A Christmas Metaphor

Today is Christmas day, so I thought I would provide a metaphorical and
an anthropological perspective on the birth of Christ.

Christ was, as legend has it, born in Bethlehem in the first century.
Bethlehem is in modern day Palestine. Interestingly, Bethlehem is close to the region within the middle east known as the fertile crescent, where the agricultural revolution is thought to have begun.

What do the birth of Christ and the agricultural revolution have to do with one another?

Christ is known within the Christian tradition as the saviour of humanity. His birth represents renewal, abundance and unbounded sacrifice for all people.

On the other hand, the agricultural revolution took place at a time when
population pressure and the need for surplus were creating the necessities for mass farming.

Both Christ and agriculture can be seen through the same symbolic lens. Both events took place in a geographic region known as ‘the cradle of civilisation’ and both events are thought to have brought salvation and prosperity to us Earth-dwellers.

Christ is the symbolic representation of the agricultural revolution. 2000 years after his birth, we pay homage to him by celebrating at this time of year by eating good food with family and friends.

I am not religious in any way, but I do appreciate a good metaphor. I hope, by writing this, that I can shed light on a peaceful tradition that has been celebrated around the world for millennia. A tradition that does not necessarily imply the birth of a literal deity, but rather the birth of a metaphorical saviour who we can today thank for laying the foundation for today’s civilisation; namely, agriculture.

The US government shut down

The US government has shut down twice already in 2018. The first shutdown occurred on January 20th, 2018 and ended on the evening of January 22nd. The shutdown began after a failure to pass legislation to fund government operations and agencies. The second occurred on February 9th, 2018. This second instance may be called a funding gap rather than a shut down as it only lasted nine hours overnight and did not interrupt government functioning or services.

The third shut down, which appears inevitable, will occur at midnight on December 22nd, 2018. It is unknown how long this shut down will last but there does appear to be stubborn resistance on the part of the Democrats, Republicans and from Trump himself.

On the eve of this shutdown, it is worth considering three points in relation to governmental shutdowns.

First, the people who really lose from a government shutdown are the people who keep the American state running. CNBC has reported that 421,000 Americans will work without pay if the US government shuts down. Despite the shutdown, all workers who go without pay will be paid when the government reopens. But this may not be immediate. In 1995-1996 the US government shutdown for 21 days, the longest shut down in history.

Included in these 421,000 state workers are military personnel, border security staff, politicians and welfare officers. There is some irony in knowing that this shutdown is occurring due to funding for a border wall, which is being sold to the American people as a minimum requirement for national security. Yet this shutdown is going to directly affect the people on the front lines, such as military and border security staff who are keeping the United States safe.

The Republicans are blaming the Democrats, the Democrats are blaming Trump and Trump is blaming everyone. It is not the hard-headed politicians responsible for this shutdown who will have to tighten their belts this Christmas, but the American workers.

Second, government shutdowns are not necessarily bad things. They act as roadblocks to halt centralisation and consolidation of state power. They are designed to ensure that the state grinds to halt before its politicians become too heated and irrational. Although the shutdown is not a good thing for American workers, it reduces the possibility of rapid change within the American political system, and in a nation of nearly 350 million people, this is a reasonably sensible safeguard.

Third and finally, political conservativism traditionally seeks the minimisation of the state’s social influence, whenever possible and practical. The shutdown of the US federal government is likely to fracture the integrity of the institution that is the American state which ultimately serves to benefit Trump and the conservative Republican party. At worst, Trump and the Republicans look hard-headed, while what is really happening is a dismantling of state strength and effectiveness which leads to a triumph for conservative ideals.

Whether you agree in the necessity of a large US state, the fact of the matter is the US government is the size it is because of the size of the nation. A minimal state or not, 421,000 people will not be paid over the coming days because American federal politicians are to busy arguing, rather than negotiating. The blame game will continue; however, all-American politicians have a responsibility to protect the people they stand to serve. Politicians will not be serving the American people if the US government shuts down.

An Artistic Response

Last night I had the pleasure of seeing Nils Frahm play at the opera house. He is an incredible musician with a seemingly well-rounded personality. The show was something to behold, however, before a single note was played, Frahm explained that it was an honour to be playing his music in “Australia’s biggest billboard”. The crowd roared with laughter and applause, showing their appreciation for the joke that is the shambolic Australian parliament (and its parliamentarians).

Frahm later went on to make a greater point when he said that politicians and the business community often try and hijack the arts for the purposes of financial capital – thus implicitly stating that culture is only ‘a good’ if it is financially tangible. I tend to agree with this assessment of the arts under capitalism and indeed Frahm’s assessment.

There have been calls this past week to allow for human rights groups and NGO’s to advertise on the Opera House to determine whether there is some degree of favouritism for Alan Jones and his lackeys from the Liberal Party of Australia. There most certainly is, we should accept that. However, we should not accept that two wrongs make a right. We ought not to advertise anything other than arts and the celebration of Australian culture on the sails of Australia’s most recognisable building.

The Sydney Opera House is not a billboard, it is a national icon that represents Sydney’s growing culture. If we treat our most well-known building as a political or business tool, we lose the benefits of artistic culture for what is being advertised, whether political or financial.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