In which I promote and apply cynicism

People who think cynics and idealists are diametrically opposed are incorrect (not to mention… cynical.) Cynicism and idealism act in tandem. They are symbiotic.

First, definitions. An idealist is someone who has a rosy picture of the world or a view that if event X were to happen, the world would improve – event X being anything from a peasant uprising, to health-reform, or to the widespread adoption of herbal remedies. Idealists are idealised because in most events they act as an engine for change and progress.

A cynic is someone who points out the gap between What Is and What Should Be. They are criticised because they criticise; they point out hypocrisy, lies, soiled motives. For me, and for society to progress, cynicism is essential. Without it, we would be blind to progress; we would have no measure of how far we have to go before we reach our goal, or before we reach fairness, equality, a communist dystopia, or what-have-you.

A world without idealists would be a world without change. Scepticism is vital – but so are risks, so are dreams, so is hope. We should not instantly greet every solution with a recital of its flaws; we should not assume that every problem is vast beyond our scope, or beyond our attempts to solve it. To be overly cynical is to be prematurely disappointed – since failure is inevitable, you might as well not bother. A society that never tries is a society that never succeeds. Too much cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy: nothing will succeed or improve because we never try to succeed or approve.

On the other hand, not every solution should be faced with naïve, bobble-headed approval. Not every idea or ideal should be lauded with instant, unearned trust. Criticism is critical – a world without it wouldn’t be a utopia: it would be a nightmare. Think of the most ridiculous or speculative ideas you can. We should outlaw money, create a post-scarcity economy. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Let each govern his own lot, with no government necessary. Lets all love each other more instead of being ambitious, and then we’ll all be happy. Bipartisan politics can achieve great things without bickering. All these ideas or ideals are Idealistic ideals – and they’re all ridiculous. Is that a cynical judgement? Of course. It is also a necessary judgement.

Because just as we need hope, we need reality. Just as we need vision, we need clarity of purpose. Our society is a democracy: it thrives on oppositions as well as positions. Not mindless opposition! Not opposition for the sake of opposition, or for personal gain instead of public. I disapprove of a party that opposes every single measure undertaken, idealistic or otherwise, only to turn around, point the finger, and say that nothing has been accomplished. The Catholic Church has had the long-standing tradition of the Devil’s Advocate: a man who brings up any possible justification against a proposed canonisation – someone who plays the cynic not because of his own belief, but to act as a check and balance against excess.

Idealism is not just applied optimism, and the cynic and the pessimist are separated – by both opinion and reasoning. You cannot be cynical if you have no ideal to compare against, no measure of What Should Be to contrast dismally against What Is. Moreover, you cannot be cynical if there is no gap between the two.

Cynicism is not a plague affecting Gen-X Grunge musicians, nor is it Idealism’s unhealthy and destructive rival. The cynic does not proclaim the glass half-empty; he asks why it isn’t full. He asks who would benefit from a tide of unfilled cups, and he asks why there are people out there who blindly pretend that the glass is adequate to their needs. Society needs cynicism to ask the tough questions, to point out the elephants in the room, just as much as it needs the idealists to shoo them away.

*****

I really do not like Sea Patrol.

Me with my habit of reading too much into things, I know, but let me just summarise the show for you: a snowy White crew of blond-haired, blue-eyed Australians of Irish or English descent ‘Defend Our Borders’ from the evil-doing Muslims, Asians and Terrorists that seek to do us harm.

Yeah, yeah, there are no other bad guys they can choose, set as the show is in the seas north of Australia. But that just raises the question of why it was green-lighted in the first place if it was obviously going to put our country in a bad light. Less people would be attacking our supposed racism if we stopped being so goddamn racist. I looked at the surnames of the characters. The least European name on the list was the name of an Eastern European. This is a serious amount of not good.

I will admit that I’ve only seen one full episode of the show, but even through that light, I hope to Dog that that episode wasn’t representative. It was the one where a white Australian woman’s boat was overrun by a dark skinned not-Australian guy named Achmed, who tricks Captain Caucasian into thinking him innocent, before trying to strangle him in a dinner party. The last time I heard that plot outline, it was for ‘Storm Saxon’, the state controlled propaganda-show in ‘V for Vendetta’.

This, plus the Internet censorship, plus the censorship of R18 games, plus Tony ‘No sex before marriage, climate change is total cr—your methods of fixing climate change are inefficient, boat people turk ar jerrrbs’ Abbott becoming Opposition Leader – all point to Australian society heading in a direction I am not particularly fond of.