MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I am like a flag in the center of open space.
I sense ahead the wind which is coming, and must live
it through.
while the things of the world still do not move:
the doors still close softly, and the chimneys are full
of silence,
the windows do not rattle yet, and the dust still lies down.
I already know the storm, and I am troubled as the sea.
I leap out, and fall back,
and throw myself out, and am absolutely alone
in the great storm.
I was working on a whole another blog, but as I contemplate the current state of things, and the coming elections from the local to the federal, while perusing the web (in particular liberal/leftist sites), Rilke’s Sense of Something Coming has sprung to mind.
In particular the amount of energy and thought going into generating a primary challenger to Obama is very troubling to me. For the storm I sense is not a second Obama term, but rather complete control by those who would bring about suffering and hardships which most of us have never experienced (and for that lack of experience that notions of challenging Obama are entertained).
I have spent most of my adult life working in the non-profit sector working to put together rallies, raise funds, and implement initiatives. There are two basic approaches in terms of goal setting whether it was in terms of attendance, dollars raised, media coverage, impact created, etc: do we set something that historically seems plausible or do we go for the aspirational?
My experience has led me to believe we go for the plausible. If we exceed it, then great. But the blowback from falling too far one's goal more often than not overshadows any positive outcomes.
The storm I sense is a grand reworking of the nature of government in the US. If we fail over the coming year, the effects will last for decades to come. We have a small window of opportunity, a window that is rapidly closing. We don't have time for pie in the sky musing and daydreams.
(It is not by accident that the photo is of a prayer flag)
Comments
I have to tell you, Trope, I'm scared to death about what's coming. My grandkids have been here a week and we have another whole week with them. Their wonderful presence makes me so happy, and yet I'm terrified when I think about what life will be like for them when they get to working age.
There is a 24-year span between my first and second grandchildren. Our grandson was born in 1973, when life was still good for the working class, and he was fortunate enough to have had a good education in a blue-collar neighborhood public school. He went to the University of Michigan on grants and scholarships and loans, and has a good, relatively secure job in Ann Arbor today. Nothing but his own lack of will would have stood in his way. The doors were open for him and he was able to take full advantage.
My second grandchild was born in 1997 and my third in 2000. I can't even begin to predict where their lives will lead them. The hope is that college is in their futures, but where that will lead, nobody knows. I try not to be pessimistic, but it's hard not to be when I see how difficult it is for young people today, and how much harder it will be unless a great many things change in incredibly drastic ways.
The status quo is unacceptable. The setbacks far exceed any sense of progress. Our enemies grow in astounding numbers, as does their power. They will take over if something isn't done. There is reason to panic, but if reason gives way to panic we're in even more trouble.
I wish I could light a fire under Obama, but I'm not going to do anything that will open the way for the enemy to get hold. I'll vote for him again. I'll even work to get him elected again. But I'll also work to force the Democrats to do what they should have done long ago, and that's to concentrate on jobs and build a strong working class. I believe we can do that from within. I know for a fact we won't be able to do it if the enemy wins.
by Ramona on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 7:14pm
I have one word for your second and third grandchildren (in a variation of The Graduate, which is looking on era now long passed): Nursing.
Which on this lazy Saturday brings up a blog over at FDL:
Where Have You Gone, Dwight Eisenhower? (A Nation Turns and Lifts Its Lonely Eyes to You…Woo, Woo, Woo.)
And in responding to another blog on another site, I went back to some stats on the average salary in America. 1973(ish) was the peak of the post-war boom. After that it has been basically at best stagnation. Your first grandson ushered in the new times before we knew it was the new times.
