in the articles above is that they are from my own people!  In this way, we can see that ‘democratically justified bias’ is self-destructive, that the people who practice it use it against their own people and society.  In so doing, they destroy themselves with it.  In some respects, I have become a victim of my own people.

Because of the orientation of ‘democratically oriented bias’ is between different groups of people (male/female, white/black, etc., as established in the 1960’s and 1970’s) we do not see that it is actually a problem within a people.  More specifically, it is a problem of white people (that is, European descended) whose society and culture is based in Christianity.  Because of this, there is a tendency for them to use Christian based attitudes and to identify their own people with these attitudes.  As a result, we all get dragged into it . . . “I must suffer for other people” whether I want to or not.  The threat, then, is not with other people but my own people . . . “we are our own worst enemies”. 

As to whether ‘democratically justified bias’ has helped things I can’t say.  I’m sure it has done some good things.  To me, though, it seems to of caused more problems than it solved.  The people who tend to favor this point of view tend to justify it more based on ideological reasons than actual facts.  What I mean by this is that people are mesmorized by its ideal and idealism than by what it actually does.  As a result, that is what they focus on, its image.  Many of these people don’t see what its actually doing, or not doing.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Government and politics, The effects of WWII, the Nazi's, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War era protests, The U.S. and American society and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s