“Don’t you look for a lamp?”

It’s probably obvious to everyone that 2016 is a season ripe for some kind of alternative–most of us, regardless of partisan affiliation, recognize on some level that politics as usual has been a failure for our needs. Wealth disparity: no meaningful action. Climate change: no meaningful action. Structural racism: no meaningful action. “Meaningful” would involve substantially changing society as a whole system such that the problems don’t occur, and that’s just not how we’ve been doing politics.

This, I believe, is why both Bernie and Trump have gotten so much traction: there is a dissatisfaction that the real problems are not being talked about as such, and they talk about them. I’d guess Trump is mostly only pushing emotional buttons and doesn’t actually have useful solutions, and I’d say it’s entirely possible that Bernie’s solutions might be too late, even if he’s elected. And I’d say that it’s a toss-up as to what would happen if any other candidate wins: the same forces of social dissatisfaction could push them toward change (good or bad), or they could try to stave off change and just make it worse for the next election.

This is not an isolated pattern in history. Similar problems, and stifled discussion, existed in the Middle East and North Africa in advance of the Arab Spring. Similar circumstances existed in Germany after WWI. Similar circumstances existed in the United States before the Civil War. Many other countries tried to make a change through Communism. None of those situations turned out especially well. And let’s not even get into the French Revolution or the Khmer Rouge. Just awful.

It’s true that there have, in history, been some good, constructive leaders in these situations. The first ones that come to mind, for me, are Lincoln, Ataturk, Gandhi, and Washington, who all rose to power under roughly similar circumstances requiring fundamental policy changes (although I don’t know if that’s how they would have phrased it) and saw those changes through. We usually regard them fondly in history, although I suspect they were just riding (or, swept up in) existing waves of social change–it’s telling, for example, that Gandhi opposed nationalism and was assassinated, and that Washington opposed partisanship but his precedents in that regard didn’t last after he left office.

So I just feel like we’ve heard the song that both Bernie and Trump are singing a few times already. Their verses are different, but they’re singing almost the same hook… and the hook is the part everyone actually sings. What really seems to matter in politics is not what the putative leader sings so much as what the population sings in response. I guess I can always hope that it will go differently this time–that this time, we’ll see the start of the next Pax Romana, Egyptian Middle Kingdom, or Song dynasty–but that’s difficult for me.

The thing about these systems? These systems that we as a populace are sufficiently aware of to feel dissatisfaction but not quite enough to articulate why? They aren’t necessarily the ones we leap to the first time we consciously ask “what’s wrong here?”. The salient systems at play in a situation aren’t necessarily the ones we can see right away. There’s a whole universe of factors at play in any given dissatisfaction, and it’s tricky to tell which factors you’re missing, let alone which factors are the most relevant. Following a rising social tide to a shining shore, and then seeing the tide withdraw abruptly, is another system, and it turns out–if you’ve read your history and your political philosophy–that we’ve known about these kinds of tides for literally millennia. Human nature hasn’t really changed in all that time.

There’s only so much that any one person has control over, whether they’re a president or just some citizen. We’re responsible for what we have control over in the progression of politics and history, but the rest of it is out of our control, and putting too much energy toward it takes energy away from other things we do have control over. We have control over our lives and we have effects on the lives around us, but we generally don’t have control over history, only over how we respond to it.

So I guess what I’m saying is that I (quaint little homer) think the real solution, if you’re serious about saving the world, is to get educated, plan and cast your vote (or other actions, if you’re in a position to have other ways to affect the political process), and then turn away from the political cycle, whether it’s the little four-year-presidential one or the bigger history-is-happening one. That’s a cycle of inevitability. Then turn to other constructive pursuits. Turn away from the picture box and turn to the big picture. Turn to reading old books about history and philosophy, and help save human knowledge. Turn to gardening and learning science, and help people eat and stay alive. Learn how to communicate well, turn your conversations toward less volatile ideas, and help calm down the social discourse. Maybe turn to meditation, art, or prayer.

That’s what I think the right course of action for any one person is: turning mostly away. I think I’m mostly turned away. I could be wrong about that, but assuming I’m truly looking at the other side–well, I can’t really describe what’s on the other side, except to say that I find it empowering and I actually find hope there–hope that I don’t find in politics.