we are stardust's picture

    Thoughts From One of the 'Not-In' Ilk

    (This was in comment to Destor's blog; kinda hated to muck up the sweet lines of his thread with it.)

    ........................................................................................................................................

    Reading through the comments on this thread, I’m struck by the prism everyone’s looking through is confined to the next Presidency.   ‘Can’t take a Repub’; ‘I won’t tell him I’m in until…’; ‘I’ll weigh the field, vote for the best’, and so on.

    I reached the point of No Confidence awhile back over a couple big issues and now realize there’s no way on earth I’ll ever vote for Obama in 2012.  Actually, it’s freed me up quite a lot to be more committed to taking The Long View: not just considering the next cycle, the next President or Congress, but how to save the republic at all.

    Not that anyone might give a fig about my thinking, but I thought I might write it anyway.  ;o)

    The degree to which our federal electoral politics is captive to the present duopoly is staggering; the degree to which it’s now captive to the military-industrial-security state through the WOT and War on Drugs is disgusting.  And the degree to which it’s now captive to the 1%, 5%, whatever, at the top of the income and wealth pyramid is not only alarming, but dangerous.  The best writers are trying to get us to remember that this situation never stands; history shows us that, whether it’s changed through armed revolution (which I really fear for obvious reasons), or even what happened during the Gilded Age with labor strikes and violence leading to Progressivism and Teddy’s trust-busting and FDR’s and LBJ’s policy enactments to right some of the wrongs done by capitalism run amok.  Now the Second Gilded Age is here: with a vengeance.

     

    It’s becoming clearer to me that the only real force that has a chance of bringing us back citizen democracy, financial justice, and unwinding the MIC and security state is people power, major populous peaceful revolts and strikes, financial withholding from major corporations and banks, whatever works to force change.  I tend to vacillate over inside or outside the Democratic party, but that’s another discussion.

    I saw this excerpt from a 2007 piece by Chris Floyd on a blog recently; it chilled me:

    “Tomorrow is here. The game is over. The crisis has passed — and the patient is dead. Whatever dream you had about what America is, it isn’t that anymore. It’s gone. And not just in some abstract sense, some metaphorical or mythological sense, but down in the nitty-gritty, in the concrete realities of institutional structures and legal frameworks, of policy and process, even down to the physical nature of the landscape and the way that people live.

    The Republic you wanted — and at one time might have had the power to take back — is finished. You no longer have the power to keep it; it’s not there.

    [snip]

    It won’t come with jackboots and book burnings, with mass rallies and fevered harangues. It won’t come with “black helicopters” or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm – but like a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality has taken its place.

    As in Rome, all the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns – plenty of bread and circuses for the folks. But the “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small group of nobles who rule largely for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.

    To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among this elite, and a degree of free debate will be permitted, within limits; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to govern or influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized – usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by an impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, not thoughtful citizens, and left ignorant of current events by a media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.”

    It reminded me of a graphic arts representation comparing Huxley and Orwell Obey linked to on a comment yesterday: What ruins us, what we are conditioned to love, or what we are conditioned to hate?

    When I hear many of you fearing a Republican presidency, it’s almost always the wingnut one, and it may be you’re right.  I’d hate it, but I’d hate losing this country to a corporate theocratic plutocracy forever even more; ergo, I’m willing to risk more in order to ensure it not happening.  When I see how complacent Dems have become since we have a ‘Democratic’ President, I shudder.  Yes, yes; I know the arguments by heart.  But for the sake of this argument, I picture that we would all kick back against a (perhaps) more extreme version of what we have now. 

