Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Some comments in the ongoing debate regarding the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren got me to thinking about our political system and people’s reactions to it. Warren is criticized by the Right for obvious reasons, given her strong stances on managing the economy and controlling the excesses of the Corporate Culture. In a sense she offends their sense of political purity, but then that is but a given because she is a Democrat. We have seen though on the Right that such conservative stalwarts as Richard Lugar have gone down to primary defeat because he failed the Tea Parties test of what a “true” conservative should be. Richard Lugar failed the “purity” test even though his conservative history is impeccable. In my conception political purity conforms to “party line” thinking, punishing those that fail to adhere in all respects to the standards of a given faction’s concept of standards their candidates must adhere to in order to retain enthusiastic support. I use “faction”, rather than “party”, because our two party political system actually represents an amalgam of various factions imperfectly coalescing under the rubric of a “Political Party”.
From a Left, or even Centrist perspective, there has been both amusement and trepidation about how the “Tea Party” faction has exerted control over the Republican Party. Then too, there is the same reaction to the power exerted by Fundamentalist Christians, a group that at some points overlaps with the “Tea Party”. A human trait is to see the foibles of groups we define as “other”, while being oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of the groups we are aligned with. Liberals, Progressives, Radicals and even Leftist Centrists like to believe that they are immune from the turmoil that they see in their Right Wing opposites, yet the “Left” and even the “Center” also routinely define people in terms of litmus tests of political purity. This was highlighted by certain comments on the Warren thread where people who were seemingly in tune with her domestic policy views, disliked her positions on the Middle East and appeared to hold them against her. This has definitely been true with many progressives and/or civil libertarians in viewing this current Administration. My purpose here is not one of castigation for anyone’s perspective; rather I’m interested in exploring the phenomenon of the belief that political figures need to meet all of our expectations in their positions, or be unworthy of our support. My own perspective is that tests of political purity are self defeating because it is impossible for any particular political figure to be in perfect agreement with all that any of us individually believe and politics becomes oppression without the ability to negotiate. The process of real negotiation requires compromise. What follows is why I believe that is true. Before my discussion though, I think a definition of perspectives would be helpful. There are some of us, including myself to a certain degree, who believe that we are living under a corporate oligarchy and as such the common pretense that our national fate is in the hands of the majority’s vote, is but pleasant mythology. I wrote about this in my guest blog Published 1, March 17, 2012: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/ .One logical conclusion that can be drawn from believing that democracy is an illusion, is that voting is a wasted effort, since whatever person we choose will either be a corporate stooge, or unelectable. I can respect those who draw that conclusion since the evidence of its truth is quite convincing. My own conclusion is not quite there yet, even though I do believe that we are under the rule of a coalition of the Military Industrial Complex and of the Corporate Elite. The redeeming feature to me is that I don’t believe in the homogeneity of the “ruling classes”. I think that they are made up of various factions and roiled by clashing egos. In my estimation voting for politicians thus has value because the vote affects the competition among our oligarchs. There is a qualitative difference for instance between Buffett/Gates and the Koch Brothers, in the sense that the former believe in more humane social policies and the latter have a draconian social view.
If one believes that Democracy is completely illusory, then why bother voting, since voting is a futile exercise? The logical conclusion of such a belief is to disdain all of American politics and politicians as being tools of the Oligarchy. From that perspective it isn’t a question of particular policy, since almost every player in normative politics is not to be trusted. So the question becomes how do the people change things when the political process is believed to be non-existent? Obviously, if it is ones view that America politics is a total sham, then a massive uprising of the people would be needed to make change. How does that uprising occur? Will its’ nature be peaceful, or violent? While I know there are “militias” out in the hills of places like Idaho, are they capable of banding together to overthrow our current government, I think not. Violent revolutions always seem to breed unforeseen and unpleasant excesses, which make their original aims moot. So the question becomes how do we effect a peaceful revolution? The answer is simple, but the process itself is immensely complex. A peaceful revolution can come about when you are able to convince an overwhelming majority of the people that the current system needs change and that they need to refuse to cooperate with it. Think of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. When the media is in the hands of corporations though, the issue is one of how does the message of change come across to reach the populace? It’s a question I’ve pondered for years.
