Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
I have two deeply contrasting books on my shelf right now, but they both base their premises similarly: Life doesn't make much sense at all and seems to only be getting worse in that regard. These two books, the recently re-issued Quest For Community by the conservative intellectual and founding dean of the University of California at Riverside, Robert Nisbet, and Rules for Radicals by the leftist Saul D. Alinsky, a preeminent boogeyman of the right wing. I recommend you read both.
Despite being written decades ago, both books are very useful in understanding our modern times, which do reflect the past but also show a tide from the Tea Party movement and the Right that is distinctly unique in flavor. Alinsky contrasts the confused youth, who see that there can only be a distinct break from the corruption of the past and creation of a new order, with the equally confused older generation, who looks back upon the past with a fondness that often defies reality.
Nisbet, on the other hand, recognizes the chaos and alienation as well, but pinpoints the confusion on the erosion of the guilds, churches and associations that people formed before the modern state came in and did away with them.
This is where it is important to understand conservatism and what it is. Despite his adoration of capitalization and exultation of the works of Ayn Rand, Fox News television host Glenn Beck is very much reacting against globalization. His response appears very much insane and erratic - skits in which he adorns leiderhosen and stands on top of a table, talking in a Kermit the Frog voice, filling his set with random puppets and incomprehensible chalkboards that look like they were stolen from the set of A Beautiful Mind - but there is a reason, beyond mere spectacle, that Beck brings in millions of viewers. The attached video of him speaking about a small town, which he compares to his native Mt. Vernon, Washington, that has been abandoned after DHL moved 9500 jobs from its 12,000 person population reflects this populist backlash against globalization.
There is a book, called Derborence, written by the Swiss French writer Ramuz that I think encapsulates in a literary form the dynamic we see it today's politics. A small village, with seclusion from the rest of the world reinforced by a large mountain, finds itself suddenly shaken to its core when a massive amount of men are killed after the mountain erupts, or as the villagers say, "the mountain fell." What Bill O'Reilly calls the assault on the "white Christian male power structure" by the Left and the dominance of the U.S.A. in all matters political and economic being shaken to its core by failing wars, economic turmoil and the rise of powers like India and China is the mountain. Tea party ralliers, freshmen Republicans and Glenn Beck are the villagers of Derborence, trying to figure out what this cataclysmic shift is and how to deal with it.
CuriousLurker, a friend of mine who blogs at Little Green Footballs, has said that while the technology of human beings has evolved at an incredible rate, our minds are still stuck where they were thousands of years ago. One thousand years ago, someone would likely be born into a village, know everyone in his village and die surrounded by all those he knew. The longing for this sort of familiarity and stability is still in the back of people's minds, no matter how much the background and panorama of our lives has changed.
If you look at most social crises in the past centuries, CuriousLurker's explanation fits to a tee. Regional and tribal warfare was a constant throughout human history, but with the colonization of the American continents, a whole new dynamic was created in which cultures from throughout the world culminated into one land mass. African slaves were forced to be part of this enterprise and Native Americans were inculcated into it.
On top of that, the United States was founded as the governing basis of most of North America. The US created a peculiar immigrant based society in which people from all over the world would come and contribute. Cultural cross fertilization is rampant throughout America. One needs only to turn on the TV to see it, where you'll see Japanese animation broadcast in English or a film like Slumdog Millionare, produced in India with a completely India-based plot and cast, winning an Academy Award for Best Picture.
However, once one leaves the living room and crosses into the city, self-segregation becomes evident. In the twenty first century, the most liberal cities have neighborhoods that are primarily Asian, primarily white or primarily black. It's not a nefarious conspiracy but the habit of an old conservatism that is still within all of us. People seek out community because it is necessary, but when that community is enforced (as it was by bussing programs in my native Seattle which did little to solve core problems of inequality), everything becomes messed up.
With globalization and an economic crisis that has shaken the United States to its core, it actually makes perfect sense that many Americans would react irrationally and with anger. The United States has always been a fluid, chaotic experiment and conservatism seems to have developed as a counter-weight to that. Whereas European states were often founded with national identity and dogma written in, identity and religion were something that individual Americans had to find themselves. They've done this by choosing to live in progressive cities or conservative towns, becoming Mormon, Unitarian, agnostic or Methodist.