    There have been those on these boards accusing Dems in WI for allowing Walker to get elected; sorta tickled me.  But WI proves the point: had Walker and his friends not pushed the envelope, over-reached on austerity cuts, larger corporate tax give-aways and tried and somewhat succeeded in outlawing collective bargaining, the labor movement wouldn’t be enjoying a resurgence now!  It’s not written yet how far all of this may reach, but the seeds have been planted: even younger voters now favor unions by 2:1!  I hope the momentum is still alive; there are so many crucial issues just now competing for reporting and attention that it’s hard to say.  Today’s Supreme Court election in WI may hint at trends; recall petitions and activism in Ohio, MI, and elsewhere.  Will there be calls for general strikes soon?  Will there be massive protests arrange on Facebook or Lefty websites?  It may all be too early yet; but it sure won’t be by 2012. 

    Food and energy will likely be dangerously high; the wars will still be going at a trillion bucks a year real cost; our social safety nets will be diminished; jobs will be likely be scare, and the next financial bubble may have burst by then.  And it will not hold when people are hungrier and living without hope.

    All the best writers trying to exhort us toward massive populist social movements warn us over and over not to expect to win in the short run.  The game plans have to be to build and build power, to keep organizing within movements, see what works, jettison what doesn’t, but to keep to our core beliefs: we all know what justice for all American looks like, and it seems to include justice for all people around the world, which our nation arguably has been not considering.  We’re learning more and more what our Fed and IMF have been doing has been cavalier toward the people of those nations not in the power elite.

    Bill Moyers quoting Farm Labor Organizer Baldamar Velasquez:

     "It's OK if it's impossible; it's OK!" Now I'm going to speak to you as organizers. Listen carefully. The object is not to win. That's not the objective. The object is to do the right and good thing. If you decide not to do anything, because it's too hard or too impossible, then nothing will be done, and when you're on your death bed, you're gonna say, "I wish I had done something. But if you go and do the right thing NOW, and you do it long enough "good things will happen-something's gonna happen."

    The sole reservation I’ve had in my theory is Supreme Court nominees, but I’m going to have to think that major changes in the power structure and economic hierarchy ruling politics could also force changes in the SC, and in voting, like instant run-off, and a system designed to exclude more than the legacy parties, and laws to unwind Citizens United; hell, be honest: even Dems didn’t want to do diddley-squat to neutralize it.  And as Bill Moyers quotes Howard Zinn: 

    "The Constitution gave no rights to working people; no right to work less than 12 hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance....Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to uphold justice."

     Anyway.  That’s my dashed-off Longer-view, ‘No; I’m not in’ thinking.

    The Moyers piece I linked to above is good; it's from a speech he gave on the anniversary of Howard Zinn's death.  The video is here.

    Anyhoo.  As the Council of Elrond knew, you can't just walk into Mordor; it takes the regular people to band together and find the way to Destroy the One Ring.   ;o)

     

    Comments

    The one thing that I think needs to be pointed out is that by and large we have always been a theocratic plutocracy, and economic changes have modified the first adjective so that now we have a corporate one.  The consent of the governed has always been by and large been an illusion.  Which is why "those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to uphold justice."  Sometimes these discussions tend to imply that there has been some kind of new power shift, as opposed to simply an intensified wealth grab by the same ones who have always been in power.

    There have been moments when those in government have stepped forward and lessen the power of the plutocracy, made them sacrifice for the greater good.  Some who participated in these action were motivated by a fear of the "people" getting too angry, but others were motivated by more noble views of their role as public servants and knew what justice for all looks like. 

    I think it is also important to keep in mind that while those in America over the last century have through their struggles brought more social justice and economic well-being to the lower 95% (or whavever percentage we're using these days), these gains were made in good part on the backs of those in the developing nations.  And I've seen a lot of comments on the blogosphere coming from the left these days which basically say "who cares about the workers/people in other countries, we should be only concerned with American workers." 

    In other words, there is a lot of barriers out there that need to be overcome. But this is so true:

    "It's OK if it's impossible; it's OK!" Now I'm going to speak to you as organizers. Listen carefully. The object is not to win. That's not the objective. The object is to do the right and good thing. If you decide not to do anything, because it's too hard or too impossible, then nothing will be done, and when you're on your death bed, you're gonna say, "I wish I had done something. But if you go and do the right thing NOW, and you do it long enough "good things will happen-something's gonna happen."

