EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
One Thing You Can’t Hide…..Is the Authoritarian Inside
You can shine your shoes and wear a suit.
You can comb your hair and look quite cute
You can hide your face behind a smile
One thing you can’t hide
Is when you’re crippled inside
--John Lennon “Crippled Inside”
From the moment I first heard it, I liked John Lennon’s “Crippled Inside”. Over the years, it has percolated up into my consciousness with surprising persistence, especially at those times when I have needed to make important life decisions.
There are, of course, many ways to interpret the song. But I have always seen it as addressing that proverbial search for inner harmony. To be “crippled inside” is, for me, to live in ways that contradict one’s natural desires or inclinations.
The drive to achieve harmony--bring what is thought and felt inside into line with one’s daily praxis--has always been an issue of central importance to most cultures. Indeed, the term “integrity” comes from the idea of “being of one piece”, that is, having few if any fissures between the inner and the outer self.
Maybe it is just me, but I don’t hear much about people in public life or in positions of authority over our children talking much about the goal of achieving internal harmony anymore. And on the rare occasions when I do, it is usually with the purpose of mocking such seekers as superfluous or flaky.
My sense is that this failure to promote or celebrate the search for inner harmony may have lot to do with the presence of in our lives of massive, and therefore seemingly insurmountable, moral inconsistencies.
One of the more confounding cultural phenomena of the last decade or so has been the failure of the people on the nominal left to mount any more than fleeting and largely symbolic challenges to the organized depredation of our economy and our civil society orchestrated by the right. The presidency of Obama is the farcical culmination of a long-running show perhaps best compared to a game between the always-sharp Harlem Globetrotters and the paid-to-be-hapless Washington Generals.
Intelligent people have come up with numerous theories for explaining this phenomenon. Most touch in one way or another on the unchecked presence of illicit money and overly entrenched interest groups in our political system.
And they are, of course, right.
But I’d like to suggest that these well-diagnosed flaws are subsidiary elements of a larger and more embracing problem: large numbers of our nominally “left” political class, along with a healthy number of the people that vote for them, are “crippled inside”.
What does it really mean to be a liberal?
When you cast aside the many superficial answers to the question generated and circulated in recent years (reading the NYT, driving a Volvo, voting Democratic, exclaiming repeatedly in public how much you really love people of all different colors and persuasions) and go back to the genesis of the term, a few salient qualities emerge.
One is that you place a concern for the inherent dignity of the individual, --all individuals from all places--at the very center of your political concerns. Another, intimately linked to the first in that it is the only way that individual rights have ever been durably preserved, is to favor consensually agreed upon legal processes--rooted in what are believed to be universal concepts of justice--over the capricious exercise of power.
Put another way, true liberals are, or at least should be, intrinsically and fervently skeptical of any authority other than the rule of law.
But as I look around, I see all sort of nominal liberals who are deeply and openly invested (either in the role of wielder or the role of wannabe) in schemas of authority that have nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of law and the pursuit of human dignity.
Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that many self-identified liberals pay homage to all sorts of hierarchical and fundamentally authoritarian ways of framing reality, practices that admit, without actually coming out and saying it, that might does, in fact, “make right”, that beneath any verbiage we might employ in public the thing that really matters is currying favor with the people at the top, those with effective control of the goodies we feel we deserve.
This why, I suspect, so many of them passively accept Obama’s imperial and often lawless presidency, Hillary Clinton’s daily lectures to sovereign leaders of other countries, spy-and-arrest-first, ask-questions- later “justice”, the idea that US lives are inherently more valuable than the lives of people in other places, the notion that invading Afghanistan and Iraq were “necessary”, that killing Bin Laden or Khadafy in cold blood is something to cheer about, that the US need not be subject to the international laws that bind other “lesser” entities, that money should “naturally” accord the rich more access to political power, that legal process and legal accountability are only really important when it comes to the poor and the unconnected.
I know that things don’t happen in a vacuum. I realize that the “winner take all” brutality so many people in this country have suffered in the workplace over the last three decades has probably played a large role in fomenting these hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes among the citizenry.
But I also know that in academia, where many people (but certainly not all) have labor protections that have long since disappeared in other sectors, and where, as everyone knows, self-denominated liberals are a strong majority, there has been a sharp rise both authoritarianism and a disdain for process in recent years.
There are numerous people in the academy who, while active and deeply versed in progressive politics, wouldn’t think twice about using their small parcel of institutional power to ruin or seriously sidetrack the career of a colleague because they do not like one aspect or another of his or her worldview. As they say in Spanish, autoritarismo puro y duro.
So I guess in the end, it comes down to what some used to call an “examination of conscience”.
How deeply do we, and the “good” liberals and progressives we know, really believe in the need to hammer out consensual agreements even when we know that an “executive decision” might be more efficient in the short run? Do we really believe that all lives are of equal value and thus worthy of respect and dignity? Or that power is a gift subject to limits rather than weapon to be used as we see fit? Do you really look at the person before you look at his or her title or ability to potentially improve your financial or professional lot? Do you join the crowd and snicker at the discordant voice or make the uncomfortable case that he or she deserves to be heard?
As melodramatic as it may sound, the future of our culture may depend on it. The last decade and a half have shown us what happens when we turn our parcel of progressive power over to “crippled” liberals. We need to stop indulging them and let them know in clear and unequivocal tones at work, on the street, wherever our paths cross, that “Cute in a suit” will no longer do.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllGreat piece Tom.
Let me add the current issue of passive acceptance:
The peaceful Occupy Movement is blamed for the massive para-military Police presence and the bloated overtime costs they run up. Who is being served and who is being protected? It's the local taxpayers and the Occupiers that are being charged!
A great analysis. And why do we so readily accept this authoritarianism? Why is there little talk about whether we have achieved inner harmony? Because we are the graduates of a school system intended, first and foremost, to create obedient workers content with their little confined space in an impersonal system. If we want real change, we have to create a radically different way of educating children. My further thoughts can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/slowwalkhome
Exactly. We were brainwashed as kids to be Patriotic. That the poor Pilgrims just had to slaughter the Indians because they attacked first.
Nothing was every mentioned how the White Christians slaughtered them, gave them blankets of Smallpox, stole their lands and put them in consentration camps.
The idiotic songs we sang, the Pledge.
After reading Butler's War is a Racket, I realized that this shit of stealing other countries resources is what the US was founded on. And hasn't stopped since.
