Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
American Politics: Lucy vs. Charlie Brown
American politics has turned into the comic strip Peanuts, with the liberal Charlie Brown attempting to kick a football while the conservative Lucy pulls it away from him for the thousandth time. Nothing better illustrates a politics that is polarized between an immoral, unscrupulous right and a spineless, incompetent left than the sad story of Shirley Sherrod, an obscure employee in the U. S. Department of Agriculture who became a household name overnight.
After America’s oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP, attacked the conservative Tea Party movement for white racism within its ranks, rightwing activists decided to strike back by exposing black racism within the Obama administration. Rightwing blogger Andrew Breitbart posted on his website an edited video of Sherrod, who is black, apparently saying in a speech that she denied help to a farmer in distress because he was white.
In fact, the full context of the speech shows quite the opposite. Sherrod refers to a 24-year-old episode when she worked for a nonprofit organization not the government, to make the point that she confronted and overcame her own prejudices to help a white farmer regardless of race. In a part of the video not played by Breitbart, she said, “Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't ... God helped me see that it's not just about black people. ... I've come to realize that we have to work together ... we have to overcome the divisions that we have.”
Breitbart’s smear of Sherrod became an international sensation when FOX News repeatedly ran his version of the story without checking with Sherrod or the farmer in question. The farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife Eloise later appeared on CNN and confirmed that they never saw a hint of racism in Sherrod and that indeed she helped save their farm. In Roger Spooner’s words, “Me and the wife, we never, we never, we never saw that [racism] at all. Absolutely. It’s unbelievable. If we had not found her, me and my wife — we went checking here and yonder and everywhere — if it hadn’t been for her, we’d of lost.”
In an appearance with FOX New’s Sean Hannity, Breitbart made it clear that he cared nothing about the truth or about Ms. Sherrod. He said, “I'm invested in getting the NAACP and the Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to stop constantly calling the Tea Party racist. That's my job. I could care less about Shirley Sherrod, to be honest with you.”
Instead, of carefully checking the full context of the video and the facts of the story, both the Obama administration and the NAACP blundered into the rightwing mousetrap. The administration fired Sherrod faster than you can say Martin Luther King (it has since offered her a new job).
The NAACP applauded the firing, saying, “We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.” Later, when the truth came out, the group’s president Benjamin Todd Jealous said, “we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart.” No kidding!
The Sherrod story should have been about an unscrupulous rightwing setup of an innocent victim to take revenge on their opponents. Instead, the story came to center on the blunders of the Obama administration and the NAACP.
Like so many liberal groups, the NAACP has fallen on hard times in recent years. Sexually exploitive male leaders ran the organization into the ground in the 1990’s and early twentieth century. It has lost about half its members and has not made an impact on big issues in recent memory. The organization attempted a comeback with its attack on the Tea Party, but instead has just become another example of liberal cowardice and incompetence.
It is hard to believe that the NAACP once successfully challenged much of the American power structure to help bring down the system of Jim Crow in the South. How the mighty have fallen.
How could liberals in the Obama administration and the NAACP have fallen for the trap set by a known rightwing attack dog, who had previously used doctored videos in attacking the leftwing grassroots organization ACORN? How could liberals not have learned by now that the right will butcher the truth to make political points? Weren’t liberals on this planet when conservatives said we must go to war with Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from hurling a-bombs on our cities? When they charged that the Democrats’ health care bill empowered “death squads” to throw grandma into the gas chamber? When they said that Obama was born anywhere but in the good ole U.S. of A.?
With a right that is wrong and a left that is lame, it is no wonder that Americans are so down on their politics.
102 Comments so far
Show AllThe corporations bankroll the election campaigns of both Parties and provide lucrative corporate lobbying jobs to politicians of both Parties while they are out of office. The financial elements in the large centers now own the government just as they did during the Gilded Age.
The two Parties go through an elaborate charade of holding an election; however, they mainly differentiate themselves over social issues such as guns, abortion, death penalty, gay and immigrant rights, which are of no concern to the corporations.
In the ensuing culture war the Republicans positioned themselves as the defender of white American cultural values, and by deliberately conflating the freedom for the individuals with the freedom for the huge corporations to make profit, cruelly and cynically duped the white working class into voting against their economic interests.
The Democrats remains only as a nominal defender of progressive values, trotting out Dennis Kucinich every two of years and duping their constituency in 2008 with an empty and cynical promise of ‘Hope and Change’.
Bossyman,
Well-stated. Doug Henwood wrote a great article in the Nation Magazine (2008) about a second Gilded Age, drawing parallel comparison to what happened during the first Gilded Age. I registered as an Independent in 2004 (I wish I had done it years earlier, but better late than never) and am so glad I did. You are absolutely right that the dysfunctional political system in this country consists of one party and two factions, both of which are controlled by corporations. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but hopefully some day voters will see this and realize that it is the system that needs changing, not so much the parties themselves, which will never change as long as they continue to feed off of the corporate teet.
Misplaced analogy in the story's lead ...
Lucy is the Democratic party, promising Charlie Brown — The People — over and over again that THIS time they'll get to kick the ball. And over and over again, The People get up off their backs and line up for another shot.
Exactly.
Indeed.
I was sure that's what the story would be about--dems as Lucy and the bulk of progressives as CB.
CD lets us down again.
Even NAACP has been corrupted.
Yes, and in exactly the same way that all of the liberal and progressive organizations have been corrupted. They have become gentrified. That is why the constant demands from liberals that we "be polite" are not politically neutral. "Be polite" means do not question or deny aristocratic and gentrified social ideas and arrangements. Liberals claim that they can enforce that, and at the same time somehow be on the left or sort of to the left. It is a contradiction, it is a lie.
The idea is that in order to defeat the right wing, we need to have "winners" who are "on our side." But "winners" is not politically neutral. The way that "on our side" is defined is this: "sharing the same beliefs." The only way to know that a person has a certain "belief" is because they say so - which costs nothing and means nothing.
So we hear all of the time "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..." which is them followed by every sort of reactionary statement in the book. Don't get me wrong, I support your cause, but we need to be "practical, realistic, patient" etc. "Don't get me wrong, I am on the side of the working class, just like you are, but to get there we must (cater to the wealthy, be polite to our masters, get some rulers on our side, work within the system, etc.)"
Anyone refusing to submit to that thought control and suppression of speech is then branded as impractical, unrealistic, dangerous, or crazy. In this way the national political discussion is ruthlessly kept within very narrow bounds and only a very limited range of views are tolerated or permitted.
Another perfect analogy is "good cop-bad cop." You decide who is good/bad, I think either party is interchangeable in either role, but the point is that the Dems/Rethugs have been good cop-bad copping Americans for years. And the majority of the sheeple fall for it every single time, every election.
I'm sorry, but Americans deserve the government and politicians they elect. If they are too blind, apathetic, or just plain stupid to not see how the 2-Party system is actually ONE party, and they continue to vote against their own self interests, then Americans deserve precisely the hell that their country is turning into. I have no pity for them.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Yes. I detailed framing of this comes from Charles Derber with his concept of regimes. We are, in his way of thinking, in the third corporate regime, and both parties' majorities support it. The regime changers are two groups mainly—the hard core neocons like Cheney who want an American neo-fascist police state regime and the progressives, like Nader, Kucinich (when he is not caving in due to party loyalty tactics), and the Green Party. So I fundamentally agree with you and disagree with Allan Lichtman's (otherwise brilliant) assessment:
"a politics that is polarized between an immoral, unscrupulous right and a spineless, incompetent left"
I think the polarity is fake and that, just as you say, it is, rather, good-cop-bad-cop, and hiding the "ONE party" (one regime) aspect of the system.
If you haven't read Derber's books, I recommend them: Regime Change Begins at Home; Hidden Power: Greed to Green. He explores the regime concept well. He does so here as well
http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/derber2/
I'd love to know what you think.
To get a new progressive regime it'll take more true progressive in Congress as Democrats, and bolstering small progressive parties (Green Party mainly) and a mass movement and constitutional, structural change. Should be fun—especially when what is at stake is the fate of the world as we know it.
Earthian, I agree with much of what you say, except the last paragraph; while I agree that more progressive Dems would be the answer, I don't think our conservatively-programmed electronic voting equipment would allow that. The system lets a few true progressives and independents through, just to make the game appear kosher, but they are hamstrung from getting anything done by the rules of Congress. (Just look at the examples of Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, and too few et al.)
