On Vonnegut and the Future

Hmm... so many interesting topics (well, 3) and so little time to write. Well, let's see. Imus can probably wait another day, as can Nifong.

Ok, so anyway. Yesterday we lost one of the great novelists of our time, one Kurt Vonnegut. But why am I mentioning this in a political correctness blog? Well, besides the fact that it's nice to remember those who have passed, I wanted to write for a bit about one of his works, Harrison Bergeron. This short story is probably the most influential to me in terms of the way I view society and in a larger part the way I think in general. It can be read here, so go read that before continuing if you haven't before, or even if you have. It's a quick read. I can wait.

...

Ok, everyone back? Good. I think Bergeron as well as Richard Bachman's (AKA Stephen King's) The Running Man, and to a lesser extent, Bachman/King's The Long Walk are perhaps the most poignant reading out there, in terms of the way our society is headed. Obviously, Bergeron is a worst-case scenario type book, and even I have my doubts that we'll get that far. But, think about it. Isn't that kind of where we are headed? People (*cough*dems*cough*) are tripping over themselves trying to make everyone 'equal', when any fool can see that people are NOT equal in all respects. Yes, people should be equal in terms of rights, but in terms of ability and status, no. That's kind of what our entire social system is based on. But more an more, we see things like 'No Child Left Behind,' where we can at ourselves on the back because the stupid kids are keeping up better, but nobody thinks about the smart ones, the ones that should be leading the country someday, and how they aren't given the opportunity to live up to their potential. What's worse, realizing that some kids aren't going to go to college and get skilled positions even if we pander to them, or stunting the growth of the best and brightest?

Which brings me back to Bergeron. Once we start pandering to one group, where does it end? Do we start making allowances for, say, weak people, as in the story? Do we say, these stronger people are leaving these weaker ones behind, we should hamper the strong so that the weak can keep up and feel better about themselves? Or how about the rich? Do we punish them for being more successful than a person who lives on the street? Is this a direction we as a people want our society to take? The basis of economy is based on skill and social structure. Some people are smarter than others, they get better jobs. Some people are richer than others, they own businesses and employ those from lower classes. It's the way capitalism works. But for some reason, it seems that some parties in the government *cough* are taking the curious approach of shifting us ever so slightly towards communism. And we all know how that turns out.