Not proud to be an American.
Great Youtube, very concise and insightful. It will be sure to piss off many on this site who refuse to see our public schools as anything but a great progressive achievement that merely needs to be fixed a bit here and there. No doubt you have read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of our schools: that it is Prussian-style training to live unquestioningly under authority. I agree that the most docile and obedient succeed in school, while our strongest willed, most self-reliant students are thrown out in the trash of "special ed" and force-fed Ritalin and like drugs. They are "learning disabled." Some see through the lie and flourish; most, unfortunately, don't.
For those progressives who refuse to listen to your message, I have this to say: do you really want the most obedient and least questioning to succeed under our system of education? Do you want the bulk of those branded inferior from their earliest years to believe this and to feel this burden their whole lives? If you do, then I don't see how you could consider yourself progressives.
I loved the story about the successful businesspeople who came into the school to inspire the students, all of whom ended with the "don't do what I did"--which was to do poorly in school. Didn't they, or the principal, note the irony? And for those who object that successful businesspeople tend to be unethical, I have to ask, who taught them to be this way? I certainly never learned the importance of ethics in public schools. We learned to obey the laws, no matter how unethical, and that's that.
Progressives don't want to hear the message that the public schools are part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it presents us with an enormous job. That job is to create community based schools that are truly intended to create critically-thinking, democratic and justice-minded citizens. We would all have to make very substantial sacrifices to create such schools. Those who argue that a progressive government will create progressive schools have the cart before the horse. As long as schools are, as they are today, the regressive elements in our society are perfectly safe. You might find this article interesting: dissidentvoice.org/2011/10/schools-are-the-problem-not-the-solution
It's not the schools; it's the people running the schools, deciding what form the indoctrination will take. I know; I was trained to teach in such schools. If I tried to teach anything close to truth, in most cases I would be fired--even if I'm correct. But as I've written about often in our comment forum, it's our culture and the society based upon it that are grossly dysfunctional, a condition several thousands of years old. Fundamentally, few people try to become Civilized as it goes against our Barbaric culture--the active agent crippling most everyone's insides. Some blame patriarchy, but that's only partially correct as the problem has existed longer. I place the cause in the changing of culture and society from being communal/cooperative to individual/competitive, that was spurred by the advent of settled agriculture, which allowed for the accumulation of material goods and created a caste system that hadn't existed before. What needs to happen is a functional culture must be adopted that allows for society to again become functional so it can renew its attempt to become Civilized. The culture of schools will change along with society as the goal will be to teach cooperation and cooperative efforts to facilitate a communal/functional society. Such a shift currently seems a tall order, but Global Warming and its twin Resource Depletion will force change. By 2100 a new paradigm will be in play. Competition has caused the Barbarism and Barbarity we see in the world today. If humanity is ever going to become Civilized, it must become cooperative and non-authoritarian--the mirror image of contemporary humanity.
“The defenders of the public system suggest that school will be changed for the better when progressive forces are in charge of society. Such a development is rationally logical, yet practically impossible. Progressive forces will not come to power so long as regressive schools are turning out the overwhelming majority of citizens. Given our present school system, the forces of injustice can quite happily sit back and relax, knowing that their opposition has been cut off at the knees.” –from the article you provided a link to, “Schools are the Problem not the Solution”
Yes, I’d read that article, which reveals the situation most succinctly. I don’t think many progressives see this as a serious problem: the thinking seems to be, I got through it, and I had a couple of excellent teachers. Well, a few people do get through with their thinking intact. I was fortunate enough to be expelled from public school at 15 and to get into a community college through a loophole at 16, where I met many Vietnam Vets and some really good teachers. I’m not putting myself forward as a shining example or anything, but I doubt I would have ever entered college if I’d had to endure the fascists who ran the public school I endured for two more years.
Gatto says that part of the problem is just those excellent teachers: their existence implies that the system can work. Defenders of public schools refuse to see that the curriculum, the constant ranking, the constant emphasis on compliance and competition among the students—even before high-stakes testing was ramped up—has been the central means of creating an authoritarian society from the get-go. State, and increasingly federal, government will never give up their control of the public schools. This IS the central agency of thought control. It is more powerful than the media.
Ravitch is seen as a progressive crusader, but the fact is, she was so clueless when hired by Bush Jr. that she thought high-stakes testing to be a good thing. Anyone who had looked at the evidence would have known this to be bunk; she didn’t, so she was hired. She eventually got that that part was wrong, but she still upholds the authoritarian system in large part.
I was just talking to a homeschooler the other day. She’s not a fundamentalist Christian by any means. She has a high school diploma, as does her husband. He has a job driving a truck; she works a few evenings a week waiting tables, and the couple are willing to take the economic hit to help their children. She pulled her two children out of school last year after the schools had told her that her son couldn’t learn math, so needed to work with a calculator, and couldn’t write quickly enough, so needed a “scribe” to write for him, and couldn’t read well enough, so needed worksheets to summarize the material. They suggested Ritalin. The child was coming home in distress every day. After a year of being subjected to the teaching of these “non-expert” parents, when tested, the boy rated “accelerated” in science and math and “proficient” in English, his weakest subject.
She told me that her children shudder at the idea of going back to school. She said they have more friends than they did while in public school. Once a month she meets with her children with fellow homeschoolers, and they make friends. The younger and the older mix and take care of each other. There are no cliques.
If communities really got together, the problem of having our children learn outside the fascist state would not be so hard. It is the one thing we can do. The resistance inside the progressive community is nothing less than creepy.
I agree with you and your UTube. Grading and sorting is cruel to children, force-feeding prepackaged "knowledge" is mind-deadening, the whole system, competitive and fear-inducing, is an obscene factory. When you've killed curiosity, the love of learning and exploring, you've sealed off those impulses, and you're left with republicans and democrats who still support Obama. The intentional stupidification seems to have worked.
What about letting kids come together in groups to teach and learn from each other?
The teacher would have to change her role and become a co-learner, showing kids what learning's all about by learning something herself. Then kids would be apprentices to a master learner.
This piece definitely has its finger on the pulse, but is still quite some distance from the heart of the matter. Still, just to have any discussion centering on the hold that authoritarianism has on all of us is laudable and should be happening more often.