Unfortunately, it's going to take a massive global economic collapse -- which, along with James Howard Kuntsler, I think is imminent and inevitable -- to make the middle and working classes wake up, as they did in the 1930s. I just hope there's enough left at that time to rebuild the country out of the ashes. Either that or in 20 years or less we're going to be a nation of peasants ruled by a plutocracy of the wealthiest ten percent, but that won't last long -- a good portion of the current moneyed aristocracy have based their wealth on peddling things to the middle class, whether it be the latest electronic doodads, exorbitant-fee credit cards, Chinese-made junk, hybrid SUVs or suburban McMansions. Even Wall Street profits greatly from skimming the suckers in the middle for investment dollars. Obviously, without a viable middle class, they won't have nearly as much wealth. Ironically, we can count on the unconscionable, ruthless greed of the top ten percent to save us, in the long run -- if there is anything left worth saving.
Dan Rather reports on Bush's Nat'l Reserve no-show,
and gets fired.
Fox runs a patently rigged video,
and the NAACP is the culprit?
Take your pills.
Everyone who, knowing the source of the doctored video, accepted it and acted on it is the culprit.
NAACP should have ridden Breitbart out of town on a rail. Come to think of it, NAACP hasn't had such a good track record for a while now. Maybe they need some looking into themselves.
"How could liberals in the Obama administration" could you enlighten me as to who they are!
LOL, Vermonter -- bulls-eye! It's like we elected Rahm Emanuel president.
"Nothing better illustrates a politics that is polarized between an immoral, unscrupulous right and a spineless, incompetent left than the sad story of Shirley Sherrod ..."
--Will these tedious academics never get through their oh so educated heads that the Democratic Party and "the left" are not the same thing? This enfeebles all such analysis and we see it here repeatedly. An accurate appraisal of what happened to Sherrod at the hands of both the far right at Fox "News", and the center-right, embodied in the Obama administration, would require a more informed perspective than Allan Lichtman brings to the table.
Goebbels sez, Demonstorm, bossyman and gracchus all totally get it, are free of the illusions promulgated by liberal academics, who apparently have never heard of the actual left. I'm sure the NAACP has been just as taken over by wishy-washy liberals as most every other once-upon-a-time progressive institutions. Most "liberals" today have as deep a phobia concerning the left as Limbaugh, Hannity and that crowd does. It's the same with conservatism, which today bears little resemblance to what that word meant even 40 years ago. Today's "conservatives" are outright fascists, just as today's "liberals" would have been reactionaries 40 years ago. It shows just how far to the right this whole country has shifted, and especially within academia.
"Will these tedious academics never get through their oh so educated heads that the Democratic Party and "the left" are not the same thing? " -- Ephraim
It's a good question! I remember hearing Melissa Harris-Lacewell tell Bill Moyers in an interview that academics are not going to be giving up on Obama anytime soon. Therefore, NO, I don't think most academics recognize the difference. They seem to have a mindset and an ideology, too -- a very real academic blind spot in their thinking and with their vision when it comes to politics.
I keep thinking back to David Halberstam, when he wrote his book, The Best and the Brightest. Although academics have attached this label to themselves like a star to their halos -- Mr. Halberstam meant the phrase with irony and even a bit of sarcasm, and told us that we should never fail to question those who claim to be the experts.
The Orson Welles film, F For Fake, also takes on the issue of experts. Albeit, in the case of Mr. Welles, the story is about experts in the art world. At the same time, though, in true Welles fashion, he means for us to question the so-called experts at all levels and in all fields. It's a fascinating film for those of you who haven't already seen it.
Read the book and saw the film. Both good but the left in America are to kind, to polite and to afraid to offend these phonies. I've often thought it has to do with the the way our uiniversities and colleges operate. Much like our politics and our MSM, pissing off the officials who hand out the grades is extremely " bad juju for yuyu ", as one my grad assistants put it 36 yrs ago. And on it goes.
Like Ephraim and other posters, I am quite disappointed that the good professor's analysis is so shallow and superficial.
Anyone who just watches TV McNews channels like Fox and CNN would be satisfied with this article. However, so many here are truly well-informed and can see how silly this article is.
Perhaps the professor realizes that his intended audience are ignorant, or he is ignorant himself. I wonder what Howard Zinn would say about this article if he were here today? (We know what he would say)
I offer this a starting point.
A Leftist says that the fundamental organization of our society is intolerable because it leads directly to war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction. The Leftist argues that a new and different framework is necessary.
A Liberal says that the basic organization of our society is reasonably good, and should therefore be accepted, and that any efforts at further improving society should come from working within the already-established framework. IOW, the liberal wants slight modifications to what already exists, believing that its basic structure is reasonably sound.
________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- will blithely be assimilated.
Leftist- will promptly be assassinated.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- possesses a quaint notion that one can Re-Form Capitalist power structures.
Leftist- desires to completely unravel and eliminate the functions and forms of Capitalism.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- wishes to turn The Bank into The People's Credit Union.
Leftist- sees the need to turn the tables of the moneychangers and smash the marketplace.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- feels a warm fuzzy feeling inside while intoning "Share the Wealth", "Dissent is Patriotic", "Save Tibet", "Restore Our Democracy" without addressing what any of that means and on and on...
Leftist- avoids slogans opting for deep historical analysis examining economic forces and social context.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- says "Living Wage".
Leftist- says "Solidarity".
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- willingly shells out $3 for a glass of carrot juice.
Leftist- sees Root Vegetables as sustenance and metaphor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- outside the coffee shop talks daily about the need for the Cappuccino Revolution but balks at acting out for fear this would endanger his/her daily cappuccino.
Leftist- reuses the same coffee filter, paper towels or odd socks when all other options have been exhausted in an attempt to squeeze one more cup from yesterday's grounds.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- wants to 'get out the vote'.
Leftist- recognizes voting as a nominal form of political activity meant to validate the Democratic State and convince the political consumer that they are a participant in governance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- can often be seen mouthing the "education is the answer" mantra particularly in the rarified atmosphere of the Citadels of Expertise. Revels in being near theory or people 'doing theory' in the academy.
Leftist- sees education as social engineering and cultural imperialism. Education Academies seen as the proving grounds for the future ruling class.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- users of 'all natural' deodorant. The armpits are fresh particularly during commercial breaks.
Leftists- recognize deodorant as one of the essential pillars of Empire. Will often raise their armpit in tight quarters due to quixotic impulses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- write lengthy position papers on the plusses of developing more efficient killing machines (See Amory Lovins for more details).
Leftist- sees the Techno Warfare State as one of the great life destroying mechanisms in the history of Mankind and understands the relationship between war and oppression. The "Health of the State" being that which kills everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- true believers in the New Economy and Seattle (the city) home of Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks.
Leftist- true believers in a different Seattle (the Amerindian prophet)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberal- incessantly complaining about their leftist rentors.
Leftist- incessantly complaining about their liberal landlords.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Liberals- have recently been experiencing a population explosion which seems to have been caused by a grey form of technocratic inbreeding. Liberalism is now a major growth industry much like Cancer. Much of this exponential proliferation of this well-groomed disease seems to emanate directly from Academia.
Leftists- an endangered species. Said to be only 723 remaining in the contiguous 48 states of the United States of America. For years they have been scooped up and exiled to the Periphery. To date all efforts to exhume the spirit of Eugene Debs have fallen on deaf ears.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Both liberals and socialists empathize with the suffering of society's weaker members, and are sensitive to "man's inhumanity to man." However, the liberal is basically at peace with the socio-economic system that produces this suffering, while the socialist recognizes that the system itself is a core cause of the suffering.
A liberal might get upset by militarism, but happily invests in Martin Marietta Corp, and rejoices when it increases its dividend. Liberals are also often susceptible to nationalist propaganda appeals, & thus can easily be persuaded to support wars like the NATO war in Kosovo, simply because it was cleverly marketed as a "humanitarian intervention." A socialist would never fall for this sort of ploy.
A liberal might be properly horrified by pollution, waste, hypercommercialism, and many of the ills of modern society, but pays little conscious attention to the underlying issue of corporate power that allows such things to dominate our lives. A liberal will vote for Democrats, despite the obvious fact that these contemptible worms are nothing but bought servants of corporate monopolies or oligopolies. The liberal sleeps easily, figuring, "Well, at least the Dems are better than Bush!" as though this really implies some sort of resistance to rampant corporatism.
