Our National Pandemic of Insecurity

Summary

The article discusses the widespread insecurity in the United States, manifesting in various forms such as the need to carry firearms, the rise of militias, political polarization, and the denial of election results.

Abstract

The author of "Our National Pandemic of Insecurity" delves into the pervasive issue of insecurity in American society, which is exemplified by individuals feeling the need to arm themselves excessively, even in everyday settings like Walmart. The piece reflects on the psychological underpinnings of why people, including those from affluent backgrounds, might join militias or engage in tribalistic behavior, suggesting a deep-seated sense of insecurity. It critiques the behavior of political figures who, despite their education and resources, resort to fear-mongering and denial of reality, potentially leading to violent insurrections. The article also touches on the societal implications of this insecurity, such as the infringement on personal freedoms, the resistance to cultural and demographic changes, and the potential for civil unrest. The author calls for a recognition of these issues and a move towards a more secure and stable society.

Opinions

The author implies that carrying assault rifles to public places like Walmart is a sign of deep personal insecurity.
There is a critique of militia members' insecurity, questioning their capability to govern if they were to overthrow the existing government.
The article suggests that even individuals with significant resources and education can exhibit insecurity, leading to regressive and tribalistic behavior.
The author expresses bewilderment at the inability of some to accept election outcomes, linking this to a profound sense of insecurity.
There is a suggestion that the need to display military-grade weapons in political advertisements is rooted in insecurity.
The piece criticizes the Republican Party's stance on various social issues, including women's rights, immigration, and voting rights, as indicative of a broader cultural insecurity.
The author questions the masculinity and security of those who oppose gay marriage and other expressions of diversity.
The article points out the irony in members of Congress feeling the need to arm themselves within the legislative chamber, indicating a lack of security in their roles.
There is a comparison drawn between the insecurity-driven actions in the U.S. and the aggressive tactics of Russia in Ukraine, suggesting both are futile and counterproductive.
The author challenges the Democratic Party to confront the insecurities within American society more assertively.

The “Benjamin Button” Militia goes to Washington

Illustration by BSIENKART (with permission by artist)

It is a terrible thing to be insecure. How insecure must one be to have a need to carry an assault rifle to WalMart? I mean really folks, is anyone in the US actually secure in who they are? We have the militias which are populated by folks who are armed and so insecure that they want to overthrow the government. You have to kind of pause and wonder what they’d replace the government with? If they kidnap and hang the governor of Michigan, who would they replace her with?

I can see how some young person raised in the projects would naturally want to find security in a gang, for instance. If I didn’t have a father or I had a father who only showed up now and again, I might want to feel some security in a group of people who had the same kinds of experiences as me. I can see how when you don’t have economic resources you’d be attracted to quick money. The kind of quick money associated with selling drugs, for example. If mom and dad worked a couple of jobs each to make ends meet, I could see how a young person could very easily seek out some kind of safety in a group of people who were always available. Those kinds of things make sense in a way. Don’t confuse something making sense for tacit agreement on that thing being a solution to anything at all, though.

Even though I can see how situations could easily force someone to do untoward things, I have a lot more trouble understanding how someone who can afford military hardware and clothing would reduce themselves to a tribal status. I have even more trouble understanding how people with degrees from Harvard and Yale can become such chameleons that they deny history and reality to play Lords of the Flies. How can people with an education and money to burn on useless paraphernalia be reduced to blood thirsty tribalism? Are they really that insecure? Has insecurity become a cult in the United States? It is fairly widespread. One must be politically correct in one’s speech on either side of the aisle. If one is Republican then it is necessary to own at least an AR15, some handguns and probably a shotgun or two. It seems that the only accepted uniform is a camouflage outfit with matching body armor. You really have to wear that to go shopping? You don’t see that as the epitome of insecurity? Okay…

When I consider that many of these folks have taken the Chief of Insecurity as their leader, it does not speak well of the tribe. How insecure must one be to have life threatening Covid and lie to the people you represent that you’re just fine even though you can barely walk? How insecure do you have to be to not be able to accept the reality of an election loss to the point of mounting an armed insurrection? If you must surround yourself with people who may not have an opinion other than yours kind of screams insecure, don’t you think? There are many, many examples of a national insecurity that is truly baffling.

The most popular talking head on Fox is so insecure about his masculinity that he touts testicular tanning machines for men with low testosterone. Why? Can’t be because he’s insecure about being a man, right? Gay marriage is threatening to these folks because of what exactly? That you could not look at a member of your same sex and appreciate their natural beauty? Fair enough. But just between you, me and the fence post, that looks pretty insecure.

There have been members of congress who have been fined heavily because they are so insecure that they came into the congressional chamber armed. It is nearly expected that Republican politicians make ads for their candidacy featuring military armament. Sometimes that’s pretty understandable. Dr Oz as a Pennsylvania senator who is afraid of guns and from New Jersey? That just ain’t ever going to fly. Nice try though, Doc. But I must say, that does not look as though you’re all that secure in your misrepresentation of yourself.

The Democrats should have a field day with this bunch as advisors. They’re all pretty much afraid of their shadow. They can not Agree for women to have control over their own bodies. They can not Agree to allow people to come to the United States and work to better their lives. They cannot Agree for people of color to vote for other people of color or even to vote at all. They are so unsure of what they believe that they cannot allow people of other faiths to worship as they see fit. In that same vein, are they so unsure of who they are that they must have a political structure which allows them to always and forever be in charge because their lifestyle is not all that safe in their way of seeing the world? The people who marched in Charlottesville do not represent the security of who they are or what they believe as a strong example that the world will follow. Those kinds of folks are so insecure that they must rail against anyone who is different from them in belief, race or religion. Again, that is the epitome of insecurity.

I hear a lot of pundits and talking heads waxing on about how the kind of insecure people who belong to militias and espouse one supremacy or another from black power to white power are going to come to a civil war¹. I hear of people in public meetings asking, “when can they use the guns?” I saw a poll where a huge percentage of American voters opined that a civil war was on the way. Okay. What will be accomplished by that kind of thoughtless insecurity? What will you do after the war is over? It won’t make any difference about who wins the war because no one will win it. Look at Ukraine. What will Russia have accomplished if they subdue the people of Ukraine? Generations of enemies? Really? Are the power brokers of the Kremlin so insecure that they must kill thousands of people to prove they are really in control of something?

How is what is going on in Ukraine any different than what is going on in Florida or Texas? It’s the same insecurity. Quite frankly it all does seem to be a bit childish. Grown people playing at being in power to what end? To further their own rule of something? To be acknowledged as important. To demonstrate a superiority over another? To own women? If not these things then what. I really do not understand how or why we as a nation can not come to grips with the fact that we are scared of our own shadow. Consider this. The Chief of Insecurity could not allow the president of Moldavia to stand in front of him for a picture but he could accept as absolute truth that Vlad didn’t interfere in the election. He could pretend that the dictator of North Korea was his buddy. How insecure is that? How can someone that insecure be the leader of any thinking people? I say that he can’t. So listen up Democrats…get your ducks in a row.

References