Authoritarianism is indeed the main blind spot we all have as far as our orientation toward the powerful is concerned. The fact that we only accept 'leaders' and hierarchies in our social organization is not one of nature, but of conditioning. It has taken thousands of years to impose this form of order, and it has limited our political imaginations severely. We must learn to give less attention to authority and to reclaim our constituent part in the whole again. That's why I believe we must orientate ourselves into smaller groups and settings. The collapse of the European Union, and even the United States, would be a blessing in this sense, not a curse.
I recommend anyone interested in the effects of authoritarian conditioning to consider the work of Bob Altemeyer at University of Manitoba; he has done some provocative and amusing studies on this phenomenon in particular.
ZEO: Well said.
I am uncomfortable with Harrington AND Chris Hedges making the issues and conditions that have arisen from the consolidation of capital (and all those beholden to it) attributable to (a problem of) liberals!
We could learn much from the instructive light directed our way from the cyclic interplay of interplanetary themes; so I feel the need to add that element, the language of larger correspondences, to this dialog.
The 5 outer planets' orbits range from 2 to 248 years, and ALL have spent time in the conservative signs of Taurus (earth sign directly related to $ & banking) and Capricorn (earth sign related to state power and control of citizens) in the past 30 years.
While Ronald Reagan in many respects served as the avatar of that interval, in putting a smile on the engineered rip-off of the populace, the fact of the matter is that cosmic conditions FAVORED this type of consolidation of power.
Capricorn is the last of the earth signs. It IS the sign of the likes of Richard Nixon, Karl Rove, and J Edgar Hoover (and probably the rising sign of Joseph McCarthy, a secretive Scorpio); and by Divine Design its dominion comes before (which is to say anticipates) that of Aquarius, the sign that inspires the ideal of personal sovereignity and the INDIVIDUAL'S right to the pursuit of happiness.
Without a confining restriction upon liberties, the presure building up in the human keg from so much state control, there could be no collective breaking of chains as we witness in the revolutions spreading 'round the globe.
Uranus, the ruler of Aquarius, is likened to rebellions, revolutions, radical new discovery processes, and inventions of all kinds. It was discovered fairly close to the wave of revolutions that spanned Europe and the US from the mid 18th to mid 19th centuries.
Pluto is associated with plutocracy. In myth, Pluto-Hades is the abductor who lives below the surface world. It's no accident that modern parlance equates criminals with underground (hades/Pluto) or underworld characters. Pluto, passing through Capricorn until 2025 has given rise to the epidemic of fear that's used the invention of terrorism to curtail civil liberties round the globe. Then, in fighting this phantom menace, a projection of the shadow (as drawn from so much violent behavior on the part of that entity seeing terrorism as its supreme moral foe) ENORMOUS sums of $ are wasted on developing weapons, along with the massive surveillance of citizens. This pattern constitutes the celestial theme of our times... and is NOT the work of liberals! (They are complicit, to a degree; yet hardly responsible!)
When the archetypes of time along with the purposes they are given to are instead mistaken for the flaws of liberals, then I must speak up. This is a very narrow way of looking at the prism we term reality; and it's also most unfortunate that voices on the Left sing along with the right wing hate mongers in making the world's problems about liberals. Sure, some have sold out; and liberal may be a fit term for the person who once cared deeply, but now has become a part of the status quo. However, those human flaws do not meet the criteria for culpability for those events that ensue from this specific phase of time, nor answer for its tone and purposes.
Many went to sleep (or otherwise entered into comfort zones) because they thought the wars were won, and justice done. They were satisfied that Blacks had gained civil rights along with women. They thought they could just protect their family security, and build up the rudiments of a stable life. Selfish, yes, but also understandable in that most people act this way.
I think it's counter-intuitive to place a disproportionate responsibility onto the shoulders of liberals. What of the MIC? What of the rich purchasing media to use propaganda and all sorts of behavior modifications to manufacture consent for unconscionable domestic acts and foreign policy? What of religions getting onboard in FAVOR of war? What of lousy food making people ill, fat, and less responsive? What of TV mesmerizing the public, even down to the mind control of babies?
Capricorn is the sign ruled by Saturn, the god of the Old Testament. Here humanity meets the lesson of whether it will serve Satan/mammon, the god of transitory riches, or reach for the kingdom within (the growth of the soul). Many fell to ambition, many have become little gods kings in their tiny fiefdoms. When all this focus on the material causes the very earth, our collective home, to DIE, then the priorities MUST be altered less "business as usual" constitute a collective suicide pact that would have made Jim Jones jealous. Humanity has arrived at this moral (and astrological) juncture.
I agree with Harrington that inner reflection is important. Yet the very art of being receptive is YIN, or identified less with the macho action principle of Mars, and more with Venus. Our culture has conditioned people to identify with Mars, and that is why it's only when illness or adversity strike, that many take that fearless moral inventory. .. or stop, look, listen and honor "The Venus within." Necessity is knocking on lots of doors these days as a fundamental shift in humanity's collective direction and destination knocks. It is part of prophecy as drawn from a dazzling number of diverse sources. Liberals are hardly its founders or ruling principle!
"I am uncomfortable with Harrington AND Chris Hedges making the issues and conditions that have arisen from the consolidation of capital (and all those beholden to it) attributable to (a problem of) liberals!"
Hedges feels responsibility for the complicity of the "liberal class" - which he used to belong to and represent - in the evils of capitalism. He thinks that they betrayed principles that he believed in and he seems to feel some personal responsibility also. That belief of course means that he thinks that people who still believe in these principles have a chance to effect change and shouldn't just wait for external forces to do it. I think his internal critique from a liberal of the "liberal class" is pretty awesome, and has a lot of truth even with all his inaccuracies.
As an aging sixties-era lefty (well, still very left, but it started in the 1960s), I don't think this analysis fits the reality I've experienced. I think we're better than that...the people I've worked with are, anyway. Many are working hard, conscientiously, using their talents to keep the progressive vision alive and make a difference, however modest. And given the enormously disproportionate power of our adversaries, they accept the reality that modest is probably all we can hope for in return for a lifetime's hard work and sacrifice. At least until some pivotal moment when the general zeitgeist shifts, and more and more people decide to come off the sidelines and push back against the forces molding our lives and bankrupting us and our planet.
An example: One PhD I know has made himself virtually unemployable in academe because of his activism on behalf of the environment. Nothing crazy, nothing extreme...just keeping track of, publicizing, challenging what's being trucked from out of state into a mountainous nearby landfill--all sorts of toxic stuff destined eventually to leach into our groundwater. Him authoritarian? Not a shred of it. And I'm pretty sure his inner harmony is intact.