Basically, the liberal tut-tuts disapprovingly at some of the blatantly horrible end-effects of policies, politicians, and economic philosophies that, for the most part, he accepts. A socialist, on the other hand, is conscious of where the roots of these disasters lie....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...While all the empires that have committed great crimes -- the British, French, Belgians, Japanese, Russians and then the Soviets -- have justified their exploitation of others by the alleged benefits it brought to the people being exploited, there is no power so convinced of its own benevolence as the United States. The culture is delusional in its commitment to this mythology, which is why today one can find on the other side of the world peasant farmers with no formal education who understand better the nature of U.S. power than many faculty members at elite U.S. universities. This national fundamentalism rooted in the assumption of the benevolence of U.S. foreign and military policy works to trump critical inquiry. As long as a significant component of the U.S. public -- and virtually the entire elite -- accept this national fundamentalism, the world is at risk...."
Enjoyable post mcoyote. Whenever I see a reference to Debs I also think of Big Bill Haywood. He wasn't too pleased with liberals either.
ah...the liberal-leftist primer...refreshing...
thank you...
Cute, clever, but not terribly enlightening ....
You still haven't answered my question from a previous thread, how do we get to where you think we should be ....?
I will jump in here, since what you are expressing is so common.
The question "how do we get to where you think we should be" is almost always a staking horse for "we can't get there" and furthermore "we should not get there." It is usually an attempt at portraying social critics and left wingers as crazy, perhaps dangerous unrealistic and impractical promoters of some utopia. This has the practical political effect of shutting down any social criticism or left wing ideas from being expressed or heard and is a powerful and effective way to promote the interests of the upper class and defend the existing conditions.
But assuming that you are sincerely asking, we (further assuming that you are on the same side as mcoyote and myself, which is far from clear) get there the same way that every great successful movement for social justice throughout history has gotten there.
If that answer does not suffice to satisfy your curiosity, you will need to explain why that is the case.
Ah, where to begin ...
"(further assuming that you are on the same side as mcoyote and myself, which is far from clear)"
The same side of what? of the political spectrum? a spectrum defined using what parameters? That last question constitutes part of my problem with mcoyote's postings. He/she lays out specific criteria for defining "lIberal" v. "left" such that, by checking off a series of boxes, you can determine whether one is a "serious" Lefty or a faux "progressive"; fail to check the right (correct) box and you are drummed out of the corps, and your ideas not deemed worthy of consideration by those who have checked off all the correct boxes.
I have to laugh at your second paragraph, because I am one who is usually considered a crazy left winger, though, if you are a subscriber to mcoyote's box criteria, I most probably would fail to make the cut. As a long time supporter of Ralph Nader's efforts to "crash the party", as he would put it, I have found myself vigorously protesting the "can't win" label he and other indies have been so effectively tattooed with and pointing out that this mantra has been used precisely as you describe - a method by which the forces of the status quo shut down political dissent. Though I would guess that being a Nader supporter puts me in the category of "working within the system", insofar as the "system" includes the electoral political process, or insofar as you consider Nader part of the system, and hence, classifies me as a faux Lefty. I get the distinct impression that a "true" lefty, by your(?) and others' criteria eschews the entire process of electoral politics as "a tool of the establishment".
Sorry, but my question as to how we get there from here IS the question of the hour. The devil is ALWAYS in the details. My suggestion is using the electoral process to put our ideas in effect. Which process would you and mcoyote use? Your answer, "the same way that every great successful movement for social justice throughout history has gotten there", suffers, IMO, from the same lack of specificity as mcoyote's. It reminds me of that cartoon with a fellow writing an equation on the blackboard, at the beginning is the first set of mathematical propositions, at the end is the mathematical solution and in the space in the middle he writes, "and then a miracle happens". I agree with the observer in the caption, "you're going to have to do better than that".
As a person trained in surgery I learned that it was not enough to diagnose the illness or even to be able to describe the pathology colorfully, succinctly, and in great detail. If you are going to treat the disease process, you not only had to know how to take the diseased part out, you had to know how to put the good parts back together and you had to have and to know how to use the right tools to do it with. Perhaps you think we should just give up on the patient .....
RE: Perhaps you think we should just give up on the patient ...
I don't think the diseased patient metaphor applies here, however I'll use it.
The "patient" metaphor is only valid if the "patient" is not an illusion. I assume that for you the patient is our "democratic system". That is the illusion, we don't now nor ever have had a democracy in the US. Until the problem is truly understood, it cannot be solved. This is why the liberal/progressive analysis always fails. They don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". The problem is that the baby is a creation of propaganda. There is no baby, there is just the bathwater of the ruling class.
See "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" (1913) by historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers - not motivated by any interest in democracy.
For recent history see "Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism" (2008) by Sheldon Wolin.
Tom,
I am as extraordinarily frustrated with "the democratic system" as played out in the US as anybody, but my question to you is, do you think it is the concept that is fundamentally flawed? or is it the tools used in its practice? or is it the way we use those tools? or is it what we are using the tools for? I am not splitting hairs here; we, IMO, need to come to an agreement on the answers before we can decide if there really IS more than bathwater. I think there is. And getting back to my own analogy (forgive me, but after 30+ years in medicine, this sort of analogy comes "naturally"), Is it time to pull the plug or can we bring this patient back to a decent life. I see in your post that you believe the former, but if you will indulge in answering my questions, maybe a second, or even a third, opinion may be relevant .....
RE: ...the democratic system" as played out in the US as anybody, but my question to you is, do you think it is the concept that is fundamentally flawed?
Is the concept of democracy flawed? No. What is flawed is the perception that democracy exists when it does not, in fact, it cannot. A more astute commenter will say that we have "political democracy". We "vote" etc. The problem with this in practice is that the most powerful forces within capitalism are economic. The simile of "one dollar; one vote" incitefully tells us where real power lies: with the most wealthy, that is, the capitalists. It is inherent to the capitalism economic system to concentrate wealth and power, it is therefore inherently anti-democratic. Both the R's and D's represent the interests of the capitalist class (the ruling class) despite the populist or progressive rhetoric. Real democracy can only happen when we have political AND economic democracy. Here's an old saying that sums up the issue: "A capitalist democracy is nothing more than democracy for the capitalists."
The English Civil War (Oliver Cromwell and his Model Army), the American Revolutionary War, and the French Revolution were all bourgeois (capitalist) revolutions. They used the revolutionary language of democracy only to get support of the lower classes which they had to have in order to defeat feudalism. An incipient minority ruling class displaces the old minority ruling class. Democracy means rule by the people - all the people, not just the few at the top. Capitalism concentrates power; (real) democracy must DISPERSE power. There is nothing to "bring back to life" because real democracy has not yet lived or existed on a large scale. Real democracy should be our goal, and real democracy cannot exist under capitalism.
I understand your argument. I have heard it before, many times on this site. I have no quarrel with you in decrying the disaster that is capitalism. And I have no argument with you in believing capitalism to be structurally opposed to democracy. I agree that the most powerful forces in capitalism are economic, but, seriously, what does that have to do with the fundamental capacity of the people to choose to democratize their economy, and, more to the point, what does that have to do with the ability of the ballot to be an instrument of such a choice?
My argument is that we do have a ballot box, and we do have the ability to use it to effect change. You still really haven't addressed the gist of my questions which get to the reason of why you believe we don't have a real democracy. There is no doubt that the two major parties represent the capitalist class, but that argument, in and of itself, doesn't negate the possibility that we can use that ballot box to make fundamental changes. For reasons I do not understand, you seem to think I am arguing that we can use that ballot only to make a choice between the two "biggies" neither of which will do us a damn bit of good. We can vote to dismantle the system you decry by making other choices, we can replace "one dollar, one vote", which is the language of the marketplace, with "one person, one vote" which is the language of democracy, using the ballot box; indeed, IMO, the power of the ballot is potentially one of the most powerful weapons we have to counteract the power of the dollar. If we haven't used it to do so thus far, it doesn't mean we can't, it only means we have chosen not to. Why don't we use a forum such as this to discuss how to use our ballot power instead of discussing whether to use it at all?
I really am mystified by what seems to be a growing repudiation of the potential power of the ballot. Such repudiation is a guarantee that the "capitalist class" will, indeed, triumph and the "capitalists" understand that power better, apparently, than we do; why else would they be continually trying to undermine, hijack, influence or limit it? Repudiating ballot power leaves us with little other than dollar power, which we have little of, or bullet power, and I, for one, having spent a good chunk of my life trying to live up to my Hippocratic oath to first do no harm, have no desire to inflict it. I frankly find it "troubling", to use the phrase of the day, that, after all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent over the decades just to get to that ballot box, here we are in the 21st Century with so many apparently just wanting to walk away from it.
