Why Hillary Will Win and the Future of Capitalism, Part 2
The standard philosophical theory for the caregiver industry is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Hartman’s Nursing Assistant Care: The Basics, pp. 58, 59). Care targets are designed around this theory. In actuality, no pun intended, the elements of Maslow’s theory are evident in the milieu of caregiving. Regardless of the severity of disability, residents will seek to do things they enjoy; they will seek personal relationships, and will seek to have purpose and accomplishment. Even ones who cannot communicate and have use of one arm will use that one arm to help you dress them. As they are accustomed to the routine they feel upon their bodies and often cannot see, they will wait for their moment and spring into action to do their part. These are extremely meaningful moments for the caregiver and the top two hierarchies immediately come to mind, and maybe the need to love and be loved as well.
I have to give Democrats credit where credit is due; they seem to understand the significance of Maslow’s theory and how to utilize it to obtain their goals. We all know that national defense is often a hot topic during many presidential elections. Why? Because one of the basic human needs is safety and security.
Republicans usually tout security and peace through strength while Democrats seem to take a naïve and disarmed approach towards aggressive evil in the world. Why? Because aggressive countries share the same basic presuppositions regarding mankind that the Democrats possess; man must be ruled over by government for the common good. In their minds, there is only one thing worse than a bad statist; a good rugged individualist. They will side with the bad statist in a heartbeat. If Al Gore would have been President during 911 rather than George Bush, there would have been no retaliation of any significance. Expenditure of resources to protect a measured number of individuals does not benefit the state nor does it serve justice because the only real sin is against the state, not individuals.
This is why socialist countries like France respond passively to terror attacks. And regarding what benefits state commerce and not individuals we hear in the aftermath of a terror attack that people should go on with life normally because to do otherwise is to “give into fear.” Statist will then define “courage” as those who go on with life as if nothing happened without any precautions. This is because individuals are expendable and moralism is defined by one’s willingness to sacrifice for the state.
So, how do the Democrats get around the need for security? They shift the fear of annihilation from enemies abroad to trigger happy Republicans within. Is this card, the same one played against Barry Goldwater in the 60s not the same exact card being played against Trump in our day? Sure it is. Forget about ISIS, we all may die because Trump can’t wait to launch nukes against Russia and China over a Tweet. It worked against Goldwater, and it will work against Trump.
Presently, this will work because Americans still enjoy individual actualization and have the convenience of lazy thinking resulting in the idea that financial security comes from the government. Presently, more than 47% of all American households receive some sort of government benefits. Republicans are perceived as a threat to that security, and even more so Donald Trump being a hardcore get-it-done business man. This whole idea of “making America great again” will effectively send at least 47% of all Americans running for the Hillary lever—their food and water intake depends on it. “Making America great again” translates into rugged individualism that has no safety net. This is palatable for the time being because the dirty little secret follows: the Democratic ruling elite are not telling their followers what they really believe; the totality of self-actualization is defined by one’s contribution to the state.
Here is the good news that is really amazing: a little less than half of the American people still get it. Without a doubt, that is because of alternative media and the Information Age that we presently live in. But…it will not be enough to elect Trump.
How is this likely to play out in the future? We will look at that question in Part 3.