I think that ultimately, politics is also about people fearing other people and their decisions. How we got to the point of electing people instead of deciding on issues I explain to myself by the fact that we think more about issues of opinion than is good for us. That in the rich nations it is not only a matter of maintaining the standard, but even improving it, is not a question for me. I think that the fear of losing wealth and generally good health and old-age care and maintaining unbridled consumption dominates thinking and feeling. This creates a conflict in the individual because we see that our standard creates its own problems and we have shifted the exploitation in our own country to that in distant countries or certain regions, people and animals/plants. As if in a kind of protective reflex, we then want - because we see the injustice and dangerousness in this - to protect ourselves from retaliation by walls or a return to nationalism, religion and the family. This creates a breeding ground for fundamentalism, culprits must and will be found.
I had tried for some time to make the systemic consensus known here, a fairly simple but very effective method of getting away from the cult of the person and moving towards decisions that take the person out of focus and instead deal with an issue rationally. My attempt was to offer a consensus method, especially for crisis issues, that goes beyond debating and is a very easy to adopt method for elections, at least in the final part. Interest was moderate until the method even met with fierce resistance.
Much in the political business and especially in elections seems to me to be much too simple and is a kind of encouragement of an unwanted mental effort, according to which things should be quick and easy to design. Like a cheap talk show, where viewers are supposed to form a pro or contra opinion, which translated means that you decide by preference. But such preference decisions do not reflect the complex reality in which we actually move every day and where we are more likely to be disturbed by someone asking for our opinion loudly and aggressively. As a rule, we make better decisions when we think about something calmly, when we let some time pass by, when we have illuminated several perspectives.
I ascribe this to the dualistic world view, according to which the division into good and evil is done, thus preventing us from contemplating in an ethical way both political and personal life decisions. Since one can hardly separate the one from the other anyway. In my opinion, we are far from being out of the religious dogmatics of this deeply rooted view of mankind: the good and evil theme can be seen in all cinemas and films, a deep-rooted thread that runs through films and literature like no other. I don't see such a big difference between the people who were vividly portrayed in the pews of the church at that time as being afraid of the devil and the screens of today, which present the same theme - only with a little more technology. Modern film is influenced in exactly the same way by two millennia of Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith. Rather unintentionally, but what difference does it make. One should never underestimate media.
So, yes, we are all the same. People who can do stupid or murderous things. But in the same way, we can also be reasonable and compassionate, which is perhaps the most painful explanation, because our compassion can quickly turn to anger and hatred.
Little is said about those who do not talk about themselves and who are probably the best role models in terms of ethical rules in their current reality. There is simply little to say about those who behave correctly or do not offer a provocation. Leading a boring life and yet offering no or little room for injustice.