How do YOU propose to get to the "economic democracy" that, I do agree, we need?
I really want to know ....
Are you sure Aquifer?
Are you sure we "have the ballot?"
Are you sure that is can be used "to effect change?"
While we could, in theory, vote for some third choice that would represent serious social and political change, that would never get past the theoretical if in fact those in power will not permit that from happening. But in all voting, in all elections and in all democracy, the voting is the last stage and merely ratifies change that has already happened.
Certainly we do not live in a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. We hardly have a vote on anything in our lives (most of us, some have more access to resources and so more choices. An occasional vote for people running for elected office, all driven by money and controlled by the few who have a vested interest in seeing to it that nothing resembling democracy ever breaks out, is a far cry from true democracy. I don't think we disagree about that.
We don't, by the way, need the system to have democracy. I will give you one example as to how those advocating that we look to the ballot box for change are being hypocritical. They do not practice - or even understand or recognize democracy in their own lives, in their own organizations. All of the liberal boards are run as petty dictatorships. They are sweat shop. The members do all of the work, with thousands of hours of research and posting, and that drives the traffic and the revenue, and the owner keeps that revenue. Any attempts by the members to band together and object to the way they are being treated will get them summarily banned from the community. It is especially clear - and absurd to the ultimate degree - on Internet boards, since the owner has no great risk, has no serious capital invested, but rather owns a domain name. But we are so stubbornly determined to adhere to the system of social control called "owner" that this is sufficient for everyone to get in line. "He owns the board, and can do whatever he wants to do." He owns the community? He owns the work of others? Really? As the owner owns the board - and can do whatever he likes with the compliance and subservience of thousands of others - so too the corporation own our government and almost everything in the society.
It is also clear in the context of the liberal and progressive Internet boards, that ownership equals control. So it is with the government and throughout the entire society. It is not greed that is the problem, it is control. People amassing capital seek to control others, and that is their motivation, not greed. Their wealth would be of no value were they stranded on a deserted island. Wealth gives them freedom, and to that degree others are held in various forms of bondage. This is an ironclad rule, that can be seen in all of our social arrangements and institutions, yet people will deny that it exists in political discussions. In real life in their every day decisions they don't deny it, they operate as though it were in fact an ironclad law and they do that for their own survival.
Just as you can post anything you like on an Internet board - provided that it is within the range of that is acceptable to the owners - so too you can vote anyway you like in elections - provided that it is within the range of that is acceptable to the owners . You can do anything you like except challenge the power of the rulers, and of course it is the power the rulers have over us that is the problem, so that really means that you cannot do anything at all that would change anything in any meaningful or profound way.
How can people advocate democracy when it comes to keeping people trapped in the partisan electoral process, but then think and act in such anti-democratic ways in the rest of their lives? They are in the voting booth for a few minutes every two years, and then say "oh democracy isn't it grand" and then every other waking minute is spent fighting against democracy or submitting to tyranny. If you healed one person every two years, and spent the rest of your time harming people, would you call that "medicine?" Would the fact that between that occasional surgery you talked about it continually - how great it was, how we must think only in terms of this once-in-a-while healing, and used that as a response to anyone who said we need a radical overhaul of the thing we call "medicine" - would that change anything? What if that one patent you worked on every two years died anyway, or you had to do cosmetic surgery while someone else went without a procedure that would save their life? Would you say "we have medicine. It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing. We can work toward the day when we can work on one patient every year, and a time when some of them won't die?"
That would not be "medicine," and nor is what we have politically "democracy."
Repudiating a rigged an corrupt electoral system does not leave us with no other alternative than violence. There are many ways to fight back other than "the bullet." And of course, we can not fight back with the dollar - we don't have any. That is the problem. We can withhold our compliance and our labor.
Do you not find it troubling that "after all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent over the decades just to get to that ballot box" that is has so little power, that it means so little? That is what is troubling, in my view, not that people are seeing that and speaking about it.
We get to economic democracy by organizing and resisting.
Pt 1
Whoa! you're all over the place, aren't you? First answering for mcoyote, now for Tom Larson.
But at least your post has a bit of a different tone now and we are finally getting to discuss the idea instead of simply dismissing it as too "upper class" for consideration .... All right! let's go!
"While we could, in theory, vote for some third choice that would represent serious social and political change, that would never get past the theoretical if in fact those in power will not permit that from happening."
My votes for Nader, whom I would characterize as someone who would represent "serious" change (although I am sure you would wish to debate that as well), were more than theoretical and such a choice was open to anyone to make. The fact that the powers that be did everything they could to keep him off the ballot, short of outright assassination, would indicate to me they thought he was, indeed, a potential threat to their power base. If you wish to argue that anyone who got any further would be, in fact, assassinated and that would be the end of that, I suggest to you that that possibility could happen to anyone who threatens power in ANY venue, not only electoral politics, and would preclude, if that possibility were considered a proscription against any opposition, the end to your extra electoral efforts as well.
"We hardly have a vote on anything in our lives (most of us, some have more access to resources and so more choices."
True, which is why the vote we do have should be that much more valuable to us and we should use it with vigor and with care ...
"those advocating that we look to the ballot box for change are being hypocritical."
You do paint with a broad brush, now don't you? Is everyone who advocates the use of the ballot box hypocritical? The boards you speak of that are run as petty dictatorships, are they set up to be democratic, or not? If so, and you don't get to vote, then it seems to me that your beef is that you are, in fact, denied your vote, which is a legitimate beef, but doesn't impugn the value of voting. In fact, it seems to me that such a vote is important to you or you wouldn't give a damn. If they are not set up to be democratic, then your beef is just that, not with the uselessness of voting.
It seems to me that much of your complaint revolves around the way the private businesses (they are private, right?) you speak of are run. Private business, almost by definition, is never run as a democracy. The "business model" frowns on that. So if that is your beef and what you really want is a business model that permits such worker participation (which, sorry, I can't resist, would, perforce, involve some version of "voting"), why not just say so? Why rale against voting in the public sector, just because you can't vote in the private sector?
I can understand your rancor if these petty dictatorships pass themselves off as "liberal" and then behave as they do - that, indeed, is hypocritical. But it does not preclude your ability to make decent choices at the polls. In fact i would argue that is all the more reason to fight for your ability to have decent choices on the ballot, one of the few places, as you point out, where that option is even possible.
"you can vote anyway you like in elections - provided that it is within the range of that is acceptable to the owners . You can do anything you like except challenge the power of the rulers,"
Now this argument is a little bit harder to deal with if only because most of the folks who make it, and I do not know if this would be your stance as well, simply state that because so and so appears on the ballot, ipso facto, he/she must be a stooge. Using the assertion that you can't get on the the ballot unless you are a stooge, your appearance on the ballot "proves" you are one and so, voting, under these circumstances, is, indeed, wasting one's time. Here is where the disagreement arises - disputing the assertion that you can't get on the ballot unless you are a stooge. There is no doubt that it is very difficult for anyone other than the candidates of the two biggies to get on the ballot. The two biggies have made damn sure of that, and recently in CA, they have finagled a means of all but guaranteeing its impossibility. But ask yourself why they have done this - because they recognize the very real possibility that if others made it to the ballot, they could, indeed, challenge the power of the rulers and they just might lose. In other words, THEY recognize the power of the ballot. As do the corps who spend mega bucks to influence, not just Congress' behavior, but your behavior at the polls. As a safety measure, if by some chance they can't get your vote by persuasion, they will do the next best thing which is convince you to not vote at all - no vote is better than a NO vote. This is what I have found "troubling" about this idea that voting is useless - it feeds directly into the perpetuation of the corp. power structure. They know that you have the power at the polls, not just to change stooges, but to pick a non-stooge, and they don't want you to know it.
Yes, I think voting for Nader represents serious change. I still say that it reflects a change rather than causing it. But merely as a "protest" vote it is still important, and it is important even if it only amounts to 5% of the vote. There needs to be organizational strength behind it, and that organizational strength cannot be subservient to the electoral political process, created for the sole purpose of getting some person or party elected. That opens the door for corruption and compromise, and then all of our eggs are in one very tenuous basket.