And so maybe the song we should be singing is the S&G song which I gravitated to as small child when going through my mother's song sheets on the piano:
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 7:37pm
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:00am
I found your blog because I wrote a novel titled Something Coming and your use of those words pinged my Google alert. Now that I'm here I want to second something you said, in so many words: don't lose hope. The faction in the U.S. gov't driving the country into the ditch from the backseat wants progressives to give up on the Dems and Mr. Obama and clear the way for another GOP takeover of the entire government. They already own the Supreme Court and House of Reps, split control in the Senate, and have eyes locked on regaining the White House in 2012. Obama's 48% approval only has to move downward a few points to put him in range of defeat, and many Dems in the House and Senate are also facing margins so thin, a small percentage makes a huge difference. The GOP strategy is to make the country ungovernable and progressives so disheartened that enough of them -- say 10-20% -- stay out of the next election. It's Rovian politics at its disgustingly finest. So do not lose hope; in hubris is nemesis. In trying to destroy the country from within and create a Fascist utopia they're opening the door to a big leap forward in the way we all live and interact. But first there's something coming, a battle between the forces of light and dark. Keep spreading the word and exposing the lies!
by J.M. DeBord (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:43pm
Welcome. I hope you return to read and comment, and, dare I say, blog. You make a nice succinct summary of where the current situation stands. For every progressive who contemplates sitting out the next election, just know the uberconservatives applaud you.
So what is your novel about?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 8:54pm
Thanks very much for those words of encouragement. I think you have hit a very key truth. The point of negative advertising is to depress turnout. The constant criticism of Obama by progressives will not in itself cause us to shun him in 2012. But the combination of our own criticism coupled with the steady drum beat of horrible insults and thinly veiled racist attacks on Obama from the right wing could keep us from voting. It's something like a verbal blitzkrieg. The harder we're hit, the more stunned, the less we fight back. We can't let that happen.
by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:07pm
In particular the amount of energy and thought going into generating a primary challenger to Obama is very troubling to me.
Outside a handful of left-wing blogs, there is hardly any energy and thought going into this project at all. We're already pretty far into the political season, and there is as yet no challenger. Nor does there appear to be any great left-progressive hope out on the horizon. The times are abnormally conservative and conformist, and ordinary levels of organized political ferment and discord are absent.
That in itself is ground for worry though. The gap between progressive dreams and aspirations, on the one hand, and political activity on the other hand, appears to be extremely large. There is a pervasive sense that many progressives have simply given up hope, and have accepted that they are prisoners in a world they despise, and from which there is no escape. Everyone around them is consumed by fear, and expressions of dissent and potential disruption are met by, "Shhhh ... be careful ... something bad might happen." The media present an artificial image of reality that is completely out of joint with people's lived experiences. The dominant disposition among Democrats is fear and paralysis, made barely tolerable by the double-thinking and morally flaccid irony of popular comedians.
When people's main connection to intellectual relief and reality is through snark and jokes, such as with Colbert and the Daily show, something is deadly wrong with a culture. Earnest and straightforward expressions of values, and organized political action in pursuit of those values, is regarded as impermissible and unrealistic, so only the jokes are permitted. I would say this kind of environment is very dangerous and disturbing. It's like the atmosphere of late Cold War Eastern Europe.
You're worried that if we push things the world might go crazy. But the world is already crazy. It's mad as a hatter and as deadly as a serial killer. How much worse can the death-in-life degeneration and decadence that is 2011 America get?
270,000 Israelis today protested the rising cost of living in their country. Where are Americans? The American dream is disappearing; tens of millions of our fellow-citizens are unemployed; communities are evaporating; families are falling apart; the corporate-provided popular culture is morally and intellectually pulverizing; and a Democratic president can't even rouse himself to get extremely angry about these things, much less do anything about them. What's our response?
"Shhhh ... Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich ... scary monsters ... shhhhh!"
Have you noticed that one conservative crackpot after another comes and goes while liberals spend their time cowering in the corner and pissing in their shoes over the impending wingnut takeover? When Shirley Sherrod was smeared by a noted Republican hack and liar, the administration moved rapidly to fire her, because she "was going to be on Glenn Beck" that night. Where is Glenn Beck now? Not even on Fox anymore; past his prime time shelf life.