    And so I suppose what I would say is that for those out there working for the right and good thing, there is a difference between those in government who an "8" when it comes to  implementing policies that are counterproductive to achieving the right good thing (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worse) and those that are a "5."  Both the 8 and the 5 affirm, support and sustain the plutocracy, but the 5 increases the likelihood the good and right thing is someday achieved.


    I can't think why you think this has always been a theocracy, but I'm sure you'll tell me.  I do know that Obama has increasingly blurred the lines of church and state by giving grants to religious charities; he sees it as pragmatic; I see it as wrong.  By all reports, Arne Duncan supports vouchers for religious schools; I don't.  And now his administration has apparently allowed Arizona residents to send up to $500 to a scholarship organization rather than pay that money to the state in taxes. Nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools.  The Supreme Court refused to overturn the challenge.

    Those gains were made largely on the backs...?  What?  You're back to the theory that if workers here get paid well and have good benefits it harms third worlders?  Nope; that's a myth: the business owners make less profits.  And no; I don't think that trade deals that lift all boats are good when they undercut American workers and trade policy benefits corporations so hugely.

    I think that if you can't see the power shift is directly tied to the shift in wealth and income shift, and how that's harming representative democracy, I can't help you.  How do you feel that Obama is on target to raise over one BILLION DOLAARS  for re-election, and that Jim Messina of the money-bags schmoozing is running his campaign exactly for that?  Yech.  Messina says he learned everything he knows from Jim Baucus, uber-conservative Dem Senator. 

    Funny numbers you give; it ain't math in my book.  I'm going with hoping there's someone more moral and ethical to vote for in the short run, and who wants ME and my needs as part of his base.  Sadly, Obama has proven he doesn't. 


    So during the 50s and 60s, if we go examine the living standards of people in central and south america, in areas where mineral resources for manufacturing were being taken out in Africa, we would find that the average citizen there was partaking in the same economic boom the Americans were experiencing?  I'm not saying that it has to be that way.  I'm just saying that was the way it was then. 

    As far as the theocracy goes - it is a defacto thing just like if we call what we have today a plutocracy rather than a republic, which it is in a de jure sense.  Just how many local, state or federal campaigns were be dead in the water from the get go if the candidate comes out and says I am an atheist, or a muslim, or even a jew or a buddhist.  Why is it that when gay marriage is put to the people to vote on, it loses in state after state after state? 

    In some ways we have made some good progress on expanding and diversifying our protestant foundation which has permeated and influenced our social, economic, and political views - and not everything that has come from this has been a negative; but taken as a whole, we have to say that as a country we are still a theocracy which sustains the heterosexual patriarchy which is a core facet of the plutocracy.


    LOL!  Maybe soon we'll be ready for a Bernie Sanders candidate for Prez who'll say when asked about his religion:

    Kinda fun like 'The Rent's too damned high! dude, eh? And Gay Days are just ahead; I promise you. This is the time just before the time we've been waiting for.  Promise.  The bigoted assholes are dying one at a time...

    One thing I forgot to say is that in the final analysis, I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to find political solutions to what at base are spiritual psychological maladies in our country.  If we were more sane and Good (yeah; careful, stardust), we would have solved our energy problems, our hunger problems, etc., and we'd be kicking ass making art and making friends and ...well... yhou know.   ;o)


    Maybe I am influenced in my thinking by living in an area where the bigoted assholes are doing a pretty good job of indoctrinating their children before passing on to the great beyond...

    And my point is exactly how many places would Bernie Sanders not stand a chance right out of the gate.

    And my point would be until we deal with our spiritual maladies in our country, we don't have much hope of finding our political solutions.  But once we do deal with those maladies, our political problems will take care ot themselves.

    If they made me King, my first decree would be "everyone....into therapy. Now!"