No, I think if we on the left have any fault it's that we haven't known how to communicate effectively with the uncommitted--the ones who are steeped in mainstream messages designed to shape their worldview, and which work hard to marginalize and discredit any leftist perspective. And so long as those folks weren't too discomfited by the current arrangement--which many weren't up till about 2007 and 2008--they were content to avoid politics, not get involved in the in-many-ways unpleasant and conflictual fray. Try to sort out which side makes more sense, which side is telling the truth.
Many regular people know that the present course isn't sustainable and have known it, uneasily, for a long time. But if you turn away from the status quo, what does that leave? The ragtag left? At least the current regime can keep police on the streets and see that groceries somehow reach the supermarket and (so far) gas is there to run my car.
But as it becomes increasingly the case that the status quo can't deliver what we all require for our livelihoods and general well-being, the left needs to be a credible alternative, and it needs...we need...to communicate clearly and thoughtfully to people who don't yet see the answers we can offer. That's where I think we really have been weak. It isn't our inner authoritarianism. It's that we haven't really gotten good at communicating to the uncommitted. So much of our conversation takes place in forums like this one. That's worthwhile, to be sure, but we also need to be out in the community looking for effective ways to express an alternative worldview, and an alternative set of possibilities for our collective future.
We've arrived once again at a pivotal moment, though--the first real one I've seen since the sixties. It would be irresponsible of us to let this go by without doing everything in our power to make this time different, to try to be as effective as possible in helping people see where the best hope for the future lies and inviting them to join us...and making them comfortable and welcome when they do.
STAN: I agree with your insights, and thank you for sharing them.
Look at what's happening to Elizabeth Warren for trying to get the banks/Wall St. to pay a modicum of a responsible share?
Look at what happened to Gabrielle Giffords or Francis Pivens, or Nader, etc.
Inventors like PAUL K recognize that oftentimes the established energy corps buy up the new patents not to develop these products, but rather to insure that no alternatives ever enter the public marketplace. Something very much like this takes place when it comes to the "franchise" of ideas. Novel ideas are marginalized and their creators blacklisted.
Also, we ought to refrain from reinforcing a meme that's quite powerful on the Right, and that is, that the Left lacks message. What it lacks is a f--king microphone! Notice the way the OWS group has learned to bypass that technical impediment. The right OWNS media, radio, the music industry, and much that gets funded in the way of films.
The strategy is to silence inventors and visionaries, marginalize their messages, and where necessary assassinate their characters. All this to keep conditions AS IS. The controllers are seeing ungodly profits, and since they can't see beyond the Midas Touch, they are inured to the greater reality that their fascination with STUFF is leading the living world to ultimate collapse.
I agree with every other sensible (and sensitive) point you made.
Well spoken. A society dies when it marginalizes it's creative ones.
Authoritarianism is built into our laws. (So much for the “rule of law” theory of implementing change.) Americans don’t understand that labor law still refers to “the master-servant relationship”. That’s what Capitalism is - one level away from the slavery ostensibly abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation.
I have to say that when I read this article and Harrington was referring to “crippled” liberals, the first to come to mind were Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz. [Satellite radio’s “Left” channel.] Hartmann keeps encouraging people to take over the Democratic Party – as if the system could still be fixed from the inside; and Schultz is a self-proclaimed Capitalist. The first few weeks of OWS Schultz refused to give the cause any air time. He seemed quite contemptuous of the whole group, as if they were just in his way. But like any broadcaster who realizes that the parade was getting ahead of them, have now jumped in front. Have you noticed how neither of these guys will engage in debate with anyone to the left of their views? If they do host someone truly from the left, it’s usually a carefully controlled interview and not a debate. And if a caller gets through the filter, as soon as its apparent that their views are to the left of Thom or Ed, they will be summarily cut off without debate (no, it wasn’t me); some patronizing comment about how they have the right to express their views but how they don’t agree, and off to the next caller. Where are the nationally available true voices on the left? I listen to FSTV and Link when I’m at home, but on the road it’s so hard to find voices not encased in the bubble of centrist or crippled liberals.
"We tried to talk it over, but the words got in the way...
We're lost, inside, this lonely game we play."
George Bensen lyrics.
Here's the thing: the people you mention are hardly liberal, Progressive, or TRULY identified with positions one would ideally term: Left. Anyone who advocates for war, or supports Obama--who's shown a pretty sick fascination with the Supreme Crime (war of aggression) does not fit the definition. And that's my point. The definitions for words have moved away from their previous axes due to the entire political spectrum (or pendulum) veering so far to the right, that as we often joke, Nixon would be taken for a liberal today. And Jesus, the one all the churches profess to worship, would be shot as a hippie.
With all the noise about holding teachers to account, perhaps the OWS movement should produce a TEST for politicians! Let them identify their positions on the 22 most significant issues of our times. They get 4 potentials:
Strongly disagree--and will not support this
Disagree--would consider additional evidence to alter my view
Agree--at this time, I back this issue
Strongly agree--Will offer 100% support to this policy/issue
They must turn in these "tests;" and if they are elected into office, and they violate their own "oaths" in more than 3 instances, they are out of a job. That's it! That's the measure of THEIR accountability. They answer to us, citizens, the nation's genuine stock holders!
The stars of media that are branded as Left or Liberal or Progressive are centrists, one and all. They would not be IN media if they didn't toe the line. Our times are under serious control, and voices that speak in the idiom of alternatives are treated like pariahs. I would not rule out actual witch-burning...
Big Eddie isn't pro-choice either. That's why you never hear him discussing abortion law.
".....in academia..... where, as everyone knows, self-described liberals are a strong majority, there has been a sharp rise [in] both authoritarianism and a disdain for the process in recent years." - Thomas Harrington
I'm not familiar with the Ivory Tower political environment of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, but I'm very familiar with academe in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a community popularly considered a bastion of left wing radicalism particularly in the 1960's and early 70's when I did undergraduate and graduate studies there.
Yes, there were vocal, politically progressive members of the faculty at U of M active in the civil rights and antiwar movement. But no way in hell was my alma mater - or, I suspect, places like UC Berkeley, Columbia, or Yale - ever populated by a "strong majority" of liberals, however that malleable term might be defined. Left wing academics were a minority, and many suffered professionally and personally for their advocacy.