Back in the 60’s there was the idea of “dropping out” of a corrupt system. Its problem was that it was espoused by many and practiced by few. The truth was that for those “dropping out” the system didn’t miss their participation, nor would it now. A current conservative stratagem is to make voting harder, thereby limiting turnout of voters negative to their cause. We solve nothing by not voting. We could vote, but cast our votes for nascent opposition parties. This is not a bad premise in my estimation, even though in our loaded political system, minority party effectiveness is more limited than under parliamentary government. Let us think though about a minority party legislator’s ability to be effective once elected, since I assume that the process of gaining political power through organizing a minority party opposition would be slow and could be violently opposed. Think of the police reactions to Occupy Wall Street. However, OWS does show that the elite can feel threatened by a mass movement.
When we discuss the election of someone whose political views are outside of what the “mainstream allows”, we need to take into account how much positive influence they can have on the political process, if they are unwilling to compromise their “political purity”. Let us take the real instance of Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, as he does his job in the Senate. I believe that Bernie is the most ethical and perceptive Senator we have had in the Senate in a long time. He is also an effective Senator in terms of being able to not only put forth a progressive point of view, but to actually influence Senate activity. In order to be effective in the Senate, Bernie has had to compromise on certain issues and thus would certainly be seen from the orthodox socialist perspective to have sold out. In contrast let us take another man whose career I’ve admired, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis has been an aggressive/effective spokesman on a national level for unpopular, yet valid causes. Within the house though he has not been able to effectuate change simply because Dennis does not do compromise well
In today’s world a political change process is mainly effectuated in four ways:
1. Violent revolution, which is highly problematic at best.
2. Massive non cooperation with the system, ala Gandhi and King, which can be very successful based
upon the right circumstances.
3. Organizing and creating an opposition political movement, a possibly fruitful, yet hard process to carry
out with success..
4. Working within the system, imperfect as it may be, to effect slow change.
All of the above can be work to effect change in a given context, but one factor is a given no matter which method is chosen. To build a mass movement in a diverse population the need to compromise is paramount. This need to compromise is called “coalition building”. The Right has been effective at this for years when you think of the coalition between religious fundamentalists, lukewarm objectivists and outright corporatists. What would Jesus, Ayn Rand and even Adam Smith think of the ways their teachings have been presumably melded? In the past the Left also coalesced around certain issues, bringing together groups that were hardly homogeneous. However, from the 60’s onward building of coalitions on the Left has broken down. “Centrists” and “Liberals” became anathema to “progressives” and “radicals”. After all that he had accomplished Martin Luther King became an “Uncle Tom” in the minds of “Black Power” advocates for his refusal to entertain the concept of violence as a tool.
The Left coalition also began to break down in the 60’s over the issue of Viet Nam. Working class union members generally supported the war that was drafting and killing their children. The leadership of the AFL-CIO, who had striven to disassociate themselves from Marxism during the McCarthy era, had become part of the country’s establishment. As George Meany, the AFL-CIO President, began to play golf with Eisenhower and major industrialists, the Union movement swung away from its Left Wing roots. The fact that the labor movement was overwhelmingly “white working class” in an era where Blacks were demanding equal status also took its toll on the coalition between Big Labor and the Democratic Party. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters supported Richard Nixon in 1968..
