As I watched the daily political drama unfold my brain started wondering where the phrase “Mexican standoff” originated. So of course I went straight to Google and there I found the following definition:
“A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between two or more parties in which no participant can proceed or retreat without being exposed to danger. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it. The Mexican standoff is a recurring trope in cinema, where several armed characters hold each other at gunpoint.”
Very interesting. It’s also a physics law, hence the blog title, but the result is lack of movement. This is where the following two parts of this definition stand out: “which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it” and “where several armed characters hold each other at gunpoint.” It’s actually more than interesting, it describes what has been occurring in our country for a long time. Our two-party system has been in a Mexican standoff during the last six decades and there is no end in sight. And, as a result, our country spins in perpetual neutral with minimalist four-year policy changes. Until now that is.
Now we are seeing major policy shifts, e.g. immigration, foreign relations (think Russia), and transgender rights, that are policy positions with which the majority of Americans disagree. Despite 45’s claim that most Americans agree with these policies–yet another alternative fact from this delusional man–the real facts demonstrate that Americans do not want these policies. Just look at the crowds around the country who are storming into town halls and berating politicians for their radical right-wing policy positions. We have not seen this volume of Americans take to the streets to protest our government’s actions since the 70s. Back then most Americans were against the war, for equal rights and for reproductive freedom. Now here we are again fighting over the same policies. Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me.
Let’s look at the definition again, specifically the part that asserts the standoff continues until an outside event makes it possible to resolve it. What outside event(s) could resolve it? Obviously the four-year party power shifts influence the two conflicted sides, but it never resolves the conflict. One side gets some of what they want and then we flip back to the other party who reverses the policies. The end result is that neither side is completely happy for long and we return to neutral growth and change. As I’ve chanted ad nauseum, doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Perhaps this is one of many reasons other countries resent us. We talk a big game but the predictable end game is small ball.
It seems that the only way to make the vast majority of Americans happy is to have two separate systems, not a two-party system. Yes, I’m still promoting a national divorce, and I hope you are seeing the larger dysfunctional picture. And if you’re not, just turn on coverage of the CPAC conference and listen to the conservative rhetoric and praise for 45. It’s truly nauseating. Folks, this is the other party, and we will never come to agreement or permanent compromise. The political pendulum will keep moving a tad to the right and then a tad to the left. California is seeing the big picture and momentum is growing for their secession movement. Yes, there are hurdles for them to overcome that may not allow them to secede; but alas, there is always strength in numbers. And if other blue states start thinking bigger we may finally stop the insanity. Think big folks, and think sanity.
Do You Know the Muppet Man? 