I am not, by the way, saying that ALL those advocating that we look to the ballot box for change are being hypocritical, rather that those who do that yet are anti-democratic in all of their other affairs are being hypocritical. Many of the sites that are most vehemently promoting (and enforcing) the idea that we must work strictly within the electoral process are running their own organizations in very anti-democratic ways.
The fact that private businesses are not run as democracies does not justify that, especially as the private business model now dominates every aspect of society and is inescapable.
I am not against voting, I am against the very limited voting we have being used as an anti-democratic weapon to suppress democracy in every other facet of our lives.
I agree with your last paragraph. I especially agree with you that the rulers try to suppress interest and participation in politics in every way they can. It could be said that broader participation, and moving the country to the Left are in fact the same thing. It is broader participation that the rulers most fear.
Now that gets us into what may have been meant by myself and perhaps mcoyote and others when we say "voting is useless."
Great, we may be finally getting to the nitty gritty. My objection, all along, has been to the concept that voting is useless that I have seen so often expressed. But if I understand you correctly, what you are, in fact, saying, is that it is not voting, per se, but voting in the way we have been that is useless. If that is what you are saying, then we have no disagreement. Isn't it amazing what persisting in "the fray" can accomplish!
A couple of other points;
"that organizational strength cannot be subservient to the electoral political process, created for the sole purpose of getting some person or party elected."
Actually, I might argue that standing political parties, like standing armies, are a threat to the democratic process. Our "founding fathers", at least some of them, whatever their flaws, I think had it right when they disdained them as "factions" and bemoaned their formation. I would prefer that the organizational strength required to go through the mechanics of the electoral process, be, indeed, formed ad hoc around specific elections and then be disbanded as such when the election is over. This would be a bit messy but it would help insure that the candidate chosen to organize around would be one who, in fact, addressed in specific ways the various and sundry needs of the people whom he/she purported to represent instead of simply being the one chosen for support by a select powerful few party operatives and he/she could not simply run as a Dem or a Rep or a Green or a Pink, but would have to run as Mr./Ms so and so, on his/her own record and platform. If the parties were not needed for the election, they would have no hold on the candidate. Kucinich' cave on health care demonstrated, unequivocally, to me what "party loyalty" and party pressure could do to even, what I thought, was a pretty left leaning pol.
"the private business model now dominates every aspect of society and is inescapable."
Amen to that! That has been a source of my rants for a number of years with regard to what this model has done to healthcare. The business market model has degraded it badly and demoralized many of the folk who have given their lives to it ....
Good thoughts. Thanks for the discussion.
Pt 2
Your whole paragraph on the medical analogy was pretty neat and hit home. Democracy, like medicine, has to be an ongoing process. But you seem to assume that those of us who advocate using the polls advocate doing nothing but using the polls. I suspect that NONE of us electoral devotees would advocate such a strategy. My argument with you is that it is a big mistake to ELIMINATE the electoral option from the things we must do to make change because it is, potentially, a very powerful tool, perhaps, used properly, one of the most powerful in our arsenal and one of the simplest to execute.
"Do you not find it troubling that 'after all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent over the decades just to get to that ballot box' that is has so little power, that it means so little? That is what is troubling, in my view ...."
If it has had so little power it is because of how we have chosen to use it. We have chosen the "lesser of two evils" or simply on the basis of party line, or because the media kept drumming into our heads that TINA. We have not chosen to use it to really make changes. It's like having an entire surgical suite and using it only to apply bandaids when it could be used for transplants.
Getting back to your medical picture, which is really a pretty good description - we do need a radical overhaul of the system (I'm a single payer fan, for starts) but even here, I would not throw away surgical instruments just because someone didn't know how to use them well, especially if I knew what they could really be used for ...
Listen, I think we got off on the wrong foot before, both of us. I really appreciate being able to engage in a discussion of ideas. Sometimes those ideas will involve disagreements which can become personal especially when they involve politics or religion. But that is why, IMO, they must be discussed - the fact that they are capable of arousing such emotions only proves that they are vital human concerns, and, as such, MUST be discussed and debated, because ceasing or refusing to do so when it gets uncomfortable will only prove our undoing.
Thanks. No harm done. My style is weird and it rubs some the wrong way. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to post a few things that are on my mind. I used your posts as a jumping off point to rant about some things, not to do battle with you. I apologize for the confusion.
My main objection is not to voting, but rather to so many political discussions being about voting and nothing but voting. I suggest seeing it as a final exam - it comes after the work and tells you how you have done. It is one small step, and the last step, in the political process. We need democracy at the micro-level. Never mind being stuck with only two choices, every single person in the country should be a potential candidate, should be a choice, with just as much chance a any other person in the country. Obviously, some form of representation is needed, but that needs to be protected from being hijacked the way it has been. The higher the office, the easier it should be to recall a person, and the strength and stability of the country and the democracy should be at the local level. Based on that, I was opposed to the institution of the presidential primary system. We lost our local party meetings, our strong reps going to the state convention, and our strong reps going to the national convention. We lost our voice, because by the time we get a chance to "choose" the deck has been so stacked that we really have no choice.
I agree that the media - corporations - control the political process. The way around that is to create our own forms of communication, and that means building organizational strength. We can never win in the mass media arena.
Thanks for the response. A few comments, if I may.
I don't think this spectrum people talk about exists or means much of anything. I am not talking about spectrum or belief systems, so this is not about who is the "true" left winger, or who is pure or whatever.
You ask, "the same side of what?" The haves versus the have-nots, the ongoing raging battle that threatens all of us.
As for specifics - and I have to mention that challenging people and demanding specifics is a tactic often used against the Left, although that may not be your intention, of course - that is an entirely different discussion. I think that it is important, especially since we are just beginning, to stay open-minded and flexible and resist the urge to concoct elaborate and specific plans since that robs us of creativity and limits the number of voices contributing. We can't know exactly hat will work, and we can't know in advance who will come up with what action at what time that will be a trigger or rallying point. If we have a specific plan going in, people will stop thinking about that creatively, and we need people to do that more, not less.
We can look to the past, at the specific steps taken by people in previous successful movements for social justice for ideas. Social criticism is an essential and powerful first step, and of course that is what people are doing here. Meeting in small groups of people who share the required clarity and courage and commitment is another ingredient. Writing and disseminating the criticism is important. Forming organizations is critical. I would say that the immigrant rights groups are leading the way here today, and the Greek workers are setting an example, as well.
Yes, I think we should give up on the patient, of the "patient" is the system as it exists. patching it back up or bailing it out will only prolong the misery.
I respect and admire the work performed by the surgeons, as well as the commitment and sacrifice required to obtain the training and expertise, but I would suggest to you that it would be almost impossible for any person to go through med school and into practice without absorbing a serious amount of upper class bias and a set of prejudices about social arrangements and conditions. It is in the soil of social conventions and arrangements that the weeds of the right wing grow and flourish, and if we are to merely add a veneer of radicalism, or support of Nader, as a matter of "personal belief," over the top of a deep and stubborn loyalty to the existing hierarchies of social status and privilege, we can never be serious political voices for political change. So many self-described liberals and progressives and radicals, especially white collar people and professionals, want to talk about politics with no social component and are resistant to social criticism. That becomes a matter of merely putting some new lyrics to the same old tunes and dance steps and the dance goes on as it did before. They will then say "but I believe in (or support) a different dance" as though that makes any difference, or worse yet, as though that justifies us continuing the same dance as the "lesser of two evils."
You can cut the tension with a knife in these discussions among those who are opposed to the Republicans. What is the source of that tension, the source of all of the bitter feuding we see here and everywhere that Democrats, liberals and progressives gather? Many liberals and progressives are trying to accomplish two things at once - fight against at least the very worse excesses of the ruling class in a narrow partisan political context, while at the same time defending and apologizing for the social conditions. At the same time, it is difficult to ignore the fact that most of the people doing that are either form or sympathetic to the group in the upper 10% income bracket.It is impossible to change the political conditions without changing the social conditions. Those enjoying a relatively high degree of personal social status and perks do not want anyone attacking the social conditions, and take it personally when people make biting social criticism. That cuts a little too close to the bone for them. The social conditions are the root cause, the source of the political problems. Were we attacking social conditions far more people would be passionate about and engaged in politics, because politics would then speak to them "where they live." Without social criticism, politics becomes a hobby activity for the relatively well-to-do and that is mostly what politics is now in this country. This is especially true with the Green party and the Nader movement - gentrified and upper class, radicalism made tame and safe for the leisure class.
