There are the DailyKoskyites of the world, party loyalists for whom membership constitutes identity. Insofar as there's any policy left in politics, they remain largely unaffected. Party failures are invariably chalked up to apostasy. They are always in the middle of a gaudy excommunication--the Lieb, Steny Hoyer, the "blue dogs", and so on. The idea that the True Church might be flawed, though, that's the worst heresy of all. These people are interesting as targets for water balloons.
On the other hand, there are folks like Glenn Greenwald or the troupe at Unfogged who in some manner see that the jig is up, but who steadfastly refuse (I don't believe it's mere failure) to grasp the obvious conclusion: that the behavior of the Democratic Party isn't explained by fecklessness, fear, weakness, political calculation, supineness, or insufficiently brassy balls. They aren't an opposition party failing to oppose, but a colluding body hiding behind a tissue of opposition in order to maintain the façade of divided government.
On matters related to the smooth operation of the National Security State, we are governed by an imperial consensus that's both broad and deep. What differences exist are procedural. To say that the Democrats failed to "stop the FISA bill" is to assume that the Democrats wanted to do it. To say that the Democrats fail to effectively combat the "theory of the Unitary Executive" is to assume that the Democrats oppose the Executive state. Both lousy assumptions.
When a person or an organization consistently and explicitly acts against its own stated interests and its own claimed ideological committments, you can be sure that those interests and committments are bullshit, that another game is afoot.
38 comments:
Well, I used to think the same about Glennwad. Still read him every other week or so and he has evolved. I have read several posts in which he explicitly discusses the bipartisan consensus on matters imperial and points out that the Dems are in on the game of shoring up government power while posing as an opposition party.
A year ago I'd agree, but not today. He has come a long way.
"On the other hand, there are folks like Glenn Greenwald or the troupe at Unfogged who in some manner see that the jig is up, but who steadfastly refuse (I don't believe it's mere failure) to grasp the obvious conclusion: that the behavior of the Democratic Party isn't explained by fecklessness, fear, weakness, political calculation, supineness, or insufficiently brassy balls. They aren't an opposition party failing to oppose, but a colluding body hiding behind a tissue of opposition in order to maintain the façade of divided government.
On matters related to the smooth operation of the National Security State, we are governed by an imperial consensus that's both broad and deep. What differences exist are procedural."
_____________________
Is there some reason you need to convince yourself that you're the only one with access to a particular insight in order to make it worth expressing? Not only do I agree with the above-excerpted claim in the second paragraph, I've written it myself many, many times. "Democrats" aren't monolithic -- some believe in the Surveillance State; some don't care one way or the other and just want to stay in office; others oppose it. But the Party leadership itself is plainly devoted to its perpetuation and nothing I've ever said is to the contrary. Your readers will still read if even if you quit pretending that you're unveiling some deep, secret Truths that nobody else sees.
The difference is between those who want to try to bring pressure and change to alter this behavior and those who can't get enough of impressing themselves with how sophisticated and jaded they are by smugly announcing every day that Nothing Can Be Done.
"On matters related to the smooth operation of the National Security State, we are governed by an imperial consensus that's both broad and deep" -- Gee, that's really controversial and radical. All along, I thought Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer were good-natured crusaders for freedom who just needed to be brought out of their shell.
Well, something can be done. One can, for instance, expatriate oneself. That's not meant as a dig at you - to my mind, it's a much more valid and admirable political act than trying to elect more-n-better Democrats, but given the cost and difficulty, it's an option available to a very limited few.
I wouldn't call it jaded, although I do like the sound of sophisticated--it's got an ironical ring to it. I do find it unutterably naïve to believe that bringing this "pressure," whatever that may be, to create change, ibid., constitutes a more admirable or less smug, cynical, jaded, etc. attitude to the American imperium. The United States isn't going to become a more pleasant version of itself; it isn't going to become a socially and economically equitable, non-interventionist, civilly libertarian nation among nations. It's going to do what other empires do and have always done; rise, peak, contract, decline, flail, and end. I'm interested in cataloguing those times, but not, to steal a phrase from our conservative friends, to stand athward history yelling Stop!
Also, I am insufferable.
Don't fight, gentlemen. Unless it's in a big pool of oil.
I applaud Glenn, but I'm starting to think the Dems won't respond no matter how much "pressure" we put on.
La, the Greenwald has spoken!
I believe the problem is your still-evident belief that the Democratic party can be in some way redeemed (or, in your words, we the agitating blogosphere can "bring pressure and change to alter this behavior [of the Democratic party]")
You can't pressure a group dedicated to personal profit and absolute power (and who have historically always had this basic interest) into one dedicated to, well, liberte, egalite, fraternite. Individual politicians, perhaps, but not the institution they came from.
I call you on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because the Democrats can't be pressured/changed/alchemically transmogrified into being "new and better" does not mean that Nothing Can Be Done. Think outside of the goddamn box.