The labor movement’s departure from coalition with the Democratic Party was to have devastating consequences for its strength. Their workers, doing well financially aspired to a scaled down version of the American Dream. The threat that competition with Blacks for jobs and with the Left’s critique of muscular foreign policy, helped drive white workers into the Republican Party. The fact that their leadership had become cozy with Management and Republicans led the way. The power of the labor movement waned until today it is a shadow of what it once was. The Left coalition forged under FDR and informed experientially by the “Great Depression”, began to fight amongst themselves. The battles increasingly became issues of “purity of political belief”. When a person’s political value is weighed on only specific issues that are politically “black and white”, coalition becomes almost impossible. Without the ability to coalesce “Movements” face severe limitations in their ability to grow.
I believe that in the desire for reforming our governance to work for the interests of all the people, all viable methods must be used. Of the four methods I list above I believe that only the latter three are really viable. A violent revolution in this country will only hasten the totality of oppression, since violent revolutions never seem to work out the way people have planned and that the people once having risen find themselves ruled harshly by those they so hopefully followed. Refute this premise if you will, but please don’t cite the American Revolution. While it certainly had violence it was a rebellion of colonies against an overseas colonial state. By revolution I mean the rebellion of a people in a certain geographical area against their own government.
Methodologically, none of the three methods can work without bringing together people of differing standards via a coalition that accepts deviation from a “party line”. This seems obvious to me since rarely do those who wish change agree on all issues. Are there “deal breakers” that cannot brook compromise? That depends upon the individual, the perceived threat and the current circumstance. I have my own deal breakers, certainly, but I invoke them in context of my reading of the perceived threat.
What do you the reader think of the argument I’ve made? If you disagree please let me know, since I understand that on any given subject I can be wrong and I am really willing to learn. If you agree with me then what are your “deal breakers”? Perhaps if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
@skiprob: read some of the books on the subject.
I think what you really mean is, “read the propaganda and one-sided arguments I read, and swallow the total bullshit I did, and then maybe you would agree with me and we would both be stupid beyond all comprehension.”
@skiprob: Tony there are 44 million people on food stamps.
Ha! Are you telling me that government providing people food when they have none is an example of government NOT protecting people? Holy crap you Aynish have your minds twisted into knots.
“Walker’s win will certainly provide a blueprint for fellow Republicans. When they gain a majority, they can quickly move to not just wrest concessions from public sector unions but completely destroy them, which in turn eliminates one of the strongest sources of political organization for the Democratic Party. And whatever backlash develops, it’s probably not enough to outweigh the political benefit. Walker has pioneered a tactic that will likely become a staple of Republican governance. Fortune favors the bold.” Jonathon Chait
@skiprob: The addition of layers and layers of taxation and regulation has done little solve the various social problems facing our world and this appears to just benefit the super wealthy.
Then you are just ignorant or in denial or lying to support your point. Government has stopped children from being killed in factories, it has stopped workers from being exposed to carcinogens and lethal dangers, it has prevented natural monopolies from virtually enslaving their workers, it has allowed blacks to vote, virtually ended discrimination in the provision of services, although it has not ended racism it has ended the worst abuses of it. Government has saved countless lives from murder, theft, and assault and battery. It has prevented enormous amounts of misery. It has protected the country from invasion.
Taxation and regulation have quintupled your standard of living. Compare it to areas of the world with zero government, and you have literally thousands of times the excess income as those people do. And before you tell me that technology or business did that, they would not even exist without government, regulations and taxation to back up their contracts. If you think otherwise, look at the border region between Iraq and Afghanistan, where governments are afraid to intrude without being heavily armed and armored: It is entirely ruled by strongmen whose whim is lethal law, and every person there is either subordinate to a strongman or subjugated by one at gunpoint. Literally. That is the effect of no government, and no regulation, and zero taxation. Being ruled by brutal psychopaths that answer to no one.
but she says that the school system only abuses teachers during hard financial times.
All sorts of crime increases in hard financial times, from shoplifting to murder. I am not sure what the point of your diminisher “only” is supposed to impart in this sentence. That the abuse is justifiable somehow? Would you accept that excuse for any other crime? “We only resort to bank robbery in hard financial times, don’t worry about it so much. The solution to bank robbery is a more robust economy.”