It is certainly true that authoritarianism has been intellectually legitimized, and disdain for democratic process has markedly increased, in the last thirty years or so. This is the legacy of all those right wing private sector "think tanks", shadowy elitist political front groups like the Federalist Society, and the enhanced acceptance of right wing ideology like that of Leo Straus and the U of Chicago school of an unfettered market dynamics. Like so much else in American society, the goal posts and center of the political spectrum in academe has kept marching to the right.
I agree with professor Harrington on everything, except the notion that liberals were ever running the show. In my experience, they were not even a silent majority on college the great majority of college campuses.
Bill from Saginaw
Thank you, Bill. Sterling analysis; and in case you didn't notice, I was articulating a parallel argument, if taken from a more "cosmic" perspective. YOU give the practice of law a good name. Your ethics are always clear, and I thank you for that, as well as your contribution to this forum.
Right now, as liberalism is a part of capitalism, it does not really question any of the basic underlying principles and concepts of capitalist political economy. It is mostly based on Enlightenment principles and has a lot of relation to the modern method of scientific truth-seeking, so it does have a very important connection to reality, but from a political economic point of view it is very much subservient to capitalism. Hedges' analysis of the "liberal class" (which is not a "class" really, but whatever) is imo generally on target: the task of the group of intellectuals in specific important positions in institutions with a progressive historical background rooted in liberal ideas like the press, public education, academia, arts etc. (he somehow connects churches to this but again, whatever, there are other problems also but the basic truth remains) was to soften the harshest problems of capitalism while protecting the underlying sytem, they betrayed this task and because of this neither the system nor the people have much use for them.
This of course has nothing to do with "liberal principles". First, because your job in a liberal institution in a capitalist system will inevitably override and distort your principles, liberal or otherwise (and you'll be filtered out eventually if it doesn't). But more importantly, it's because classical liberal principles are simply not enough for today's world. The simple enlightenment era world view is not nearly as useful and accurate now as it used to be. These ideas kind of progressed, towards socialism or neoliberalism or whatever, but they needed to change because classical liberalism simply can not take into account most of the actual real-world problems and can not handle them. Simply put, you can not be a Tom Paine type liberal today. You can not be an Adam Smith type liberal today. Or a Jefferson type or whoever. Any one of these people would today take an even more sophisticated political path, they might become neoliberals, socialists, anarchists or Marxists or (quite probably) come up with their own interpretations and alternatives - but their intepretations of principles and offers of solutions would definitely differ today. Even the very basic issue of "liberty" changed and was refined quite a bit (and had to change to accomodate reality). This leads to a loss of meaning and thus the current situation, in which basically anyone can be considered a liberal, whatever principles they hold :-/
You can consider yourself a liberal without being, for example, committed to democracy (you can be committed to "meritocracy" for example which can easily turn into just another form of aristocracy). You can consider yourself a liberal while defending social structures that inhibit or even destroy personal freedoms all over the world. You can be considered a liberal while you support authoritarianism at home and in other countries. So basically, the word "liberalism" and "liberal" doesn't have enough meaning any more, partly because it was hijacked, partly because the world has changed so much. Sometimes it is a word used for people who are essentially socialists, sometimes it's used for people who are as far from liberalism as possible. But this isn't because people forgot what it meant - it is because the world has changed so much...or rather, because thinking about the world has changed and was refined so much.
There are just way too many cornerstone issues where simple "liberalism" has no answer at all. Now, we can speculate about what a Tom Paine who grew up today would be, whether he'd be a Democrat or support the Tea Party or whatever, and that is a pretty interesting question...but he sure as hell wouldn't simply be a "liberal"! Same with Adam Smith, whom, based on his constant bashing of the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind", and of course those masters themselves, for whom he didn't exactly have many nice words, I could easily imagine even as a communist :-D
This is an exceptionally intelligent, thoughtful, and thought-provoking post, Atomsk.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
And this is precisely why rhetorical liberals are irrelevant today: they are trapped in the same addictions as is any neo-conservative. Political transformation is partly married to a Twelve Step Program, as one begins to recognize that their life style choices cannot be sustained by Mother Earth. Until inner transformation becomes a priority to people who characterize themselves as progressive or liberal (or any other appellation for that matter), nothing is likely to change significantly except – perhaps – our continued diminishment as a species. Oh, you will always have incremental political change that corrects itself according to the popular mood of the social matrix, but it never moves significantly in either a leftward or rightward direction that would correct the problems of an order of magnitude necessary to positively impact humankind downslide as a species. The more material benefits that trickle down to the middle class the more comfort the system provides and thus, the more it inhibits direct social action. When the material side is downsized (via lowering standards of living, or social benefit reductions) the more difficult it becomes for working people to provide a comfort level measured against the house in suburbia which might now be under foreclosure, the upkeep on the SUV then becomes questionable, the wide screen TV with all the accessories seems less important when one cannot feed one’s children, much less contemplate the two trips to Maui or some other exotic location based on eco-travel. The OWS movement is precisely a direct consequence of the loss of a social comfort zone based on the myth of unlimited supply. One might ask oneself if the QUALITY of their life (meaning a sense of growth or honest intimacy with one's lover or with the Earth community of beings) is better or worse based on the VALUES of CONSUMPTION. (How much of one's time is spent in communion with family or friends, or even with the natural world, as opposed to just earning a living?) Moreover, I am wondering if any liberal really cares if their lifestyle choices matters against the fact that the vast majority of people on this planet go to bed hungry every night. Some commentators additionally note that we will be fighting wars in the next twenty years over drinking water. It is one thing to offer rhetorical outbursts (including mine) on forums like this one. But how many actually try to order their lives to authentically make a positive or life affirming impact toward the problems?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpP8Ts20wIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkEmLRCP078&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy7CWXPxYME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRJQpWhE0o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZv0Jojnn9I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuxIVVig3M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFyI5ZYG_pE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN9UXuaWBO4&feature=related
Here is the entire film:
http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/watch-the-movie-on-youtube/
Sure, I'll give you dignity, even respect. Good manners are soo important. I'll call you ma'am and sir and tell you your children are smart and cute. Say thank you and please and tip well.
But NO. I won't give you your equitable share of the commonwealth nor your equitable share of the product of your labour.
WAIT, you mean dignity and good manners aren't enough?? You want social justice too?