    Ack; I might agree more save for the fact that there do be so many crap therapaists, LOL!  But fear not; love is stalking the land; of that I am certain.  She is being beaten, marginalized, roasted and lampooned.  But She will arise!  when times get tougher.  She will show many of Her Faces; we will call Her by different names; but we will preceive that She is the only way through this Morasse.  And we will become aware that sharing and community is the only way through!

    I jest a bit, by it is one of my solid convictions.  I have seen it over the past year, seriously.  I do forget it, and cause myself to have Portentious Dreams.  But in the end, unity and compassion are The Way. "I've been....to the Mountaintop."  I do believe he had been; we have just been waiting. 

    Peace to you, Trope.


    Peace Stardust.

    I am just curious why you emphatically (i.e. use of capitalization) genderize love as female. Could we not say "It will show many of its facesl we will it by different names; but we will perceive that it is the only way through this Morasse"?


    Just the mood I'm in. Trope.  Didn't mean to be sexist.  It was the image that came into my...self...for lack of a better term.  Maybe unconsciously feeling that we've been a male-dominated society/world for so long?  And I am at least sexist enough to notice that the female of the species plans ahead better, probably a biological imperative toward protecting and nurtuirng young to almost-adulhood.  Just a guess.  ;o)


    "that we've been a male-dominated society/world for so long"

    and you ask me why I think there is a theocracy going on?  Even if it just a sense of inadequacy at its base, they need a ideological foundation to support over the long haul.


    we haven't changed much from this


    Stardust, I put a response up in the "Are You In" blog by destor about the time you posted this. I had composed it yesterday when destor's question first appeared but decided initially not to submit it because the early responders seemed to be largely in the "lighten up" mood that DD had put forward. My response was not in that mood. 
     I too have concluded that I cannot vote for Obama again. The Chris Floyd article you linked to spells out the reasons even though he was writing about Bush. Just change the names and what would be different? Obama has continued virtually everything that was grossly wrong and often blatantly illegal about Bush's policies and has further established those illegalities as new law or new powers of the president by following their precedent rather that overthrowing them at the first opportunity.
     The short term probably covers my remaining lifetime. If the country goes tits up tomorrow I cannot claim that I got a bad deal from the cosmos for my allotted years. The slightly longer term will almost certainly affect my children adversely. The long term for me, which is really not that far away, will be the span of years lived by my grandchildren. My grandchildren, if they were yet capable of thinking in such terms, would have no reason to expect a life nearly as comfortable and free as the one I have had. That may not be avoidable even by the best choices being followed, what the world has left to offer mankind is rapidly changing, but the direction our country is headed might very well leave them in truly bad circumstances. Circumstances far worse and dehumanizing than they need be.
     None of this makes clear to me some obvious "good" choice but it makes me determined not to repeat an obvious bad choice even if there was a worse choice offered as the alternative at the time.

    Thanks for this well developed post. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.


    As you say, Lulu, when I read the Floyd piece and thought about how little had changed, and in some areas I care about are worse, it chilled me.  I know no one in the country cares about the tribunals and how the alleged terrorists are being robbed of their rights, but I do; we're supposed to be a country that adheres to the Rule of Law, and watching the administration claim secrecy to the degree that prisoners can't even defend themselves in court gives me the shivers.

    Like you, I fret for my kids and grandchildren; the way we're headed they won't be able to have a good education in public school, and forget college.  It will be for elites only, and god knows how they'll support themselves, or afford health care.  And the planet will be choked with coal dust and water will be ruined by fracking, and the coasts will be oil and plastic islands floating by.  It looks like agribusinesses will own all the crop seed, and most of it will be genetically modified; a chilling thought. 

    Obama's folks seem gleeful that the new census says that Hispanics are beginning to dominate the country's population; but I think they are beginning to be outraged that his administration is deporting undocumented workers at triple the rate Bush did, with no moves toward a sane immigration policy.  So you get situations like in Texas and Arizona that are dangerous and inhumane toward people with brown skin, whether legal or not.

