For me the phrase that best explains the turbulent 2016 presidential primaries is a quote from renowned evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, “The real problem of humanity,” Wilson said, is that “we have Paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology.”
Applied to the primary elections, Wilson’s paradigm seems to provide more clarity than traditional political punditry.
God-like technology has dramatically changed the way we live. Our balky democratic institutions, with their roots in the Middle Ages, have lagged far behind technologically driven economic and social changes, while our cave-dwelling emotions perceive threats to survival that are causing us, as voters, to lash out blindly at forces we can barely perceive or understand.
The United States of the 21st century is a country fraught with risk and uncertainty — nearly all of it traceable to technological advances which have increased the speed and ease of global travel, communications and money flows; permitted far greater production with far fewer workers; extended life spans; boosted population growth, and enhanced the lethality of weapons.
While these advances have improved the quality of life in countless ways, they have also presented a dark side that is increasingly evident.
9/11 demonstrated our vulnerability to terrorism on our own soil. The 2008 financial crisis proved that economic growth is not inevitable and that one’s career, home and life’s savings can be wiped out overnight by a sudden economic shock. Imported epidemic diseases, like Ebola and Zika, have struck out of the blue. The incomes of many working Americans have stagnated, while wealth has become more concentrated in the top tier. Higher education is increasingly unaffordable for all but the affluent. Destructive weather patterns regularly devastate entire communities.
All these are real, well recognized and highly publicized dangers, but Americans cannot agree as to their causes, let alone how to stop them. And many are in no mood for complex, gradual or nuanced solutions.
Democratic institutions are supposed to solve problems and effect change. But our government is slow and inefficient at the best of times. In fact, it never really was designed to solve all society’s ills. Instead, it was crafted to foster broad agreement, avoid civil conflict, and prevent excessive accumulation of power by either a king or a mob.
When divisions in society run deep, as they do today, democratic institutions reflect those divisions and tend to slow to a crawl (popularly known as “gridlock”) or, as in the Civil War, break down entirely.
Saddled with a form of government that seems incapable of coping with the tsunami of changes and challenges wrought by advanced technology, a large segment of the electorate has reacted with rising anger, frustration and a desire to sweep away the status quo. In other words, they’ve gotten in touch with their Paleolithic emotions.
Humans are hard wired to react quickly and with minimal conscious thought to potentially life-threatening situations, whether it’s a saber-tooth tiger springing from hiding or an oncoming automobile veering into our travel lane.
Known as the “fight-or-flight response,” it starts with a physiological reaction in the lower brain that sends a cascade of glandular chemicals coursing through the blood stream, altering bodily functions. Heart and lungs accelerate, blood vessels constrict, digestion slows, muscle tension increases, emotions are aroused, and tunnel vision occurs. The net result is a muscle energy boost and narrow focus enabling us to stand and fight or run like hell.
The fight-or-flight response doesn’t flow from calm, careful reasoning (which originates in a different part of the brain) but from an automatic reaction to fear. Furthermore, the perceived threat that triggers the response may be imaginary and, even if real, may be due to causes that are unseen or misunderstood.
Today those who can’t find work, lack job security, subsist on inadequate wages and benefits, or see no hope for the future are anxiously searching for whoever or whatever appears to threaten their livelihood. They want enemies with a face – whether they’re immigrants from Latin America, Muslims, or the “1 percent” – and a quick, simple way to eliminate those enemies.
Trump, Cruz and Sanders have offered visible enemies to blame and quick, simplistic solutions to neutralize them.
In the climate of fear which characterizes the 2016 primary elections, it’s a tactic that has overwhelmed rational debate and won votes. But it’s no way to solve the nation’s complex problems.
Elliott L. Epstein,a local attorney, is founder of Museum L-A and an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community College. He is the author of “Lucifer’s Child,”a book about the 1984 oven-death murder of Angela Palmer.He may be reached epsteinel@yahoo.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