Sorry, I only give dignity.
:wink:
The season of authoritarianism may well be coming to an end; and, it is possible that a new season is just now dawning: one that is characterized by a "partnership model" of social relatedness that is synergistic and linking - as opposed to ranking. These are modes of social organization which foster mutually empowering relationships via a “power - with others” rather than "power - over" orientation..
However, let’s be realistic, says Philip Slater in a Dream Deferred. Even though he suggests that authoritarianism is a dying culture, he also adds the following (somewhat obvious) caution:
"...cultures don’t die easily and we can expect a long and bitter struggle before the democratic megaculture is firmly rooted. At some point authoritarians usually resort to violence in resisting democratic change - given their psychological and structural rigidity, it is usually the only response they have left.”
People can't just make "the inner and outer man one" (to steal from Plato). There are so many cultural/psychological distortions heaped upon the individual from birth. The work of Wilhelm Reich is particularly illuminating here.
And, as some are saying here...."liberals" are way too comfortable....and they prize their own safety and comforts above all these days...I see a lot of cowardice there to be honest.
Hangingrunes, I agree!!
If the "liberal mindset" allowed them to be interested in gaining psychological insight into the foundations of their opponents' way of seeing the world ----- skillful strategies and the actual battle lines would be more obvious. At present liberals seem content to play the role of ineffectual (and yes, cowardly) dupes.
The psychologist Adorno identified a specific constellation of traits, which he concluded were characteristic of an “authoritarian personality type.”
These included: a rigid adherence to conventional moral standards; a harsh punitive attitude toward outside groups as well as those perceived as social inferiors; and a glorification of authority figures, for example, the president or religious leaders within their own group.
Such people also tended to have difficulty taking another person’s point of view, avoided introspection, and often maintained contemptuous opinions of professions or avocations involving ambiguous areas such as art, psychology, or philosophy.
Zeofredo:
If acceptance of a split-up (collapse?) of the United States is to be contemplated,
then our Civil war was fought in vain. Slavery became a peripheral issue of the
war once real bullets began to be shot. The claim by the northern states was that
the southern states were not permitted to leave the federal union. The northern
states won. The union was preserved, and European powers could not then dabble
in American affairs; Europe could not play some states against other states to the
benefit of European nation(s), which they would have wanted to seize.
We can clean our house without first tearing down the house, and then hoping that
MAYBE we will build anew. Our founders left us intellectual weapons with which
to fight. Start with our written constitution. Despite its obvious flaws -- and the
flaws of the men who wrote it -- it still says that the constitution and the nation-hood that it composed was instituted by We The People. We OWN the damned thing.
[We are the 99%.] It's our homeland. We ought not let a privileged few tell us what
to do in our own home. Furthermore, corporations with a personality ARE NOT
in the constitution, despite what some judges beholden to corporate wealth may
say they have "discovered".
I also agree with Siouxrose -- as much as I understand her post of 11:52 -- that we
ought not to blame all of our national issues and failings on the liberals. I don't
accept her interpretation via signs of the Zodiac. The better interpretation is that
of a sports metaphor. E.g., football in the U.S. One team in a game puts together
a drive, during which the other team mostly backs up. Then the situation reverses,
and the backed-up team begins its own drive. If the liberals are one team, and the
reactionaries are the other team, don't "blame" the liberals if they (for a while) get
backed up. What the liberals must now do is to regain the initiative. I THINK that's
what history will write down to the credit of OWS. Now, let's bring in the Liberal
offense and make the other team back up while the Liberals march to score a TD.
I think what you're really talking about is Patriarchy (authoritarianism and puritanism are subsets) and the thuggish, brutal response to any attempt to dismantle it. Adherents can be on the Right or liberals. Patriarchy gives susceptible humans a platform which encourages and allows cruelty in all it's forms. Monotheism is it's system of justification. Anyone's who ever worked for equality, justice and human rights issues, such as poverty abatement, voting rights, environmentalism, against war, for choice, real education, against circumcision, etc., etc. etc. hits the wall that protects Patriarchy very quickly. Patriarchy's adherents & their institutions rise up ferociously to demonize and destroy any credible threats against it.
I think sometimes people aren't even aware exactly what they're protecting or the basis of their strong feelings because there are so many different issues that make up this oppressive system. At least the Right's more straight-forward about it, shouting down any opponents in illogical, emotional (but effective) language with very little regard for the truth on any particular issue.
Liberals, are much more insidious, seeking to put a soothing, "human" face on Patriarchy, co-opting its opponents. This is also very effective. Many people, on the side opposing Patriarchy in any given situation, often think they've scored a victory through liberalism (like Obama's election for example) only to find, sometimes to their utter confusion, that "nothing has changed".
The Occupy Wall Street movement, with it's non-hierarchical structure and devotion to democracy, is a direct threat to Patriarchy. A great many people (including true conservatives and those who had been confused into accepting that Patriarchy is the the universal order), through that Movement, have been able, finally, to imagine another way of living, a different world view, one that doesn't entail the death or enslavement of "others", perpetual war and colonialism, quashing dissent and the amassing of great wealth and power by elites.
Until we successfully identify Patriarchy and the overwhelming role it plays as the opposition to so many Progressive "causes", as well as the paired Liberal/Right, good cop/bad cop roles that are it's enforcement mechanism, we will have no understanding of how to dismantle it.
Adorno’s (et. al.) work on the authoritarian personality revealed characteristics that one can expect to find in a person with this sort of basic orientation to life. Some of the attributes that these folks display include, but are not limited to ---
intolerance of ambiguity, dichotomous thinking, rigidity of thought, punitiveness, anti-intellectualism, militaristic patriotism, conformity, and ethnocentrism.
Did Adorno find such personalities inate or learned?
"Such people also tended to have difficulty taking another person’s point of view"
In my experience, talking to many people from every political (and other) ideology under the sun, I think this is a near-universal trait.
I had a humanities prof who created a learning device/method he called the Hexadigm that has as one of its first tenets listening closely and question asking in order to avoid the knee-jerk response that inhibits learning. You may disagree, but that will come from a position of civility instead of having a discourse that immediately becomes a shouting match, or worse. Here's a link to his paper describing how it functions, http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JUN02_Issue/article05.html
tovangar2,
I agree with your emphasis on Patriarchy - which goes back some 5, 000 years - a time when men gained ascendency. Prior to that time decision-making and social organization had been shared much more equitably between men and women. Interestingly, we then see (at least in the West) the emergence of monotheism and the worship of God the Father.
