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
Matt’s Johnson:
Chickens arent rational, so I am free to eat them and so is my neighbor Mr. Rougue Renard. In fact Mr. Renard has eaten quite a few of my chickens over the last few years.
I have yet to take action though, chickens only cost about 2 bucks each if you buy them as peeps. Figure a bag of food to reach laying age and your investment is around $15 by the time Mr. Renard enjoys an evening repast.
So he has beaten me out of about $90. I am not sure that is a sufficient amount to declare all out war on Renard but he would look good on the wall or as a full mount in my office. I could even have a chicken mounted and put in his mouth.
@Matt: Bron’s “Rouge Renard” means “Red Fox” in French, he is talking about delivering his beloved chickens to be ripped apart and eaten alive by a wild animal.
Such is the empathy of the sociopath, once a living being is no longer useful to them, they just do not care, no kindness is due and no death is too brutal if it saves them a moment.
Bron 1, June 12, 2012 at 8:12 am
matt’s johnson:
So you would kill a rational chicken? That is horrible. I have chickens for eggs and would never eat them. They are pampered peckers, There is Henny Penny, Dagny, Lillian, Dominique and The Social Worker.
Henny Penny runs around squawking about nothing all day long and only lays one or 2 eggs a week, I figure she is a lefty.
Dagny is a rather homely chicken but gets after it and lays about 10 eggs a week. She is my favorite.
Lillian is a prima donna and lays only when she feels like it and doesnt sit on them.
Dominique is a very pretty chicken and works like hell, she lays almost as many as Dagny.
The Social Worker lays 3-5 eggs a week but likes to sit on Lillian’s nest.
I am thinking about eating Henny Penny and Lillian or maybe just letting them go in the woods next door, Mr. Rougue Renard will take care of them, he works hard earning a living and probably wouldnt mind an easy lunch once in awhile.
===================
You’re contradicting yourself again. In the first paragraph you’re saying you would never eat the rational chickens. In the last paragraph you’re talking about eating two of the rational chickens, or letting the neighbor guy eat them. What kind of medication are you on?
@Malisha: The trick is, the chicken can’t tell foxes from chickens. So you do what the sociopaths do, pretend you are the chicken’s friend and admirer, compliment the chicken on its wise choice in guns, ask it how heavy the gun is, and when the chicken hands you the gun in the spirit of trust and friendship, blow its head off.
Malisha,
You have to sneak up on the rational chicken and disarm it first.
If you need to know how to make it real non-functional, ask Bron.
skiprob:
if you need to know how to make it real expensive and elaborate ask Gene H. 🙂
And so as this thread winds down to its close we watch Skippy slink off into the distance having been completely exposed as a Country Club loudmouth, who can only seem politically astute in the presence of his inebriated, pampered peers. It is my thought that Tony C. applied the “coup de grace” with showing the happiness index. How does one so obsessed with the “evils” of socialism explain that the happiest countries in the world are ones who he would deem (incorrectly) as socialist? His only option was to move to the US at number 11 (only socialist in the minds of the demented) and then reference some of the poorest countries in the world, which incidentally aren’t “socialist” either. Even someone so buried in denial as is Skippy had to recognize that he had lost the debate. So suddenly a work project arises that in his mind gives him an out to withdraw, bloody, beaten, but in his own febrile mind, undefeated. “Sic Transit” Skippy.
@hskiprob: On the contrary, the fact that the most socialist countries are ALSO the richest countries with the best economies and happiest people is very telling. The better the safety net, the better the economy.
I do not debate to preserve the current state of affairs in the USA, I debate to point out the advantages of changing that state of affairs for others, to help people realize that catastrophic consequences for others will have domino effects that impact them in ways they do not even realize, that both economically and morally we are mutually obligated to protect each other and entitled to protection.
After we realize that, we can get to the hard work of realizing it with fairness, equality, and as little error as we can muster.
You are dismissed.
Read as:
“I’m running away and here’s my excuse.
It was fruitless to debate you because I didn’t win any of my points. Debating is for losers who simply won’t do as I say without question.
I’m for oligarchy and so was Oscar Wilde.
Democracy sucks.
Praise Jesus! Even you non-Jesus people!”
Gentlemen and Tony, Gene and MIke, I must say fairwell. I have just contracted to do an analysis and business plan on low income housing and energy useage. An eight to twelve week project I would guess.
Inconclusion I will state that the result of our debates has been extremely fruitless. Debating for the pure joy of debating is desireable for those that wish to maintain the Current state of affairs and there are always those that will oppose change for that reason.
I think that it was Oscar Wilde that stated. Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Just talk to 50 different people on the subject of politics and economics and you will get a great insite of why democracies always fail.
Hail to Jesus Christ Super Star whoever that person may be. .
@Bron: The point of bringing up the fox and chickens in Skips metaphor is that the chickens are helpless against the foxes; even though in that metaphor (two foxes and a chicken deciding what’s for lunch) all the animals are evidently rational, since they can plan the future.
