It's probably good to
note before you read this that when I use the term "ego", I don't
mean it in a negative way. I refer to our sense of self, not the over-inflation
of that, though both are apt descriptions.
There are two sides to ego. Probably more than that, but I'm
only going to focus on 2 right now: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts.
It helps because without it, nothing would ever get done. We
are the sum of the knowledge of those around us, and without ego, nothing ever
gets passed around. Nothing gets taken in intellectually either, since why
would we have a drive to improve ourselves if we didn't recognize that others
have value? Isn't that just our egos recognizing the egos of others? We
recognize both great and terrible actions in others as impressive, but they do
those things for the same reason—ego.
There's a bad side, too. See, egos aren't just for other
people, they're for ourselves. Here's a political example that may require you
setting aside your own ego for a moment: Do you honestly think that anyone
enters politics with the express interest of harming other people? Think about
it. I'm not talking about when they reach the highest levels of power; they all
start somewhere. Do you think anyone runs for student council thinking,
"Fuck those guys!"? Are there many city council members who ran for
office under the impression that it would really help them destroy their city
in every way they'd ever dreamed of?
Politics are more polarized now than they have been during
most of my life (I'm 31, if you're curious). If you ask one side what they
think of the other, they'll say they're undermining life as we know it and
trying to destroy the fabric of society. They're obstructionist, partisan, and wrong. And they're right—both sides; because
of ego. Because the worst thing our ego does is help us identify with a group
and justify things. To ourselves. It's the basest result of tribal mentality. Justifying
something to yourself is a damn dangerous thing; the scariest words I've ever
heard anyone say are, "No question that I'm right". Without doubt
there is no room for growth; without growth, there is no possibility of change.
Lesson 1: Justify This
(or "The time I made a far-reaching comparison and was ultimately
justified")
You know who never doubt themselves? Sociopaths. The rest of
us all wonder, even if it's just late at night in the dark, if we're doing the
right thing. That's the ego being self-aware enough to think it might be
incorrect. One of the best functions of modern egos is that they allow us
self-reflection and self-consciousness. Sociopaths, on the other hand, know that they're right. Hitler, Pol
Pot, and Sammy Hagar all thought they were doing the right thing, despite the
fact that history has shown them wrong.
Self-justification is a dangerous path because it's a
self-fulfilling prophecy. You start by justifying something to yourself, and
your ego builds you a convenient little shield to hide behind, automatically.
Then someone attacks your position, and your ego retaliates by shoring up its
defenses. It becomes a feedback loop: The more you're attacked, the more your
ego defends itself. And one of your ego's best defenses is justification,
because you're always willing to believe that you did the right thing. (That's
your ego at work again, by the way.)
At first, you become surer that your position is the best
one. Then you become certain that
your position is the best one. Then you become certain that anyone who doesn't
hold your position is incorrigibly wrong. Then you start to see them as an
enemy. Just for disagreeing with you.
I haven't seen a better example of this that still relates
to this post's topic (politics? I think? That was a while ago) than Rob Ford.
I'm going to put this as bluntly as I possibly can, because I want to get all
my biases out in a single go: I think Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, is a
complete moron. He's also pretty big-C conservative, whereas I think I'm
socially very liberal and a small-c fiscal conservative. (I believe absolutely
that we need well-funded social programs, but I have seen so many abuses of
them that I think they need to be policed WAY better and that there are some
phenomenally stupid things the government funds that it shouldn't.) He is,
however, a great example, so I'm going to swallow back the revulsion I feel at
giving him more press, and comfort myself in the knowledge that no one ever
actually reads anything I write.
So I've admitted my biases. I haven't admitted why I have
them, but I will now. I think he's a blowhard—he's full of bluster but
ultimately empty of content. He has a few ideas that are
good-in-theory-but-poorly-thought-out, but nothing of any real substance. Also
I think he's a bully. And the fact that he plays a victim at every turn is
nothing short of shameful. I've been bullied before, and I have since learned
how to deal with them. I'm naturally analytic—I know the "signs" of a
bully (though obviously there's some leeway in everything). I recognize in him
a trait I saw in every bully I've ever met though, and that's that nothing is
ever his fault, and that if there's a convenient fall-guy, the blame is landing
on them (and if there isn't a convenient one, one will be created). Sadly
enough, there are dozens of examples of people
in power playing the victim when they're in power.
This is going to seem like a stupid aside/terrible
comparison, but Rob Ford is Amanda Bynes. Hear me out.
Amanda Bynes is in the news because she is losing her mind. Hack comedians
keep making the joke that "no one remembers who she is". Slightly
different, but let's check it out further: Amanda Bynes has struck out at all
her critics by calling them ugly and saying they shouldn't be working anymore,
while also claiming that she's getting a nose job and a dancing? new? show?
music video? with someone? maybe Rihanna?
Rob Ford is in the news because they think he's lost his
mind. Hack comedians keep making the joke that "he'd be the first fat
crackhead", but hell...I'm old enough to remember Chris Farley. He didn't
die from being fat, and he wasn't exactly slim when his heart exploded from it.
(RIP, Chris.) And he hit out at his critics by...ignoring them. Not personally,
but publically. Gimme a paragraph to explain the brilliance of that:
The best
possible thing Rob Ford could have possibly done would have been to say, "The
entire idea of this video existing is ridiculous, but I understand how it looks
bad. I don't want to lose the faith of the people of this city though, so I
peed into a cup and gave a blood sample to a 3rd-party drug testing facility. I
want you all to know that while I am basically 70% gravy, I have never done
crack and only smoke pot when I don't think I'll be caught."
Well, that'd be the second-best
thing. The best would be to test negative for pot too, but this is Canada, and
we don't give a shit if our politicians relax, we just care if they're stoned
while voting. See the difference? Relax all you want. But when it comes time to
do your job, bring your A-game.
Rob Ford decided on a different tactic though. He said he'd
never smoked crack and that he wasn't
addicted to crack. That's, at the very least, linguistically suspicious. If
you've never smoked crack, OBVIOUSLY you're not addicted to crack. I've never
done heroin. I don't feel the need to also explicitly state that I'm not
addicted to it. I do nicotine. I'm very addicted to it. But I know a lot of
ex-smokers who would say that they don't
do nicotine, but they're addicted to it. Alcoholics in AA still acknowledge
that they're addicted to alcohol, regardless of when their last drink was.
Again, he just volunteered this. He didn't imply it, he outright said it. And
the one thing he could have done to
totally annihilate this controversy—a simple blood/urine test—never even
crossed his mind.
Let me connect it to my American readers: I am clearly
lying, I don't have any American readers. That being said, think of how stupid
the whole "birther" thing is/was. Barack Obama was told he wasn't a
naturalized US citizen (ignoring that that would have been the BEST argument
for his GOP opponents in every debate ever). Seriously, people campaigned on
the "fact" that he wasn't eligible to be President. Like they
believed that a major political party would submit a candidate who was
ineligible so that they could...what? Throw an election? Make a point? Anyway,
BHO ignored it because it was stupid. But when it comes to Rob Ford, he ignored
his charges because it was politically convenient. His family was already
linked to the drug trade. And they have
been for years.
That was kind of a cliffhanger, right? I'm sorry—I hate cliffhangers. Bet this means I'll be writing a part 2 pretty soon.
Comment away!