    I did love what you said about not getting such a bad deal from the cosmos; it's sweet in a kinda upside-down way.  But for the next generations, the pity is: it doesn't have to be this way.  And it's a fucking pity that so few are so greedy and lusting for power just for the hell of it that they can steal most of what we have to prop up their broken souls.  People prove over and over again that wealth past a certain point doesn't bring happiness; but they forget about the characters who lust for Power and Control, just cuz they can grab it. 

    And this President seems okay with that.  Wonder what will happen with the Republican plans to privatize Medicare now?  Will Obama and all the Dems fight it, or be willling to uh...compromise just a little? 

    Anyhoo; thanks for talking about it, Lulu.  I hear your heart and your head, and agree.

     


    I don't know if there is a "rational" argument for your position, Stardust.

    Imo, there is nothing that shows how abstention leads to a better future than voting for the lesser evil. But I understand how you arrive at your conclusion, and how it seems like the only sane reaction to the present situation.

    I think, as things stand, Larry on the other thread was wrong to see the current electoral dilemma as standing between cake and death. Far from it. The political system in its current monstrous state is giving you the option between

    a) a slap in the face and

    b) a kick in the nuts

    (ok, replace nuts with ... um, oh never mind).

    Whatever analogy you go with, the idea is that there is nothing appealing or even redeeming about either option. There is a point at which a choice between two evils goes beyond the bounds where the lesser evil is a viable option. Though clearly the lesser evil is the slap in the face, right? So the 'rational' thing is to "choose" a slap in the face. But there is something perverse and degrading about someone demanding that you CHOOSE a slap in the face in order to avoid the threatened kick in the nuts. Its not enough that they get to abuse you, you have to opt in, own that abuse. If you do vote for Obama, you are thereby endorsing his record, and endorsing the all too predictable conservative authoritarian corporate agenda for the next four years- however nicely wrapped in compassion.

    There is a nightmarish kafkaesque soul-crushing aspect to the whole proceedings which for you creates the moral demand that you opt out.

    Does that sound right?

    Anyhow, it's how I'm reading the subtext here. In short, I don't buy your argument, I do buy your sentiment. And probably the right thing to do - in the present prevailing atmosphere of unbounded uncertainty - is to go with your sentiment. All too often people, Dems in particular, have tried to operate strategically or pragmatically or prudently in their voting behavior. They should take it more seriously than that, imo.

    Thanks for this.


    Well, a kick in the huevos would cover both nuts and ovaries, LOL!  But no; I'm not claiming rationality so much as spelling out the way I have to travel on this road.  There will be someone to vote for, and while I think it's a negligible chance, there might be something that percolates in the populace over the next two years.  Shoot, I can't say how many times I've held my nose and voted, and I can't do it this time.

    The only place I might disagree with you is that if Not-Obama gets elected, more will kick back, and it's a risk I'm willilng to take for the long term.  Short term benefits with Obama are simply too meager for me by now.

    And yes, I think you made every metaphor perfectly, and I'm glad you see that the 'between Scylla and Charybdis' argument just can't work for all of us forever; sometimes we just have to go with 'Can't do it again'.  I'm just there now.  I regret I can't be out organizing protests, frankly, and trying to energize people to take our country back.  Or that I could be one of the poets or musicians that could inspire the same.  Where are they???  Tom Mariello or whatever's labor song sucked, IMO, and all we have is from this guy:

    Well, a kick in the huevos would cover both nuts and ovaries, LOL! But no; I'm not claiming rationality so much as spelling out the way I have to travel on this road. There will be someone to vote for, and while I think it's a negligible chance, there might be something that percolates in the populace over the next two years. Shoot, I can't say how many times I've held my nose and voted, and I can't do it this time. And yes, I think you made every metaphor perfectly, and I'm glad you see that the 'between Scylla and Charybdis' argument just can't work for all of us forever; sometimes we just have to go with 'Can't do it again'. I'm just there now. I regret I can't be out organizing protests, frankly, and trying to energize people to take our country back. Or that I could be one of the poets or musicians that could inspire the same. Where are they??? Tom Mariello or whatever's labor song sucked, IMO, and all we have is from this guy:

    Do you know that many protestors in the ME were sending us messages here, wishing that wwe could also be touched by the Zephyrs of Freedom?  They know what it's like to live under neoliberal economics; and we're living with them by leaders who use the words of justice and progress; it's an insult.