I say all of this "as a person trained in farming" where I learned that you need to look at the whole and not the parts, that there is a limit to how much we can control things, and that you need to start with the soil and get your hands dirty, not merely select from an array of finished gourmet products and pick your favorite.
Very interesting.
"it would be almost impossible for any person to go through med school and into practice without absorbing a serious amount of upper class bias and a set of prejudices about social arrangements and conditions."
Your assumption about what it would be impossible to do is backed up by what, precisely? Might I suggest that a variation is more probably true, that it is impossible to work in the medical field without seeing the class biases and set of prejudices you describe. Your assumption that that these are thereby absorbed and adopted is based on a misapprehension about the capabilities of the immune system to reject or at least seriously dismantle such social diseases.
"if we are to merely add a veneer of radicalism, or support of Nader, as a matter of 'personal belief', over the top of a deep and stubborn loyalty to the existing hierarchies of social status and privilege, we can never be serious political voices for political change."
No argument there, but again you're assuming that folks such as myself have "a deep and stubborn loyalty to the existing hierarchies of social status and privilege". And what, precisely allows you to make that assumption?
i share your critique of class biases that often show up once one identifies as a "professional" and have argued, on other threads, against them, but I find it equally distressing that apparently you choose to engage in equally biased conceptions of those who are trained in certain areas, such as myself. I find this especially ironic coming from someone who describes themselves as "trained in farming" when the understanding of what nature requires to grow and to heal is fundamental to both fields and any practitioner of either medicine or agriculture who fails to understand that nature has its own rules that must be followed will find that his/her art will be bear no fruit. I happen to think that farmers, real farmers - the ones who dig in the dirt, not the agribusiness kind, are the key to providing the real fundamentals of health care. Perhaps you choose to maintain your own loyalty to class bias, but I suggest that doing so suggests that you may well have blinders on when it comes to your statement that "We can't know exactly hat will work, and we can't know in advance who will come up with what action at what time that will be a trigger or rallying point." It seems you have decided, a priori, that ideas coming from people such as myself, must, ipso facto, be not only "suspect", but must, because of their origin, be rejected out of hand. I wonder what direction the civil rights movement might have taken if the blacks of the South had rejected an alliance with those "gentrified, upper class" white college kids from the North. They probably could have gotten to the same place, but I think it would have taken longer ....
See, I think you have entered a discussion of why we really aren't getting anywhere in our movement leftward. There are biases on both sides of this so-called "class divide". You have your own set of loyalties and you really don't want to make any alliances with those you describe as "upper class" - again, neatly classifying them according to what boxes are checked off in their biographies. Is that why you don't like Nader, e.g., because some people like myself do? Let's get down to the real nitty gritty, here. Because until we clear these underlying issues up, we will stay in a position where "people will stop thinking .... creatively".
Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of always having to feel that I need to defend myself or apologize for pursuing a field that I think is valuable, perhaps, in the long run, not as valuable as farming (and I am NOT attempting sarcasm here), but valuable nonetheless. When fully appreciated, it is a field where "looking at the whole and not the parts" is every bit as important as it is in farming and whose insights have a great deal to offer to the task at hand .....
P.S. I appreciate your responding to my original question, though I am still curious about mcoyote's answer, having asked him/her twice (here and on a previous thread)
A couple of quick thoughts, for your consideration.
No need to defend yourself personally. For example, you mention white middle class kids getting involved in the Civil Rights movement (I was one, by the way.) Their background is not what makes them bad and wrong - I didn't suggest that and wouldn't say that. Nor is the fact that you are a surgeon a black mark against you - I didn't suggest that and wouldn't say that, either. However, it would have been true to say back in the 60's that most white middle class people had, as a result of their background and social position, a prejudice against the Civil Rights movement. When we said that at the time, those people did not feel personally attacked nor feel a need to defend themselves, they were anxious to hear about the possibility that they were prejudiced by their background and to understand and overcome that. You are turning that inside out: in hindsight you are holding up the example of the few who did join in the Civil Rights movement as though that disproved that white middle class people were prejudiced. I can say with absolute certainty that those white middle class kids who did get involved in the Civil Rights movement would not have objected to what I said here - they would welcome it and agree and would not take it personally.
It is not the person - it is not you personally who are "suspect." It is certain ideas that are.
I would suggest to all of us who came through on the college bound track, all who are white collar workers, in middle management, and in the professions, that we be willing to examine the ways in which our experience and position is society has introduced bias into our thinking, for out own sake if nothing else. People were intensely eager and hungry for that in the 60's, and there were intense ongoing discussions about it everywhere, while people are deeply resistant to it today, often taking personal offense.
This modern tendency to personalize politics in the way you are doing it may well be the largest barrier we are facing to social progress.
My "trained in farming" remark was an attempt at humor. It may have flopped as that, but all is not lost because it did elicit this excellent statement from you - "the understanding of what nature requires to grow and to heal is fundamental to both fields and any practitioner of either medicine or agriculture who fails to understand that nature has its own rules that must be followed will find that his/her art will be bear no fruit. I happen to think that farmers, real farmers - the ones who dig in the dirt, not the agribusiness kind, are the key to providing the real fundamentals of health care." I wholeheartedly agree.
It is so gratifying to know that you approve of one of my statements.
"It is not the person - it is not you personally who are 'suspect.' It is certain ideas that are."
"Without social criticism, politics becomes a hobby activity for the relatively well-to-do and that is mostly what politics is now in this country. This is especially true with the Green party and the Nader movement - gentrified and upper class, radicalism made tame and safe for the leisure class."
So let me see if i have this straight. We began this exchange with you, without knowing my background, suggesting that my thoughts were typical of the elite, who, being vested in class privilege, defend the "system", by which I now am given to understand you define as capitalism, which, by the way, doesn't happen to be the "system" I was referring to. You then suggest that my defending remarks were a devolution from the '60s when "those people did not feel personally attacked nor feel a need to defend themselves, they were anxious to hear about the possibility that they were prejudiced by their background and to understand and overcome that", though it apparently hadn't occurred to you that perhaps I was well aware, and have been for some time of such "possibility", and then there's the obvious ad hominem about Nader supporters. And you suggest that it is I who am personalizing politics in a detrimental way?
I suggest the "possibility' that I am not the one who is "turning this inside out" .....
"This modern tendency to personalize politics in the way you are doing it may well be the largest barrier we are facing to social progress"
Au contraire, all politics is personal. It is the failure to to take personal responsibility for our politics that has rendered it so sterile. The pseudo sophistication of rationalized, intellectualized, detached politics you seem to espouse reflects the same depersonalized approach that the corporate community adopts vis-s-vis its activities, "It's nothing personal, just business..." Don't confuse personal politics with "identity politics". I would argue, in fact, and have been doing so for some time, that it is the "identity politics" of race, gender, class, etc. that is really what is getting in the way and what I detect in your postings. Class and race are not biological but social classifications. This is not to deny that racism and classism are powerful ideas in our society, only to argue that they are artificial ones and can be seriously undermined if not abolished altogether. Those who refute this, would seem, I would suggest, to have their own personal reasons for doing so. This idea is not airy fairy, nor pie in the sky - it is profoundly pragmatic; I would argue, in fact, that it is the central tenet of a truly democratic society, if that is what you are, indeed, working for ....
On that OR table, under those drapes, after the skin incision, I can't tell your race or your class, and much of surgery has nothing to do with gender, only with that particular person whose life is being affected to a greater or lesser degree. Politics, like surgery, can be restorative or mutilating, but it is also profoundly personal and ultimately universal all at the same time. Have your experiences in farming taught you differently about the one (and only) human "race"?
No idea how to respond, nor where you are going with this post.
Mostly you are characterizing what I said, and I am not seeing any resemblance between what I posted and how you are characterizing what I posted.
Perhaps this will help, at least to get some clarity as to where we may disagree -
"I don't care whether or not a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."
In other words, I am not advocating that the disadvantaged, be it poor people, GLBTQ people, working class people or people of color be treated more kindly by the upper class. I am advocating equality, not better table manners. Whether or not an individual "likes" GLBTQ people, for example, is irrelevant and approaching politics as a matter of changing people's individual belief systems about that can never be a powerful tool for social change.