Authoritarianism as a way of organizing society is very closely associated with Patriarchy.
An observation by Philip Slater that I found quite interesting is that an authoritarian mindset inevitably breaks the world into “either/or frames.” This is a stark black vs. white... “you are either for us or against us” mode of seeing the world:
“The authoritarian universe is permanently and unalterably split into warring elements - good vs. evil, black vs. white, higher vs. lower - a world founded on irreconcilable strife…Authoritarians also have trouble seeing more than two sides of anything… the range and variety of opinion on any issue must somehow be squeezed into the corset of paired opposition.”
This rather “childish” or immature compulsion to divide everything and everyone into mutually exclusive groups - good/bad, right/wrong, friend/enemy - is unable to take into account the subtleties, qualifications or even downright mistakes that may be involved.
It is also a formula for demagoguery, and offers great opportunities to cultivate a dumbed-down, easily- led electorate.
Thank you Amma21, I was actually editing my post as you replied. I had at first left out monotheism because if one "goes there" many folks just stop listening because they feel under attack, but it's actually almost impossible to discuss Patriarchy without bringing it up. I think monotheism was created to mirror Patriarchal societies, but by quite effectively switching cause and effect (monotheism came first, society is merely a reflection of it) many have been convinced that it is the order of the Universe and the therefore must accept it, waiting until after death for what has been available to them all along.
I am lucky, in that my family has never been Christianized (a neat trick in itself) and remains Pagan. My British and Apache ancestors had no conflict, as they had an almost identical world views and Patriarchy as a common enemy.
The two realities (Democracy, for lack of a better word, and Patriarchy) are constantly in conflict which makes everyone miserable and not a little nuts, as one is a lie. However, the lie is also a reality that we must deal with. The first, Democracy, is learned, lived really, through personal, first-hand experience of the world around us and our own bodies. The second is is imposed through fear-based teaching and coercion.
Indians (at least in my family) call these two realities the "real" world and the "shadow" world. The dichotomy is also captured in the well-loved English hymn, "I Vow to Thee My Country". There are, of course, many other examples.
(You know, I always thought Christ was the first liberal, in that he tamed a vengeful, angry god figure into a kindly heavenly father, but left Patriarchy in place. As if to say, "Carry on with what you're doing, but do spare a thought for the poor". Charity instead of justice and balance.)
Thank you again for your reply.
"Prior to that time decision-making and social organization had been shared much more equitably between men and women. "
I think this is a very broad & speculative statement. I know many historians would disagree with it. Ultimately it doesn't matter, as we "should" be seeking to get beyond all such old forms and find new ways of empowering the individual while maintaining an ecologically sound and non-authoritarian system
Challenges I see-
Radically curbing corporate power through government regulation while at the same time making sure that same government is not overstepping its bounds in other areas (I've yet to hear anyone in OWS mention the Patriot Act, or discuss the ubiquitous Surveillance society this is transforming into).
Managing vanishing resources (oil, water) among a growing world population.
And all this is assuming the .001% relinquish power without doing something dire.
"(I've yet to hear anyone in OWS mention the Patriot Act, or discuss the ubiquitous Surveillance society this is transforming into)."
Wow, HangingRunes, you leave me gob-smacked. The above are huge wrongs that are discussed endlessly within OWS and appear on many protest signs. The analogy between 9/11 - the PATRIOT Act and the Reichstag Fire - Reichstag Decree is a main talking point (Wikipedia has a good enough explanation of the historic example if you are not familiar with it). The use of a false panic to justify otherwise unpalatable actions has been used many times throughout history and a few times since 9/11, for example, "Debt Crisis" = crippling austerity measures.
"Our" government seemingly only has three functions any more, killing people (war, assassination, execution & extrajudicial killings on our streets by our highly militarized police), protecting the interests of the 1% and crushing dissent.
Also google "The Fourteen Points of Fascism" to see the state of affairs we are faced with.
Edited to add: HangingRunes, if one spent 5 minutes in the OWS movement, one would see how extensive surveillance is. We must assume all our electronic communication devices are recorded (although, if I knew that for a fact and confirmed it to you, it would be a criminal offense under the PATRIOT Act) but also we are inundated with such numbers of undercover agents at the encampments it seems at times that they might overwhelm our own.
Police (state & municipal) CIA, FBI, some truly comic efforts by DHS and even agents from individual corporations, all make appearances with varying degrees of success at keeping their identities hidden. They all seem to want to know the same things, who our leader is (we don't have one) what terrorist activities are we planning (none, we are completely non-violent) and who "Anonymous" is (Anonymous is an idea, not a person). Honestly, they could come on site as themselves and learn as much as they would undercover, basically because we don't have any secrets. Even our GA's are live-streamed (depending on whether or not the equipment's working properly or if there's enough gas for the generators - both ongoing problems).
As for "doing something dire", well, of course they will, but we can't worry about it. The environment that supports human life is on the brink, this is pretty much our last chance to do anything about saving it. But, I take comfort in the fact that they can't win, either the world's people win or everybody loses, unless of course, the 1% have been terra-forming Mars on the sly and have space transport at the ready.
I did not make myself clear. I've been down to Wall Street. I didn't see a sign mentioning any of it. That is my personal experience. Certainly among themselves they discuss it . I meant the message projected to the public..and it's well known that ALL computer communications are monitored by the government (or rather, their computers). This has been known for many years. What I was alluding to are the possibly conflicting demands between increasing government oversight and individual liberty and privacy. Surely this must be on some peoples' minds?
I'm not really understanding why you are lecturing me on the "14 Points of Fascism" and the like. I don't believe I typed anything unhistorical?
I didn't say anyone should or shouldn't worry about possible dire actions, did I? Perhaps you should try and read with less of a filter.
Greetings, HangingRunes,
In response to my saying - 'Prior to that time decision-making and social organization had been shared much more equitably between men and women.'
You wrote:
"I think this is a very broad & speculative statement. I know many historians would disagree with it."
Yes, some very much still would. I can only refer you to the work of Riane Eisler and specifically to her book - The Chalice and the Blade.
I think your basic ideas/suggestions are sound:
"Radically curbing corporate power through government regulation while at the same time making sure that same government is not overstepping its bounds in other areas (I've yet to hear anyone in OWS mention the Patriot Act, or discuss the ubiquitous Surveillance society this is transforming into).