    And hey, dear; at least you almost called my decision sane.  I loved the comment, Obey; thank you.  It is very Kafkaesque.  And thanks, too, for the Orwell-Huxley graphic art; but I wanna know:

    Where's my Soma?  If I can't have the jet-pack they promised me, I want the Drug Of Mellow.


    Obey, you wrote:

    I don't buy your argument, I do buy your sentiment. And probably the right thing to do..

    Hmmm...could you elaborate, help me understand those statements in conjunction with one another?  You don't buy the argument, but you think doing what the argument entails is probably the right thing to do?

     


    Ack. You're making me look bad, AD.

    ;0P

    I think, for a start, that it helps if you include the whole sentence in the quote -

    And probably the right thing to do - in the present prevailing atmosphere of unbounded uncertainty - is to go with your sentiment.

    I don't buy the 'pragmatism' argument she puts forward. I don't think it necessarily turns out better to just let the GOP take the white house and then hope that a popular uprising will be enough to reverse the momentum rather than just finally throw us into full-on fascistic authoritarianism. I've read enough german jewish academic autobiographies from the '30s to find that kind of too-clever-by-half thinking a bit risqué. Too many unknown unknowns, or indeterminate indeterminacies.

    I do however buy the sentiment that there is something more behind any motivation to vote beyond the bare cold intellectual pragmatic calculation, and that going with those sentiments for once may nevertheless be the right move. In the background of my thinking there is a critiique of the whole overly 'rationalistic' mode of proceeding in Democratic political circles that I find counter-productive and ultimately irrationally rational in the sense the philosopher Derek Parfitt conceives it. More on that some other time maybe... gotta think it through.

     


    Wow.  And here I was tempted to answer that Obey is learning to straddle the worlds between brain hemispheres: steeped in logic, but not immune to the leap of faith and visionary guided by a sense of 'the possible'.  That Good News can spread like wildfire, or consciousness-laden molecules riding on Zephyrs when there is some sort of evolutionary spriritual-political-societal critical mass.

    Oh, well.  LOL!   ;o)


    There ain't no world between the brain hemispheres. There's just the corpus callosum. And molecules riding zephyrs? what are you smoking, dear...?

    ;0)


    In this country we call it the 'corpus colossum', but what?  You think it's a junkyard?  It is the communication device, the walkie-talkie of the brain!  And you're just being  Pug-punk; you knew I meant the logical, linear v. the intuitive, musical.  Last question: just tobacco.  American Spirit.;o)

    And I don't think I presented this as a pragmatic argument, but as an argument I, myself, could follow once I had freed myself from weighing factors that might force the lesser of two evils, Rock/Hard Place dwelling.


    I'll stand by Callosum. Unless the Colorado republicans voted to make it sound less yourupean or sumtin. ;0)

    And I'm ALL about the music and the lyrical and the poetic, dear. WHATCHUTOKKINBOUT?

    and tobacco? Right. pfuttt.


    You were just spoofing about my Roman Coliseum hemisphere metaphor was all.  As I said to Mr. Logic, you do straddle between the disciplined and the creative.  CANIPOSSIBLYBECLEARER?  I think just maybe I have shown admiration for your ability to do just that.  You lookin' for me to blow more sunshine up your skirt, dear?  LOL!  Okay....whooooooosh!  Photons galore....

    You still smokeless? (not in the er...naked way....)


    How the hell do you know I'm wearing a skirt (and/or naked)?

    Is my webcam on somehow? Friggin computers these days...


    You never believe I'm psychic, do you?  You just think I'm psycho. But I didn't break our last webcam session connection.  Gorgeous piano, by the way.  Can't make out the sheet music...er...maybe...The Jackal?