I think the little guy [of which I am one] has a better shot in a free economy with an objective set of laws.
So far, you have pretty much advocated for no laws or regulation whatsoever.
I think the first purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong, on many possible scales of strength and weakness, and I think the little guy [of which I am one] is, by definition, on the weaker side of the scale and the strong-arm side of the scale is populated with the wealthy, the large businesses and corporations, the politically connected and other such heavyweights with big resources.
I think the way you control bullies that would take more than their fair share is through force. Not dialogue, not propitiation, not subservience, not resignation and acceptance of a shitty deal: FORCE. And it is government that should provide that force, for the little guy, and neutralize the force the bullies are wont to use to exploit the little guy and rip them off.
In fact, I think government and regulation is the only way to achieve even a semblance of fair play in life. And by “fair” I do not mean equal outcomes, I mean equal chances, equal opportunity, and non-exploitation.
Governments have also killed 170 million people in the 20th century alone. Our govenrment has also bankrupted our society in doing the few thing you suggest. How many millions of people are suffering from mesothelioma. There is no such thing as a natural monoploy by the way, only government granted monopolies like Florida Plunder and Loot (FPL) and the Federal Reserve Bank – read some of the books on the subject. You really believe that it was the govenrment that stopped children from being killed in factories? Despite Osha, how many people have been killed in mining accidents and all the other people killed on their jobs in the last 50 years. All that crap you were fed in Middle School is wrong. They tried teaching you to be a good little socalist and succeeded.
You have this illusion of govenment as being our protector. “Taxation and regulation have quintupled your standard of living.” Tony there are 44 million people on food stamps. The amount of foreclosures and bankruptcies is staggering. We have the same social problems today that we had 50 years ago but as government has grown, the problems have gotten worse. Is that light bulb going off yet. You don’t need regulation if you have a good justice system. People won’t board up the back door of a factory if people won’t work there or the insurance companies won’t insure them. There is no utopia, but thinking that government is the savior of all things is dilussional.
If you think this system of taxation and regulation is so great let’s step it up a notch. Let’s try everyone working for the government. But we have the Soviet Union to show us that this didn’t work our very well. So let’s try substanically less govenrment like our founders had invisioned and worked pretty good for a long long time. There is no doubt that the protection of individual rights works. The question should be what system does that the best. It can’t be government because government has to take away rights to fund it’s programs.
Tony C:
re teachers, my wife teaches and belongs for just that reason but she says that the school system only abuses teachers during hard financial times. During the boom times they treat them really well so they dont run off to the private sector. My wife hasnt had a raise in at least 4 years but her union hasnt done anything for her in that regard.
Basically what prevents employers from abusing workers is a robust economy where they are having to compete to hire.
I am all for what you and Gene H are for, I just want to use another mechanism to achieve the end result. I could care less about the rich, they can take care of themselves. I think the little guy [of which I am one] has a better shot in a free economy with an objective set of laws.
Nicely said. I was just thinking about all these discussions we been having and it’s kind of interesting that we all appear to be trying to help the little guy. What we are arguing about is how to do that. Whether it’s the financing of the Panama Canal by Citicorp over 100 years ago or my HOA repaving the roads in my subdivision, people are going to make improvements to our world. Are we fighting over the profits and ownership?
Unless I do something such as invest my money or provide some sort of service I don’t think another person or the government owes me anything.
I don’t want social security and am not going to get it. I would rather earn my money myself and I would rather decide for myself how that money is spent. I learned long ago that government does not necessarily provide a safety net that is equitable to all. An example is Congress has a much better insurance and retirement package than most of the rest of us. I also see people getting a measly $650 a month in social security after having paid in $100s of thousands in various taxes over 50 years. Without food stamps this 80 year old man would probably be homeless.
I think we can all agree that the current system is quite broken.