"Managing vanishing resources (oil, water) among a growing world population."
In response to your statement:
"And all this is assuming the .001% relinquish power without doing something dire." - I am guessing that you may have some naivete. For starters, they already have.
9/11, which intentionally set the stage for three wars of aggression for petroleum resources, was exactly what you describe as "something dire." And the 9/11 false-flag operation is only the tip of the iceberg. If we truly want to mount a realistic defense of all that is sacred to us, we are going to need a much more radical (meaning "to the root") analysis of the deep politics underlying the world's interrelated crises.
Well, I do not know if 9/11 was or was not a false-flag. I've yet to see definitive proof either way. And yes, I've looked into it, at least a bit. In any event , the effects were the same.
I'm sorry, by "something dire" I meant something on a much, much larger scale than that event. That is anything but naive.
I don't find the evidence of these ancient, -peaceful- matriarchal societies to be at all persuasive. Often ambiguous archeological evidence is seized upon indiscriminately, It might be an irrelevant point...I dont know...then again, perhaps it's naive to believe if only people ascribe to X that universal peace would reign. We really can only speculate at this point.
I don't know about speaking up. I don't believe that people listen or even acknowlege when one does speak up. I see a great deal of discouragement emanating even from one's peers at a place like this, a place called "Common Dreams."
I've made a Macro (see below) to promote my three books in the electronic slush pile, i.e., the electronic pile of lost books at The Kindle Store, Amazon. I wouldn't expect most of the readers here to be interested in the first two of them, but the third, THE LAST WORDS OF RICHARD HOLBROOKE, seems to touch on subjects that get discussed here every day. And hopefully deepens some of them.
You can't uphold some cause and then not support or read or listen to another person who is on the same page. You lose associates that way. I think I've mentioned these books several times by now, and not one person at COMMON DREAMS has ever bought one.
Would you like to spite me? Is that important? Do you believe that more people should speak out against the Afghan war or not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Three books by me, THE PURSE MAKER'S CLASP (fiction), A NEW YEAR'S SERVE: PERSONALIZED TENNIS STROKE DESIGN, and THE LAST WORDS OF RICHARD HOLBROOKE are up for sale at Amazon in The Kindle Store. And you can preview one tenth of each for free if you have a Kindle or Kindle app.
How are the sales going?
LOL
Great piece, Dr. Harrington.
Not that I have a blind adoration of all things Kennedy, but JFK had a nice quote that speaks to your concepts of liberalism and integrity and heart, when, in 1960, he was defending his "Liberal" label.... "I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
How does this definition of liberalism align with those in the White House today? What will our tipping point be in the face of the nearly complete lack of policies that reflect "national compassion"?
Doesn't the immobilizing fear of losing our jobs, or not getting that plum promotion, if we are politically active - in a manner that simply reflects compassion for our fellow man (re: healthcare for all, opposing unjust and inhumane wars, "peace-keeping" missions, torture, etc) - in our private life simply mean that we are bowing to the authoritarianism alter? What are we willing to sacrifice and potentially risk for a principle?
Thank you for providing a provocative opportunity for self analysis.
Tom,
This is a very fine piece, and deals with something I've suspected lies at the heart of our problems, something that I've never been able to express as well as you have. This is a subject that cries out for DEEP dialogue, the kind of dialogue that is carried on by people who are speaking genuinely and observing their souls objectively at the same time. A tall order.
The issue seems to me to be this: we are in a race to evolve our consciousness and our social sense rapidly enough so that the cry for peace overwhelms the howls of the knuckdraggers by sheer volume and numbers. It's like a race to beat the train to the crossing. We have to evolve out of domination, obsession with material wealth, one-upmanship, defensiveness, and all the other ego-related stuff, and build our futures together.
ZEPHR: Well said!
Interesting comments down this entire thread. I have company today, but will return later or tomorrow to add a premise no one else has yet touched upon, although it's related to the commentary posted.
BOTTLE: Good luck! I am doing the same thing as you, and have also observed some hostility for it, along with decency & support. One must be true to their heart; that's the legacy taken into perpetuity... for cash, as you know, fades to dust.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil... "
President Obama's sickening cream puff style of dealing
with the most brazenly criminal behavior in the history of big
business teaches progressives, liberals and moderates too,
that it doesn't really require a profoundly stupid, mean-spirited
ignoramus republican president for the duly elected govern-
ment to be worse than useless.
It simply requires an increasingly detached, co-opted and
silent upper-middle class aching to forget history, that they
might be favored with a juicy bone in their trickle-down-dream
outside the monied gates of America's homegrown monarchic
ultrarich.
To a great extent, these Croesuses truly believe themselves to
have actually earned and be deserving of their bloated shekels
and the extraordinary power that invariably adheres to vast
concentrations of very liquid wealth.
That they are thus entitled. And at least to some degree, above
the law governing those who merely work hard for their daily
bread.
That theirs is the gilt summit of the American Dream. In that
unquestioned, impervious entitlement, they are indistinguishable
from the monarchs and aristocracies of old Europe. Whether
conscious of such lopsided and morally radioactive power
or not, this makes their powerful influence the envenomed
antithesis of egalitarian, fair democracy.
This leads to the necessary question: Can an utterly, massively
corrupt and corrupting system actually BE reformed, tweaked...
cajoled...bargained with? The clear answer must be no, not at
all. All such well meaning, rather faint and superficial actions
leave the beast intact and slier than ever. When Lincoln, Grant,
Sherman and Sheridan gradually evolved their winning strategy
against the secessionist slave-based south, they finally understood
that the entire social/economy based on the monstrous institution
of slavery itself, the south's favorite "Peculiar Institution", had to
be eviscerated and destroyed... not merely to defeat the current
treasonous rebellion, but to provide reasonable guarantee that
the same anti-democratic, pro slavery upper class mentality could
not ever again threaten the health and unity of the only democratic
national experiment on the planet at that time.
A lesson learned, and partly forgotten, at our children's peril.
stargene,
A doff of my cap to you. Powerfully stated.
Too many dinners with friends (good people, some) spoiled when the talk turns to electing someone who can increase the value of their stock portfolio.
I have to bite my tongue lest I inform them that they are dead inside (or crippled, if you prefer).
I'm sure they do likewise lest they tell me to 'grow up'.