The establishment media and political machines elevate these Creature Feature blobs to keep progressives and dissidents in line, and then they move onto someone else. When the Obama campaign workers called me, they were clearly scripted to say "Michelle Bachman" a few times each.
But how much worse can Michelle Bachman be than the quivering Vichy Democrats who are now caretaking the White House? Do you think the people who actually own and run the country would actually allow her to do anything significant?
by Dan Kervick on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:52pm
There is much in this comment. It should be its own blog, and I mean that in the positive sense. Even though there are point in which I disagree.
How much can things be? The fact that you compare Obama's administration and the Dems in Congress with the reality of the Vichy government says how far we travel from the realities Americans are facing today in 2011. This is the type of hyperbole which serves no purpose other than to stir the pot to no effect. As bad as the Tea Party caucus is, they ain't the Nazis. There is no Holocaust going on.
And as the recent ceiling debacle revealed, there is a limit of the Wall Street's ability to control what actually happens in DC.
More to come later.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:23pm
People aren't being sent to death camps. But contemporary American capitalism destroys human community and solidarity, and consigns millions and millions of people to a degrading and debased form of existence and alienated zombie subordination that is only a little better than death.
Obama has willingly surrendered his administration to an elite financial plutocracy that blew up much of the Western World's economy in 2008; robbed people's wealth outright and in plain sight - including their own clients' wealth; usurped the institutions of democracy; and are now busy dismantling the work of generations of progressive stalwarts and returning us to an early 19th century mode of existence - worse perhaps: maybe even a neo-feudal world. This is a very big deal. Obama deserves to be stigmatized as standing among the most notorious cowards and collaborators in history.
by Dan Kervick on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:40pm
In essence, every administration since the formation of the republic has surrendered to the elite financial plutocracy., so the fact Obama has is no big news. The only brief moments such as Teddy's anti-trust legislation and FDR's new deal came only when there such a level of populist sentiment drove it. In both cases, it came at a time when most Americans lived in what we considered a level of poverty. As bad as things are, we can't say that yet. As bad as things are, people still dream of Xboxes and widescreen tvs. To consider the average American experience feudal is to say that you don't understand what reality was for those who lived in the feudal system during thre middle ages. Again, in the attempt to inspire urgency -- hyperbole.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:50pm
The essence of feudalism doesn't consist in whether people possess xboxes and iphones, or ale and mules. It's a matter of power, dignity, equality and self-government. Serfs with commodious 21st century stuff are still serfs.
by Dan Kervick on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:00pm
The essence of feudalism was a conception of ownership. The feudal lord owned everything and therefore was entitled to all the "profits" from the land. Regardless of the labor and effort put in by the serfs, the standard of living remained the same. Although there is the sense that today's world is like this, it is in fact nothing like it. The notion of going to a community college and getting a degree, and thereby jumping from the minimum wage job to one which pays over 20K a year is a possibility. One is not tied to the land to which one is born. To argue otherwise is just ideological bullshit. The current economic situation has put a damper on this reality, making finding any job a hurdle and a half. But in the end one does not have any obligations to one's current employer, and one can move from not only employer to employer, but place to place.
The expectation of Xboxes, etc. has come from time of negotiations for fair wages, whereby the average American expects a life in which the luxuries are not exception to the rule but rule itself. Maybe we should have those Xboxes, but most of human history is a history of the masses not having such.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:16pm
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:09am
Another double post. Is it me or the illuminati?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:25pm
The strong middle classes insured a stable nation, a stable government for that nation.
Sooner or later unhappy peasants revolt!
by Richard Day on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:03pm
From the republican point of view: America's problem was that we let peasants believe that they or at the very least their children and grandchildren didn't have to be peasants. We actually let them believe the sun will come out tomorrow, that everyone had their Daddy Warbucks who would come save the day.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:34pm
What is very interesting to me is how strongly some people hold out that a second term for Obama is 'our only hope' or 'our best hope' or the 'only possible way we can win'.