Perhaps this is why there has been an outburst of attacks on Muslims and mosques throughout the country now, whereas there were few after 9/11. With a foreign attack on American shores, the United States was actually filling into an old role that was not only familiar but comfortable. (World War II has been for generations the symbol of America at its best.) Now, however, nothing seems proudly American. Those wars in the Middle East seem endless and meaningless, just as everything else in public American life does.
What is the solution? There are no solutions. In a world of chaos and anarchy, people need to find their own meaning. This is a difficult, arduous process. I think that the solution within all of us was best summed up by the Colombian intellectual Nicolas Gomez Davila, who said, "Man matures when he stops believing that politics solves his problems."
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
I don't know that this explains Conservatism so much as it explains Glenn Beckism.
I think you need to make a distinction between economic globalization and social isolationism. The GOPs are all for economic globalization. Beck is talking about social isolationism. Two ideas which are at variance with each other. Hence, the problem the GOP has with mashing together with the Tea Party/Glenn Beck crowd.
That's a really good point. I was going to call this article originally "Today's Conservatism." I think I'll re-edit it, given your suggestion.
"You've been a fool and so have I
But come and be my wife
And let us try before we die
To make some sense of life
We're neither pure nor wise nor good
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood
And make our garden grow
And make our garden grow
Candide
:-) One of my favorite musicals. Thanks for the reminder, Flavius.
you didn't convince me logic and conservatism aren't oxymorons
I think that the solution within all of us was best summed up by the Colombian intellectual Nicolas Gomez Davila, who said, "Man matures when he stops believing that politics solves his problems."
I was just reading Jung and he says the same thing.
I do know this: it is less a red state blue state problem. The dems are located in the high population centers and the repubs are located in the exurb/rural areas of America.
Interesting read and I must find these books.
I provided links to both of them. Saul Alinsky's book has been around for 30 years and can probably be found used. Nisbet's book was just reissued by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Both books avoid specific events and speak to larger aspects of the individual and collective human condition.
Great article, OXP! Thanks for the mention; I'm flattered.
I think the busing analogy is especially apt as our technology has brought us a sort of international cultural busing. Unlike desegregation busing it's not forced, however it's obviously nonetheless resented by certain segements of society on all sides. No doubt people feel they're losing treasured cultural identities, many of which are hundreds or even thousands of years older than our own. With that in mind, I'm really not very surprised by the far-right resurgence taking place across the globe.
Short of mass deporatations, genocide, or some sort of draconian forced "reeducation" of millions of people, there's simply no turning back at this point. Even if we could do those things without destroying everything we're supposed stand for and becoming a global pariah, we'd still be faced with the fact that we cannot completely withdraw from the world marketplace and expect to maintian the standard of living we're accustomed to.
Change isn't coming, it has already happened. We simply didn't notice it because we're biologically programmed to respond to immediate threats, not long term ones—think twig snapping = bear coming to eat you NOW = adrenaline rush + need for immediate, reflexive response in order to survive vs. AGW = slow, almost impercetible change = not an immediate threat to survival = ignore it until is IS an immediate threat. Except that doesn't work any more, and now people are angry becuase they feel like they were hoodwinked. There was no "stealth" cultural infiltration, peple just didn't notice the slow change... I think 9/11 was a big twig snapping, as was the election of President Obama (for some pople) and the recent economic meltdown. Now the adrenaline is pumping though, unfortunatley, not so much with regard to AGW.
If we don't calm down and recgonize that what was once a biological asset is now a dangerous liabilty, we're toast as a species. I believe there's a solution, however it doesn't involve retreat into the comfort of the familiar, it involves fearlessly seeking a way to make the changes work to our advantage. That's where our capacity for self-awareness come in. Our brains are capable of mitigating the danger, but only if we can honestly examine and take note of our primitive, tribal tendencies and find a way to get past our differences long enough to make a concerted group effort to save ourselves from...oursleves.
(Sorry, I didn't intend to write a book when I started typing out this comment!)