Selling Forever: Using Eternity as a Political Commodity

It’s a common title among those in psychology, or study spiritualism and religion. The natural drive in human beings to find deeper meaning. A natural call to try and find something eternal that gives everything else in existence some sort of purpose.

The sense that there is something that constantly runs through all of time has always given a sense of connection with those who come before and those who come after. In many respects at what it’s what prevents that which is mundane from becoming overwhelming.

It’s not surprising then how frequently it gets invoked in public discourse as a means to try and unite various segments of society. Cultural leaders like to use it when referring to literature artwork that continues to hold effect. Builders will use it as something to point to that which architecturally never loses its meaning. It is frequently a common uniter.

It also tends to be a term that is frequently misused. Especially when it comes to contemporary leadership that likes to give itself greater authority.

Politicians love the term as a means to try and elevate something that they’re trying to do is being part of a never-ending saga. The problem is it’s rarely the case that it’s being utilized for something that truly would fit the definition of eternal. All too often it’s more accurately trying to make their own pet project which they see as being central to their legacy as becoming all encompassing.

It also has an unfortunate history of being used for those that want to give the impression of something being inevitable. We really don’t have a choice on this one. We have to do it this way because it’s part of an eternal project that has been ongoing. More often than not it’s quite possible to choose a different route if somebody decided to.

This is especially becoming true in the modern era, we’re producing political narratives that have become so common. Any ideological disposition takes on the category of being the eternal journey that history is derived for us. The entire term on the right side of history was coined with this line of thinking. It’s impossible for somebody to argue against something because it has a perpetual quality dude.

We often forget that the term encompasses the past, the current, and the future. Something eternal is permanent from the beginning to the end. It’s supposed to be transcendent outside of activities that happen in any given moment. Definitionally it’s something that is almost beyond control for the contemporary moment. That’s what makes it so powerful.

On this front a single individual typically can’t create something on their own that becomes eternal in and of itself. When it’s invoked on something about beauty or a literary truth it’s because an author hit on something. It’s not because the author necessarily created but entirely a new concept that was then embedded in everybody’s mind.

Similarly, if somebody is trying to move society in a certain direction it would only hit the eternal plateau if they’re speaking to a universal truth that wasn’t of their own creation.

A policy choice about education or a peace treaty might hit something eternal if it evokes an emotion that attaches to a natural human condition. The specific line items that might go into a piece of legislation only hit something that is everlasting assuming that’s the motivation that it touches. It’s become far too frequent that the belief that you can rewrite human nature becomes what those leaders that want to see themselves as eternal try and strike.

Historical understanding is almost essential to knowing how that interacts with something that would be considered a permanent fixture of the human condition. It isn’t simply a case of building on what came before you. It’s also knowing that those individuals were building on something that was bigger than they were. An ongoing effort to hit something that any singular human, or even a group of, would struggle with being able to create from scratch. It’s something that goes beyond the temporal plane.

It’s why it’s a mode of speech it’s so powerful to invoke. It makes the order appear as though it exists beyond the normal. Yet more often than not if what they were saying was truly critique it’s more a case of trying to make something look more important than it actually is.

Playing to the crowd by evoking the correct emotions also makes it almost impossible for somebody to oppose. If something really is eternal and is destiny what is the point in fighting against it?

This isn’t a critique on today either. One can go to moments in history far before our own time and see the same problem emerging. Virtually every would-be or successful dictator uses the same process. Similarly those that are trying to invoke movement in voting behavior within any democracy are all too often engaged in the same approach. Anyone who propagates themselves as part of their political program regularly resorts to the implication of appealing to this higher claim. Yet it’s all too often simply creating something new as the ultimate ego play.

Unfortunately most politics does not exist in trying to produce the ultimate solution to any problem. It’s all too frequently what fits the circumstances in the moment and finding a solution that everybody can agree upon right now. Most political decisions frequently change back and forth. That in and of itself should be the giveaway that you aren’t talking about anything that has eternal qualities but simply dealing with practicality in the here and now.

For the most part we would be better off not looking for saviors but simply looking for those with more simple inclinations.