That metaphor doesn’t arm either foxes or chickens with 9mm pistols, it would fall apart. That metaphor casts the chicken as the victim, and clearly Skip is casting Libertarians as the chicken, and tax-imposers as the foxes.
However, Skip has it wrong. Tax imposition is not the best candidate to be cast as foxes, and Libertarians are not the best candidates to be cast as the chickens. The natural candidate for foxes, the truly evil predators, are the people without empathy, sympathy, conscience, shame or anything else that restrains them from harming others for their own selfish gain. We call such people Sociopaths.
The chickens are the natural prey of foxes, and the natural prey of Sociopaths is Normal people. Normal people are those of us that do not WANT force, coercion, trickery, lies, concealment or the desperation of others to be used for personal gain.
What we want is to live in a market based meritocracy, where people are rewarded in proportion to their talents and work, but the least talented are not penalized, subjugated, exploited or harmed. Taxation does not defeat proportional reward, and hence, neither does setting a floor on minimum living conditions when that is supported by taxation.
Is it total freedom? Hell no. What we believe is that it is possible to earn money without doing any harm to others, either mentally or financially (with the possible exception of putting competitors out of business by producing a product that consumers prefer).
We want laws that constrain the market so that is true. Nobody gets exploited, nobody gets ripped off or extorted, nobody wins by lies or misrepresentation or contract trickery or deception, nobody is endangered or killed for profit. We want a society with a safety net, because failure in the market or an inability to earn should not mean death, it should not even lead to the level of desperation that spurs most criminal behavior.
If those things make the market less efficient or profitable, we really don’t mind, we accept that as the cost of peace of mind and decent security and at least some semblance of fair play and a reduction in misery.
here is a competing idea about Standard Oil:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp
This is why I like capitalism:
http://phys.org/news/2012-01-philippines-tobacco-fish-farming.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-kentucky-tobacco-farmers-deregulation-production.html
If you actually understand the history of Standard Oil you will see parallels with what happened with tobacco deregulation. Capital was reallocated to productive farmers as it was in John D’s time. Inefficient oil producers either sold to John D or went under. They could not sell oil for the price John D did.
matt’s johnson:
So you would kill a rational chicken? That is horrible. I have chickens for eggs and would never eat them. They are pampered peckers, There is Henny Penny, Dagny, Lillian, Dominique and The Social Worker.
Henny Penny runs around squawking about nothing all day long and only lays one or 2 eggs a week, I figure she is a lefty.
Dagny is a rather homely chicken but gets after it and lays about 10 eggs a week. She is my favorite.
Lillian is a prima donna and lays only when she feels like it and doesnt sit on them.
Dominique is a very pretty chicken and works like hell, she lays almost as many as Dagny.
The Social Worker lays 3-5 eggs a week but likes to sit on Lillian’s nest.
I am thinking about eating Henny Penny and Lillian or maybe just letting them go in the woods next door, Mr. Rougue Renard will take care of them, he works hard earning a living and probably wouldnt mind an easy lunch once in awhile.
If the chicken is really rational, as you head toward it with your hatchet it will shoot you in the muzzle.
Hey Bron,
Do you know how to kill a rational chicken? Chop its head off with a hatchet.
@bron: If the chickens and the fox are equally rational, the fox still wins, because it has the natural tools at hand to take down any chicken. No chicken can defend itself against a fox. Only if the chickens all band together can they take down the fox, only if they all agree to risk death or injury in attacking the fox can they take down the fox.
In short, the chickens must form a society, a collective of chickens mutually obligated to each other, in order to win against the superior equipment of the fox.
That metaphor works just fine when translated to humans, it is what the 98% of humans must do against the 2% of humans born as sociopaths and psychopaths that walk amongst us. When they show themselves by their ruthless, inhuman acts, the rest of us must meet our mutual obligation to have them taken down, it is the only sure way to do it. Taking them down will involve bloodshed and death, and not just theirs, and those sacrifices for the common good, to stop the predation of the monsters in human skin, must be paid for by all of us. Not voluntarily, not if we feel like it, the debt is an OBLIGATION that MUST be paid, and anybody that refuses to pay becomes one of the thieves to be taken down.
If you do not like that obligation, if you do not acknowledge it, if you refuse it in advance, you are given fair warning: Leave before the debt is incurred, because just like a hotel, every day you remain voluntarily increases your indebtedness by another day of charges, and we do collect our debts by force, if necessary.
Bron,
Wait until rational chickens get out of their coop. They will be dead chickens.
Matt Johnson:
If chickens were rational we would not eat them, I was making a point about rational chickens not needing a farmer to protect them. Like rational humans dont need much government to protect them.
Go back to sleep Matt, they will wake you when you are about to die.
hskiprob:
here is a website I am sure you will like:
http://www.masterresource.org/
good stuff.