People's beliefs and attitudes are a result, not a cause. of oppression and inequality. For example, first came slavery and only then came racism. We fight slavery first, then, not racism. So I am not advocating that upper class people be more kind to working class people. I am advocating that working class people be free from their lack of power and access to resources.
That may answer the point I think you are trying to make. But I could be wrong, because I don't really understand your post.
"In other words, I am not advocating that the disadvantaged, be it poor people, GLBTQ people, working class people or people of color be treated more kindly by the upper class. I am advocating equality, not better table manners."
Good grief, have I really been so dense that you think I am arguing for nothing more than noblesse oblige?
"approaching politics as a matter of changing people's individual belief systems about that can never be a powerful tool for social change."
Does this mean that you will refuse to change your apparent, and I would suggest, rather rigid, ideas about class? Does this mean that there is no point in teaching, for example, the concept that sexual orientation is inborn, either genetic or congenital? That black or red or yellow or white folk are really fundamentally all one "race"? That biological evolution, not divine fiat, is the mechanism of speciation?
"People's beliefs and attitudes are a result, not a cause. of oppression and inequality."
Frankly, I think there is a great deal of truth there. Beliefs and attitudes are often manufactured to justify selfish activity. THAT would have been a concept worth discussing. But I thought, at least with regard to the "educated class", you suggested they were the result of indoctrination? So let me see if i have this straight, "working class" folks' beliefs and attitudes are the result of oppression and inequality and "educated" folks' beliefs and attitudes are the result of indoctrination. Did i get that right? But what happens if a working class person gets an education, or an educated person becomes a member of the working class (and, for the record, i would argue that most educated folks, including "professionals", are, indeed, members of the "working class", whether they recognize it or not, and in fact, we'd all be better off if they would)? Does one influence counteract the other? Reinforce it?
"So I am not advocating that upper class people be more kind to working class people."
Why not? shouldn't members of all classes be more kind to each other? Or does justice for all, which we both advocate, rule out the need for kindness as well? You may choose to limit yourself to the strict dictates of justice, however you define it; such a world would, indeed, be a great improvement over what we have. But I suggest to you that attaining such a world, in so far as justice, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder, will require more than a little kindness on the part of all ....
A little song from South Pacific just popped into my head;
You have to be taught to hate and fear
You have to be taught from year to year
It has to be drummed in you dear little ear
You have to be carefully taught
You have to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You have to be carefully taught
You have to be taught before its too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You have to be carefully taught
You have to be carefully taught
Can we agree on this?
First, please explain the relevance of this statement:
"Does this mean that you will refuse to change your apparent, and I would suggest, rather rigid, ideas about class? Does this mean that there is no point in teaching, for example, the concept that sexual orientation is inborn, either genetic or congenital? That black or red or yellow or white folk are really fundamentally all one "race"? That biological evolution, not divine fiat, is the mechanism of speciation?"
I am not following how you get from your presumption that I have rigid ideas about class to race and sexual orientation. (There may be a connection, and I am just not seeing what you mean.)
On your other points:
I am not opposed to people being nice to each other.
You say "beliefs and attitudes are often manufactured to justify selfish activity."
I agree.
On your questions about working class, we are all working class for all practical purposes. I do not think many posting here are independently wealthy. Of course there is a gray area, as a relatively small percentage of the population is striving to be in the ruling class and hoping to be and identifying with the ruling class. But generally speaking,. most have to work for a living and that living is controlled by others who do not. My point about education and white collar professions is that there is a lot of indoctrination that goes along with the education, as people are being trained to be "house Negroes" in the system.
I like the song from South Pacific. I think it is true as far as it goes. But before this teaching goes on, there first has to be dominance by one group over a another, which are issues of power and economics, and that is the core interest of politics. If the song leads people to attacking the power imbalance, it is good. If it leads people to ignore the power imbalance or merely try to be kinder to one another within the existing power imbalance, it is bad. That is the difference between liberalism (and the new word for that, "progressive") and the Left, in my view.
Recap - "specifics." We got off on a tangent or three, and the original reason I responded was because of the challenge for specifics. That is often used as a tactic against the Left. But we certainly can talk about specifics and alternatives. If mcoyote objects to me jumping in and responding to you, I am sure he will let us know.
On another point you made - you say that I "really don't want to make any alliances with those you describe as 'upper class' - again, neatly classifying them according to what boxes are checked off in their biographies." That is not true. I would not have needed to ever know your profession and wouldn't care. What I am talking about is working class people speaking for the upper class. I also pointed out that professional people are more susceptible to that. I will make alliances with anyone, no matter their background and I don't think certain backgrounds are bad and evil. I am resisting making alliances with certain ideas that defend the ruling class. I will oppose working-within-the-system moderate partisan political ideas no matter where or whom they come from. I will also point out that those ideas are much more likely to come from those in the upper 10% income bracket, and I will say that this is not a coincidence.
"I would not have needed to ever know your profession and wouldn't care. What I am talking about is working class people speaking for the upper class."
i am sorry, but you obviously do care about such things when you describe ideas as being "typical of the upper class". How, precisely, did any idea i expressed, "defend the ruling class"? Precisely which of my ideas do you classify as a "working-within-the-system moderate partisan political idea(s)"?
I find it interesting, and, frankly, quite troubling, at least in the conceptual framework of a democracy, that you apparently consider voting such an idea. Unfortunately for us all, you are not alone .....
First, I can't prove that I don't care what your profession is. Nothing I said suggests that I do. If you want to think that my point relies on that I can't control that. You mentioned your profession and implied that this gave you analytical tools you might otherwise not have. I pointed out that it may also have given you a bias that you otherwise would not have. Maybe it hasn't, I don't know. Are you denying the possibility that educated people in general are also indoctrinated people in this country? If so, I would disagree with you. If you are merely saying that you personally are not indoctrinated, that is a different subject and that is more for you to say than it is for me to say.
Secondly, I think we are all awash in "working-within-the-system moderate partisan political idea(s)"? I don't know where you stand on that.
Lastly, I agree that "quite troubling" that voting in the current system makes little if any difference. I don't think that pointing that out should be seen as the troubling thing. Nor do I think it unfortunate that more people are seeing how the system is rigged and based on lies.
My point was your concept of my ideas being the result of an "upper class" bias. Perhaps I should have said I was a minimum wage worker at Walmart, would that have changed your tone? Or would you have then lectured me on how I had been brainwashed into defending the upper class at my own expense? The point is your tendency to dismiss an idea based on its perceived origin or promoter and not on its merits. Class considerations are, apparently, quite important to you. As far as having biases i would not otherwise have, is it not at all conceivable to you that my training might well have relieved me of biases that I might otherwise have kept? Educated people may well be indoctrinated, but for you to assume that formative educational experiences are, ipso facto, delusional and deny the possibility that they can be enlightening, perhaps only testifies to your own experiences. Education takes many forms, and probably the most valuable things I have learned were not in the classroom. You started with a preconceived notion, then describe yourself as an educated person. So, were you indoctrinated and are you still? If not, then you demonstrate the possibility of "enlightenment" and if you have been so enlightened then why start off assuming others are not? We could have had a conversation about the ideas themselves instead of wasting all this time on attacking or defending them based on the character traits they purportedly imply.
We may well be awash in "working-within-the-system moderate partisan political idea(s)"? But is the concept of voting one of them? And if so, does that description require its automatic rejection? Pointing out that voting currently doesn't seem to produce much difference is something too obvious to require agreement to; what I find "troubling" is that so many folks, including, from my reading of you, yourself, have simply dismissed the whole concept of voting as, in your phrase, a "working-within-the-system moderate partisan political idea" which you obviously have no use for. My whole argument is based on the idea that voting has tremendous potential and to eschew it simply because it's something that "the system" currently allows is not only downright silly but actually counterproductive of the ends you say you want to achieve. "The System" also allows eating, is that another "moderate partisan political idea" that should be eschewed (as opposed to well chewed)? We have also been indoctrinated into eating a bunch of crap, but is that a reason to stop eating or to simply make better choices at the grocery store?
If this discussion represents your and/or mcoyote's views on the subject, I cannot say that at the end of it all I am persuaded, much less converted. In fact, if this represents the best argument you have against voting, namely that it's a bourgeois idea and, therefore, and for no other reason, should be dismissed, I am more hopeful that you will not succeed in infecting too many more with this germ ...
Well, there is no "tone" in text, and I don't think I have been insulting or rude. That certainly was not my intention.