    Ha. Nice try. I'm working on my guitar these days. Trying this one out ... 

     

     

     

     

    and, um, failing.

    Thanks for the Jackal. Love that one.


    Welcome.  I had no idea you were anywhere near that caliber a guitar player, even if failing a little on something like Drivin' South.  That man was from some Other Place.  Now: what the hell time is in Belgium, anyway?  You should get to bed, Pug!  And set the cat out.  Or the milk bottles.  Or the wine bottles.  Night night.  See you in the morning. 

    Oh---and a lullablye for you and your new SO.  ;o)

     


    Ok. that's freaky. It's not a cat. Just my S/Os dog that looks like a cat. Or a mop, depending on the angle. gnite


    Hey, stardust: Civilizations fall; Buffy endures. Maybe the best trade-off we can hope for.


    Ok, well that's helpful in explicating what I take to be ambivalence on the question of whether you think the right thing for an individual to do in situations such as this is to vote "rationally" (using which notion of rationality?  the prevailing one?) or using some other criterion.  Which seems to me fair enough. 

    Irrationally rational...interesting.  I'll add to that the concept of unpragmatic pragmatism.  Maybe I'll write about that sometime.


    Dunno if its ambivalence. Maybe just careful... ;0)

    Irrationally rational - what I had in mind with that is Parfit's solution to a certain game-theoretic problem. Take an ordinary intelligent rational person - i.e. a democrat - and put him/her on a desert island with a raving irrational egotistical spiteful lunatic - i.e. a republican. The republican then threatens, in some way, to get both of them killed unless the democrat concede to the republican's every demand. The rational thing to do - the optimal outcome - is to give in again and again. Because the republican knows that the dem is rational and won't risk getting killed unnecessarily even if he bluffs, and the dem knows that the republican really is crazy enough to get them both killed if he doesn't get his way. (this scenario bears some resemblance to the current US political setup). So how does the Dem actually change this rather unhappy dynamic? Parfit's rather paradoxical formulation involves coming to the conclusion that the dem ought rationally make herself irrational - make herself willing to take the risk, even if that risk is not quite necessary, willing to ignore the repulican's threats. And make it clear to the Republican that she is no longer going to be 'rationally prudent'. Only by credibly signaling that she will ignore threats herself does she get the Republican to cease threatening.

    Anyhow that is the rather cramped short version, as it stands somewhat imperfectly analogical to the political situation in various ways. Just throwing it out there.


    As I see it there is a choice between Going to hell in a hand basket really fast with the republicans or much more slowly with the democrats. Personally I would choose more slowly because I have a bit more time to make preparations.

    But be that as it may, this country cannot continue on it's present course much longer and will eventually go the way all other empires have. Don't think Germany in the 1930s think Russia today as the eventual outcome.

    As is stated in your post. No Jack Boots or Brown Shirts. On the contrary, unlike Germany that had a cultural tradition of authoritarianism, we have a cultural tradition of anti-authoritarianism. Name one block buster movie where the hero was the head of the FBI. No, our heroes  were people like Bonnie and Clyde, Scar Face, Butch Cassidy, Pretty Boy Floyd.

    Get my drift.

    A society where all but the few left at the top - few because the next financial collapse will spare very few there as well - will have to form their own coalitions and support structure because the governments will be powerless to do so.

    So I will vote for Obama and the democrats for only one reason. They will put enough band aids on the system to keep it afloat long enough (I hope) for me to get ready for it. If one can truly be ready.

     


    LOL!  Bit our heroes are now Snookie and Jayz and God knows!  'We luv our bling'.

    I do understand your thinking, C; I just can't be there now.  As Obey says: Risk v. Reward; I'm taking the Reward Long View.  Gonna get interesting when the federal government shuts down; apparently it's a lock.  Christ.


    Been there...done that...yawn.


    On the shutdown you mean?  Not so much of a yawn for folks waiting for thie checks, if it is what you mean.