If I think I want to spend my money on the local militia group, it’s my money and I think Individuals should be allowed to keep their money and spend it as they see fit. If they want to save whales like my sister-in-law did for some 25 years with Sea Shepards, I think that is great. My brother, my daughter and I all do things to help the homeless, the very thing the government is supposed to be doing. The government instead harasses the homeless as the hang around in the various areas in our community.
We’ve seen throughout history that you can’t trust the typical politician because they are willing to be bought by the highest bidder. Well there goes the little guy. No wonder we have the largest military industrial complex in the world, and an exploding homeless population.
Some people appear to favor the collective good and are willing to sacrifice individual benefits if the benefits to the collective warrant the sacrifice. This is the actual base philosophy of communism. The collective is more important than the individual. Libertarianism is just the opposite. The individual is more important than the collective. Protect individual rights, and we now have a least a level playing field in which everyone can go out into the world and seek their happiness.
Money is always going to be an advantage in any situation. You surely don’t want to give money any additional advantage through laws. Limited government did well for our nation and as government has grown the ability of the little guy to live the American Dream appears to have been weakened, not enhanced as government proponents proclaim. The addition of layers and layers of taxation and regulation has done little solve the various social problems facing our world and this appears to just benefit the super wealthy.
Now if you understand how government really works, it’s clearly a manipulation by the very entities that are prospering the most through this system. Just follow the money as Deep Throat recommended. It’s not hard to figure out.
Now here’s the problem. People think that we can utilize the political system to fix these problems. I think that there is clearly enough evidence to prove that this is an illusion. The political system will never regulate itself. It like thinking the foxes will regulate the chicken coup. Remember the old cliché on Democracy. ; two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch.
I don’t like unions contributing to political candidates either; but the point of the union is to present a united front to the company, and make the company pay for retirement and health care and benefits.
Ideally, a union prevents a company (or government agency) from exploiting a monopolistic advantage to oppress workers; it counters one monopoly with another monopoly.
For example, because we have (and should have) public schools, the state has a functional monopoly on teaching jobs. Unchecked, that monopoly would (and has in the past) led to abuses of teachers, in pay, by principals, in hours worked, in lack of resources and benefits. A teacher’s union counters that monopoly on teaching jobs with a monopoly on teacher’s work. By banding together, the teacher’s union has leverage to prevent teacher abuse.
The same thing is true in something like a mining town. It isn’t like there is another mine to work at, the mine owners have an effective monopoly on jobs in a mining town, and the workers form a union to counter that monopoly with their own monopoly on miners.
I agree that leverage can be misused, but it exists in response to abuse. In fact, if government had done its job in the first place, instead of being in the pocket of wealthy owners way back when, then they would have prevented all of the abuses that unions were formed to counter.
Unions are a symptom of a corrupt, corporatist owned government that refused to protect the weak from the strong, and in many cases I agree the Unions became corrupt and the end result is worse than if government had just done its job in the first place and regulated the workplace, hours, safety, and fair wages.
I think one reason for the decline in unions is OSHA, ADA and other laws that have diminished (but not eliminated) the need for employee unions to protect the life, health, benefits and rights of employees.
Tony C:
I dont think Walker did away with unions. People have a right to join a union or not as they see fit. I understand 50% of the government workers decided to leave the union or at least that is what one article said.
I think unions need to take another look at their role and maybe start being retirement and health care providers, people should join a union to improve their station in life. Maybe even have 2 or 3 unions in one company competing for employees by offering the best retirement and health benefit plans. Offer legal services and financial planning and become non-political since members are both liberal and conservative, get out of politics altogether. Why should people have to pay dues to keep their jobs? And have those dues go to politicians who do not believe as they do, they are free to donate to the candidate of their choice. The union dues ought to go to pensions and other benefits, the billions of dollars unions have donated to politicians over the years is money taken from the monthly retirement plans.
