The Lesser Of

We have a real problem in this country.

Well, it's actually a worldwide problem, endemic to mankind, but right now, I'm more concerned about it's impact in the United States.  Well, our "kinda, somewhat" United States.

Here's a recent example:  Our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was concerned about the the recent judicial ruling, from a Federal Judge in Hawaii, that suspended a Presidential executive order concerning visas and refugees.  So, in his frustration, the Attorney General said, in a recent radio interview, "I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the U.S. from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power."

Say what?  Does that mean had the ruling come from, say, his home state of Alabama, that it would be more legitimate?

That "island in the Pacific" is a duly constituted state of the United States of America!  Is it lesser because it was the 50th state to enter the Union, and Alabama more significant because it was 22nd?  What is the cutoff point to be considered worthy?  40th?  25th?  Sorry No. 41 Montana - you just missed the cutoff!

Is it because that's where POTUS No. 44 was born?  Maybe it's an extension of Kenya rather than the United States?  Or maybe the state's population is too diverse and too far away?

Unfortunately, this is not new or idiosyncratic thinking for this country.  It's as old as the Civil War, and perhaps goes back to our very founding.  Some states are just more worthy than others.  And it effects those who migrate from one state to another.  Your opinion is worth less if you are a Yankee in Georgia.  And a southern redneck in Michigan may not be respected.

The whole idea of lesser of is even encoded into our constitution.  The electoral college gives greater weight to smaller states, under the guise that their opinion and influence should be balanced, when the actual effect is to give someone in Montana almost four times the voting power as someone in California.  I remember after the recent Electoral College victory of the current White House occupant, hearing people around me seriously suggesting that we can't go to a popular vote because that would mean our President would be picked by California and New York!  As if "one man. one vote" was a meaningless phrase.  As if those states were somehow less worthy than others.

And, of course, our attitude about different states is only the tip of the iceberg on our attitude concerning "the lesser of".  It was the basis for slavery - they are just not on the same level of the rest of us, and don't feel the same things.  It's okay that some people don't get the same things as you and I, because they're just not worthy of it.

It lets us participate in life without worrying who is treated less and exploited in order for us to have what we have.  What does it matter that others in other countries are paid starvation wages to produce our clothes?  The important thing is we save money!

It is a flaw in thinking in both pro and anti-immigration thinking.  I've heard even pro-immigration folks say that we have to have cheap labor to bring in our agricultural produce, because Americans won't do it for that low of wages, and we don't want to have to pay more for our food.  Yes, we want food at reasonable prices, but are we really willing to get it at a lower cost because we view some lives as less valuable than ours?

It's our great sin - the ability to bifurcate our minds and think of some people as less worthy, as less human. as "the lesser of".

Hopefully we grow out of it.

But I'm not holding my breath.