    I read your quote from Floyd as a defense of Obama.  After the “patient is dead” the next doctor to see that patient is a medical examiner.  I for one cannot fault Obama for being unable to re-animate the Republic.  The only subject left for rational consideration here is cause of death.

    Your sentiment toward taking the long view seems prudent at least and maybe even courageous.  I sensed skepticism about the Velasquez comment, which reminded me of “The Plague” and Dr. Rieux’s response to the question why does he work so hard to treat plague victims when he knows they will not recover. His answer was “because I am a fighter.”  I think that psychologically at least Velasquez is understandable.  On the other hand there is the wisdom of the old Chinese proverbial fable about a peasant standing in the rice paddy.  It is Spring and he looks up from his labor to see an army marching from the North to the South.  In the Fall the same peasant looks up to see an army marching from South to North.  The next Spring…

    My comment to Destor was meant as just a little momentary realism. I think none of us here would risk a Republican if we didn’t have to.  In candor I voted for Obama the last time and will vote for him again for only one reason – because fewer innocent people will die.  Beyond that I am like you and find nothing to relate to.  In other words cake, not bread, but then again not death either.


    Larry, I need to go do some things just now, and I'll be back about the rest you wrote.  But in the meantime, I wanted to say that I've thought of you often since you wrote on one of my Cafe diaries that you knew exactly what I meant, and had indeed experienced what amounted to 'a dark night of the soul', and were ever after barred from some pursuits that were dear to you.  The conversation spun off into po[eople wanting to Fix me; I was looking for what you corroborated: simliar stories.  I remember Zip tried to help through written works of the Saints; a bit foreign to me, but somehow a bit comforting to know, again, it wasn't unique to me.  Thanks, after all this time.   ;o) 


    You're more generous than I, Larry.  I fault Obama greatly for so squandering the momentum and hope he had built up, and especially for the young folks in the country who have had the air let out of their tires.  Closing down the online program and replacing it with a fund-raising wing and anouncements was counter-intuitive, then making the DNC into his gig--bad form, IMO.

    'Cause of death' is debated, but Democrats have foisted neoliberal economic off on us and much of the developing world, which was counterproductive to the financial health of the bottom 75% of us, at least.

    I think Velasquez meant that you do what you're compelled to do if you have a relatively tireless and good soul, as he must have.  Fight for all, not just yourself because it's what right, and sooner or later good tings occur.  And hopefully not just in the afterlife.  :o)

    Your boredom quip (not to mention Eddie Izzard) were fun.  I'm not sure that fewer people will die under Obama; must be what each of us picture.  Two long wars are killing plenty; don't know about the domestic stuff.  ACA: maybe if it gets overturned, the Feds will help the states put single-payer plans in place.  I dunno.  But thanks for weighing in. 


    As to "you can't just walk into Mordor; it takes the regular people to band together and find the way to Destroy the One Ring", you also need Sauron to turn a blind eye to what is happening right under his nose.  Something I think will be readily doable given the unenlightened self interest operating in our current political and economic axis mundi. 


    Do you mean 'not readily doable'?  I may be reading sideways.  But we can metaphorically blind the Cyclops. You up for the job?  Or do we have to pay Quinn to do it; hell, he may do it for free if there's pie afterward.


    Meant the way I wrote it.  The article you linked to by Stiglitz the other day, seems to lay out how there are structural problems in our society/political culture that more or less guarantees that "enlightened" self-interest will take a back seat to plain old greed. His closing statement:

    "The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."


    "you also need Sauron to turn a blind eye to what is happening right under his nose.  Something I think will be readily doable given the unenlightened self interest operating in our current political and economic axis mundi."  I thought the Eye of Sauron was the metaphor for the MOTU; got it wrong.

    Anyway, I did reach a bit far for a film metaphor.  And here tonight I saw tanks with advertising and a sign that said, 'Democracy Light' on War, Inc. that captured things pretty well.  ;o)


    Latest Comments