This is interesting because if one takes a step back and looks at so much stacked against him one might just as easily conclude that if we stick with Obama we are likely to lose.
I want a different candidate for many reasons but most of all because I happen to believe it may be our best chance to win. This is confronting the realities of his presidency, the realities of the republicans that he is not dealing well with, the realities of the economy, and the realities of voter supression laws passed in many key swing states.
We need a base that is fighting for something, not against something. We don't have that anymore with this president. I wish that things had gone better than they have and I don't put all of the blame on him but he definitely bears some responsibility.
I believe a new candidate we can rally behind, someone who knows what they are in for and is up to the challenge would be our best chance of inspiring people that there is a real 'choice'.
What I expect from the president is more of the same... and under the current circumstances as much as I like him as a man, I don't think we can afford to keep him as a president.
by synchronicity on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:23pm
From a Hollywood point of view, just holding ground is not inspiring and something to inspire the troops. In Lord of the Rings it wasn't about creating a stalemate with the Orcs, it was about annihilating them. If a truce was called, where the Orcs maintained a certain amount of middle earth, people would have left the movie theater (or closed the book) dissatisfied. Unfortunately for progressives in 2011 our best hope is to hold the ground and maybe, just maybe, make a little inroad into the republican conservative control on the state and federal level. This isn't something to rouse the troops. But life isn't a Hollywood movie.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:50pm
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:04am
I don't suppose life is a Hollywood movie. And I find it extremely converse to reality for you to suggest that my point of view is some how based in fantasy when it is entirely based in reality. My perspective is not reactionary and again I find it very intersting that you believe that staying the course is the 'correct' answer to the best outcome for our future. I simply based on the facts cannot see it that way. And there are many people who feel as I do. That is reality. The facts of where things are, are very hard and cruel. They are very real. And based on this reality and the fact that I have a daughter that I hope will have a future, I will fight for another possibility. I don't see your perspective as fantasy but a different take on the reality we face. We all have to go with our gut. I think with this candidate we are very likely to lose.
by synchronicity on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 1:02am
I'm sorry you read me as suggesting that your point of view is some how based in fantasy, or life is a Hollywood movie. What I was driving at was in response to "We need a base that is fighting for something, not against something." I would argue that in this place and time in America that for us to hold the line, and maybe scratch a little forward is fighting for something, and not just against something. My point is that holding the line isn't as inspiring as making the victorious charge to an overwhelming victory. More movies are made about that victorious charge, then ones that show the grunts in trenches scratching their way to the next trench, the battle still flaring around them.
So yes I agree we both are having different and legitimate takes on what is the best way forward. The charge to something grander is not fantasy, and there are many who want it, but I am just saying that hunkering down in our trench is in the long run the more plausible path to the goal we both want.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:28am
Okay thanks for the clarification though I would not say you analogy fits entirely in my view. It still feels like trying to paint my perspective as 'unrealistic' even the word plausible seems to go there in my book. But we each have to see what we see and act accordingly.
by synchronicity on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:58pm
I too sense a rising tide. My family roots are planted deep in Navy territory and I remember being told by my grandfather (WWII submariner) the following ... red sky at night a sailors delight - red sky at morning sailors take warning.
It's morning in America and the sky is red.
The approaching storm is being stirred up by those in the GOPer camp who've been promised for decades their wants and desires were on the front burner. Seems the front burners were purposefully left off. Anyway, now that they've found to knobs and cranked them hard to the right, their issues are front and center and at a full boil.
The old GOPer guard standing in the rear is allowing those in the front ranks to charge forward. They're half hoping in their zeal, they might accidently open new fertile ground the old Guard can exploit. If not, the rabble rousers will be politically castrated and things will go back to normal.