By the way, scolding people for their "tone" itself reflects an upper class bias. It is said by those with higher social status to those of lower social status, and not the other way around. Parents say to children "watch your tone with me." Bosses say that to employees. Teachers say it to students. Landlords say it to tenants. "Watch your tone" means "do not challenge my right to dominance by virtue of my enhanced social status."
Again, I think we are all liable to have an upper class bias, and I still don't see why you are so defensive or offended by a discussion about that.
Your assumption that I am talking about who is politically "good" or "pure" - who is enlightened or whatever is just not true. Your assumption that I am judging people according to their profession is also not true. I think that I am the authority on what I said - perhaps I was unclear, and I have been trying to clarify this for you. I did "dicsuss the ideas themselves." You offered that you were a surgeon, I don't care about that. I still have no way of knowing whether or not you are in fact a surgeon, merely that you claim to be. Do you go around mentioning that you are a surgeon, and how that gives you special insight, and then get hurt and offended and take it personally, and accuse others have being prejudiced against you for your profession when they disagree with you? Poor persecuted surgeons, so oppressed and suffering. We will have to start a group to advance their cause and protect them.
I am not sure where the disagreement is, nor what point you are trying to make. We seem to be mostly arguing about what I said, or must have meant.
Why don't we forget all about you being insulted and offended, and about what is wrong with me, and you can state exactly what the point is that you are trying to make and where you disagree with what I said.
I have no intention or desire to persuade or convert you, and I don't think it would be of any value to do so.
Voting (in the broad and general sense) can be a useful thing. What we have that we call "voting" and "democracy" is a joke. I think that is pretty obvious. Nader supporters more than any others should know that. Is it that position you are objecting to? If not, what are you objecting to?
But even in the best case, elections tell us where we have been politically, not where we are going. They are an effect of political conditions, not a cause.
I misread you and didn't expect you to become prickly or combative about this or I would not have made the comments that I did. I certainly was not looking for a fight. There really is nothing to argue about on the subject, and in fact when an argument breaks out over it and people take offense that proves that there is something worthwhile to observe and discuss without me saying anything. You may not be interested in any such discussion, and that is fine. Plenty of people are. The idea is to explore and discuss how social conditions, arrangements and conventions are driving politics. Since very little discussion happens in that area at the online liberal sites - and I will maintain that this is because the members at those sites are disproportionately from the upper 10% income bracket - we are feeling our way and mistakes will be made. I may have made a few in my discussion with you. We could debate and argue about that indefinitely, and get farther and farther away form the topic at hand, but it happens so often, and is almost never productive, so that gets pretty boring.
If you are not interested in discussion social conditions and how that is connected to political conditions, and do not wish to discuss the futility of voting with the hope of changing anything in the current system, and do not wish to discuss how an individual's social status might affect their political views, no one is forcing you to. Why not just say so, rather than taking offense and nit-picking for the sake of getting an argument going?
"I don't think I have been insulting or rude. That certainly was not my intention."
That would be fine, and perhaps, though I doubt it at this point, we could actually discuss ideas, but then you proceed with this;
"I still have no way of knowing whether or not you are in fact a surgeon, merely that you claim to be. Do you go around mentioning that you are a surgeon, and how that gives you special insight, and then get hurt and offended and take it personally, and accuse others have being prejudiced against you for your profession when they disagree with you? Poor persecuted surgeons, so oppressed and suffering. We will have to start a group to advance their cause and protect them."
And I am sure that was not intended to be insulting, now was it? Had I said something similar about farmers, you would be, I suspect, at least a bit upset and offended and justifiably so. In fact, I have had nothing but good things to say about farmers and even suggested they were more important than medical folk when it came to healthcare, and, if you, likewise, are indeed a farmer, I would say the same about you, although you are making it a bit difficult for me right now. Oh, and by the way, i don't recall saying i was a surgeon, only that I was a person trained in surgery and I mentioned that only to talk about what I learned about the steps needed to deal with an illness, which our body politic clearly has. I mentioned training, not degree nor position. It is you who has, throughout this conversation, made all sorts of assumptions and then proceeded to expound on them.
"By the way, scolding people for their "tone" itself reflects an upper class bias."
Where did I "scold" you? I asked you if your tone would have been different if I had identified myself differently. You consider that "scolding"? And I am the touchy one? (Oh, and by the way, one of the dictionary definitions of tone - "a manner of expression in writing") And here, again, you use (misuse, IMO) this opportunity to inject your class interpretation of life.
"There really is nothing to argue about on the subject, and in fact when an argument breaks out over it and people take offense that proves that there is something worthwhile to observe and discuss without me saying anything. You may not be interested in any such discussion ..."
Au contraire, (or is that an upper class phrase, too, that puts me in your little box?), this is precisely the discussion I thought we were having which I am persisting in. If there is, indeed, nothing to argue about on the subject, then perforce the "discussion" you insist you are interested in could consist only of your making an observation and my agreeing with you. I think your beef with me is that I didn't just nod my head but had the temerity (upper class, no doubt) to take exception to some of your characterizations of my positions. You say, "I certainly was not looking for a fight." No, you were looking for agreement, and when I didn't fall in line, you proceeded as above. How do the "plenty of people" who you say are interested in such discussions proceed? You are indeed correct - there is something worthwhile to observe and discuss, but you seem to wish to remove your own attitudes from the subjects worthy of discussion. I am sorry, but have found, and, to my mind our conversation seems to indicate, that class bias exists from the "lower" to the "upper" as well, but you wish to only discuss the one you perceive from the top down. Hmmm, have you never had the possibility of the other raised to you before? Is that why you are becoming defensive?
You are right, this conversation, at least on my part started out to be about my response to mcoyote's post and rapidly proceeded, in one sense, downhill. But I think the discussion we are having here, the one you suggest I am not interested in, is, indeed, a bit more interesting ..., and, like voting, potentially more productive ....
- No. I wouldn't have been offended had you said that.
- I didn't say anything bad about surgeons.
- I think my point about "tone" was excellent, and you haven't responded to it. What the heck does the dictionary definition have to do with anything?
- I don't care if you agree with me or not. I am writing for the other readers, and the goal is clarity. There is a certain number of people who will never agree with what I am saying here. That doesn't matter. We have millions, though, who do agree but who have no voice and are beaten down too easily.
- It is not a matter of bias being a bad thing, and I wouldn't deny that working class people are biased against the wealthy. I am not saying that bias is a bad thing, or makes a person bad. I am on the side of the working class, that is all. I am pointing out that those who claim to be opposed in some way to the ruling class, but then betray a deep and profound bias to the interests of the ruling class are causing a lot of confusion. Before you get offended, I am not accusing you of anything and will be careful not to say anything that might offend you and will not poke fun or joke around about better-off people. I support bias from the bottom up.
- I am more than happy to talk about "my attitudes." They are no doubt "bad" - or at least I hope they are. I am working on that, as I think there is something a little insane about having a good attitude about what is happening. We need a lot more people with "bad attitudes," in my view.
oops, sorry, you didn't say anything bad about surgeons as a group, only about me assuming a superior position, and the suggestion that I might not be what you say I say I am. You're right, how could anyone possibly consider that insulting.
No, your point about tone was relevant to one definition of tone which was not relevant to my use of it as per my quoted definition. If you insist that yours is the only real definition, what can I say?
Though I, too, may be writing for others as well, my first responsibility, IMO, in any conversation is to respond to the person I am speaking with. Quaint concept, I'll admit, but there it is.
"We have millions, though, who do agree but who have no voice and are beaten down too easily."
The papal "we"? In any case, you make my point - in denying the possibility that these voiceless millions could find a voice at the polls, you do them no favors, IMO. Of course that strengthens your power to claim to speak for them. But even though I know, as has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, that I, too, am a member of the "working class", in spite of my "training", though you would never grant me permission to be considered such, you do not speak for me, and I suggest, in urging those millions to find a voice in the polls, I am doing them a greater service than your denying the possibility they can find one there is doing.
I will ask you again, specifically, please, precisely, tell me what, if anything I have said that, as you put it "betray(s) a deep and profound bias to the interests of the ruling class". You have never, in all these words we've traded, actually said what it is that prompted the tone (see above definition) and substance of your rejoinder. Was it my defense of voting? I keep asking and you do not answer.
Thank you for having admitted you have an attitude. Don't we all. If bias is not a "bad" thing, then what, precisely, is your point in making such a show of attempting to point it out? Conversely, if we need more people with bad attitudes, then why do you object to mine?