@Bron: Yeah. Well, back to the old-school, pre-union days. The union workers should stop working. Call in sick, take vacation, or show up and don’t do anything. Not quit, I don’t want them to lose pension eligibility, but work the system in place wherever they are; force the employers to go through the motions of reprimand and punishment, and have lawyers on hand to sue the state to kingdom come for every attempt at punishment.
There is also nothing stopping them from all being individually represented by the same lawyer; for, say, a $25 retainer. That is not a “union,” it just so happens that after friendly discussion all the employees arrived at identical demands, and one lawyer has agreed to represent all comers for a low fee only so long as each person agrees not to deviate from those demands.
There are ways to fight; unions became law for a reason, and could be restored using similar non-violent tactics. The problem is the unions have not exercised their unanimity in so long, people think they can ignore them, and now need to be reminded they cannot.
As before, that would take sacrifice and hardship from the union members to impose hardships on their opponents, but that is the nature of adversarial negotiation. The unions have been hit, they have to hit back or they will be hit again, and again, and again.
Matt Johnson:
Walker won pretty handily. It wasnt too close to call, Walker had that lead from the beginning and held it all night long.
SwM,
According to the exit polls in Wisconsin, it’s too close to call. Turnout reportedly is high which should benefit Tom Barrett. The polls close in a little over an hour.
Mike Spindell:
Francisco D’ Anconia was a major hero I think he was from Chile.
It really doesnt matter though, Hank Rearden could be Chinese or black or from Nigeria or India and so could Galt. And it wouldnt change the story line. Because the story is not about race but about human potential among other things. Human potential has no racial boundaries and neither does human liberty.
Shit, India has it’s very own Hank Rearden in the person of Lakshmi Mittal, although I think the fictional character of Rearden may have been a little bit more ethical.
In my opinion you need to quit looking at the world through the prism of race.
Tony C, Don’t be too nice, Tony C, or I will post that Obama video that’s going around on the web for you. lol wink! wink! I have no expectation that Scott Walker is going to be defeated. Turnout is high but it could be republicans.
@Swarthmore: Thanks for your contribution, and the best of luck. Truly.
I have been doing some calling into Wisconsin on the recall vote today. Tom Barrett is a moderate democrat. If Warren isn’t pure enough, he probably isn’t either……….
lol
@Gene: I think I can figure out how to build a sturdy castle. And a guillotine. Pikes are not a problem. Are you sure about the Constitution?
Tony,
I’m a firm believer that in a just world, the Dimons and Blankfeins of Wall Street would all die penniless after living the rest of their lives in small concrete cell and showering with other criminals as a cautionary tale to future bankers. That’s only because we don’t have a castle and the Constitution prohibits us from putting their thieving heads up on pikes along the ramparts.
@Gene: Exactly.
The economic collapse of 2008 was the direct result of the Republican led repeal, signed by Bill Clinton, of a consumer protection, the Glass-Steagal act passed in response to proven abuses in the banking system that led to the repeat of the same abuse, wild speculation for private gain with other people’s money.
“If you pay it back over time you run the risk of having to do it again at some future point because the cause has not been corrected.”
If by this you mean that banks are not adequately regulated and policed and this allowed them to perpetrate the criminal malfeasance that wrecked the global economy in the first place by allowing them to play casino with other people’s money, then yeah, the cause has not been corrected.
Otherwise, your reasoning contains disjunctive causation. Having a central bank wasn’t the cause of the current economic situation. The cause there was a breakdown of the barriers between commercial and financial banking by industry lobbyists that removed the protections of Glass-Steagall combined with inadequate controls and penalties for irresponsible derivatives trading and other high risk speculation allowed to be done with the money of unwilling participants to the scheme like homeowners who simply wanted to finance a house, not be bundled into some scam people like Jaime Dimon were selling to the ultra-wealthy sitting at the JP Morgan Chase craps table.