What the older GOPer's understand is there is a lot of undefined anger amongst the public at the government. Rather than smooth the public's frustration, they'd rather stroke it and encourage people take their wrath out in whatever manner they see fit. Hence the faux debt crisis. However, this undefined anger can be a tool in the right hands of the Democrats to show the public their anger has a cost.
For example, from what I'm hearing, bond holders are asking for more interest ... from 1 basis point (one-tenth of one percent) to 8 basis points (eight tenths of one percent).
With a debt of $14 trillion, a 7 basis point increase is a huge sum on money ... in the billions ... that has become an additional cost to the tax payer. So the question I would ask is ... if the tea-baggers are so concerned about the size of the deficit and passing the cost onto their children and grandchildren, then why did they take political positions that caused the interest rates on that debt to increase? That increase in interest payments means there's less money available to pay off the principle which means it will take longer to retire it.
The Democrats need to push the issue out into the open and show where the tea-baggers and their debt ceiling debate has caused bond holders to demand more in interest as insurance against future debt ceiling debates. And that cost to service the interest demand comes at the cost of paying off the principle which extents the debt over time, not shortening it.
In short, instead of using freed up revenue resources to surrender debt obligations faster, the debt ceiling debate ends up costing taxpayers more in the form of increased interest demands on the debt owed rather than reducing the debt itself.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 11:30am
The game of chicken threatening to renege on our financial obligations has made both parties look stupid. The only way to get the tea-baggers to own the increased cost of interest you are describing is to simply refuse to play. The debt ceiling is bad law that moves the unresolved elements of one act of legislation into another one. The second act is a meta-discussion rife with the most toxic elements that made the first act of legislation a creature without eyes or ears.
So what next: a Stupidity Limit Law? I know it would help if I forced my myself to be smarter so I should Legislate it as something I am required to do so that people know that I am dead serious about getting smarter real soon.
by moat on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:12pm
Would the Stupidity Limit Law apply retroactively to the current Congress, and disqualify most members from office? More crucially, are they stupid enough to pass such a law? I'd bet they are, especially if we promised them big campaign contributions in exchange.
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:58pm
They would only pass the retroactive part of such law if a line of credit was extended that allowed them to defer the seppuki clause.
It would be like carbon credits where you are allowed to pollute more only if you buy someone else's right to pollute. In this scenario, paying for the right to be intellectually unaccountable.
by moat on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 5:23pm
So the stupider congressmen (and women) would have to buy IQ points from their smarter colleagues? Would the smart ones then have to dumb down their own legislative votes accordingly?
Or would outside donations be allowed? (Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could probably smarten up half a dozen legislators each without busting a neuron.) Would the Supreme Court rule that such donations were not only free speech, but free thought?
So many questions. But the idea has potential, moat. Who could imagine it -- a Congress that literally trades on its own stupidity!
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 5:58pm
The problem is that trading away the right to be stupid means you have to be extra smart not to be totally screwed by the transaction. What is being exchanged is a certain amount of conceptual space to carry out a plan. The smart side will always get the shorter end of the deal if it gives up freedom of movement in exchange for value-in-hand markers.
Your smartening up idea has awesome lobby possibilities: Pay me now to learn how to think freely tomorrow. The real bets would center around shorting certain legislators....
by moat on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:39pm
People commenting here should follow the In the News link to the NYT article What Happened to Obama? It lays out succinctly why so many (not just us lefties) are profoundly disillusioned in the president.
The practical issue of a primary challenge isn't addressed. And ultimately, it won't matter, because there won't be a primary challenge. But would everyone stop pretending our concerns about Obama are illusory?
by acanuck on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 4:53pm
I would like you to acknowledge that Obama isn't really the problem, and that all this focus on whether or not to support him is a waste of time and energy. Simply put, progressives have to support him, or they have to admit that they are willing to set back the socioeconomic health of this country back decades simply to express their displeasure.
by brewmn on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 11:19pm
Another Trope,
I like the way you used the Rilke verse. Whatever the right thing to do may be, there is that sense of something coming.
by moat on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 7:30pm