And despite IOZ's undoubtedly high opinion of himself, I don't know where he has ever claimed to be the only person saying this shit. I mean: Arthur Silber, Chris Floyd, Jon Schwartz, Dennis Perrin...
STOP picking on me Ioz!!! I'm cool and you'll see just how cool I am when I have an awesome party at chuck E cheese and you're not invited because you didn't believe in the fourth grade reform I wanted to bring about. I know that you know Mrs. Kendall's class is a nightmare and I can't understand why you don't see that the clear path to recess all day is to tell everyone just how bad she is and then have bake sales to raise major coinage funds to work against her.
Realize, Glenn, we will never have recess all day and even if we all make it to the chuck E cheese haven the pizza will still be soggy, the rides too small, the atmosphere confusing, the currency brass, and the leaders members of the mus musculus species.
"You can't pressure a group dedicated to personal profit and absolute power (and who have historically always had this basic interest) into one dedicated to, well, liberte, egalite, fraternite. Individual politicians, perhaps, but not the institution they came from."
If they know they will lose their position and power by continuing to do what they're doing, then they will change. If your premise is that they're power-hungry monsters, then you can't dispute that this is true. You can certainly dispute whether it's possible to cause them to lose their power without behavioral change - I think it's possible -- but once you posit that all they care about is their own power, then you can't deny that this goal, if it can be accomplished, will cause behavioral changes in the ruling class.
"I call you on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because the Democrats can't be pressured/changed/alchemically transmogrified into being "new and better" does not mean that Nothing Can Be Done. Think outside of the goddamn box."
Enlighten us conventional and stunt thinkers. What is The Solution? Ioz says nothing - just watch it all collapse. What's your outside-the-box plan?
"And despite IOZ's undoubtedly high opinion of himself, I don't know where he has ever claimed to be the only person saying this shit. I mean: Arthur Silber, Chris Floyd, Jon Schwartz, Dennis Perrin..."
Yeah - along with many of the "progressive bloggers" Ioz always insists don't recognize these things. They do. Obviously, many have absurdly sunny opinions of Democrats. Many think electing more Democrats will change things.
But many are well-aware that it won't. The objection Ioz has with many he criticizes isn't between clear-seeing Truth-tellers (like him) and simplistic, naive morons who think Democrats are basically Nice and Great (like the bloggers he attacks). The awareness is the same - the difference is about whether anything can be done about it.
That last comment was from me.
"Well, something can be done. One can, for instance, expatriate oneself. That's not meant as a dig at you - to my mind, it's a much more valid and admirable political act than trying to elect more-n-better Democrats, but given the cost and difficulty, it's an option available to a very limited few."
But expatriating oneself (and I consider myself expatriated, not having expatriating myself) doesn't change anything except how it all affects you. It doesn't obviously change the devastation wreaked by a sprawling, sputtering, soul-less dying empire.
"I do find it unutterably naïve to believe that bringing this "pressure," whatever that may be, to create change, ibid., constitutes a more admirable or less smug, cynical, jaded, etc. attitude to the American imperium."
How do you explain changes of the past then? Black people being de-slaved, women being able to vote, etc.
" The United States isn't going to become a more pleasant version of itself; it isn't going to become a socially and economically equitable, non-interventionist, civilly libertarian nation among nations. It's going to do what other empires do and have always done; rise, peak, contract, decline, flail, and end. I'm interested in cataloguing those times, but not, to steal a phrase from our conservative friends, to stand athward history yelling Stop!"
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. My only point is that the people you typically accuse of not recognizing the True Character of Democrats do, in fact, recognize it as well as you do (some, that is -- not all). The difference you have with them (i.e., me) is whether the only option is to watch it all happen helplessly.
No less an establishment critic than Noam Chomsky frequently points out that even minor differences in large power systems like the American polity can translate into enormous differences in people's lives.
Would Al Gore's election instead of George Bush have fundamentally altered the imperial character of America? Of course not. But would it have averted the attack on Iraq? It's certainly possible. Is a million dead people and a couple million more displaced worth thinking that even incremental changes might matter?
"Also, I am insufferable."
I know. That's why I read you. It's often entertaining when directed at others.
Ha. Now that is the compliment I was looking for!
It's a little surreal, as one who navigates the Greenwald-Floyd-IOZ-Silber arc fairly regularly, to see Glenn here.
I don't see GG and IOZ as antagonists, as I've said before... IOZ kind of strikes me as a stoneder Glenn, actually. And, you know, without a law degree.
It's wrong to put Glenn in the Digbyan orbit, as there's been almost as much Digbashing going on at his place as there has been over here. And IOZ is no purity troll... he says, and I believe him, that he's amusedly, bitchily, watching Empire slide beneath the waves.
Hug it out, you two.
there is no incentive for them to change their behavior. the incentive is the "power" "we" "give" (forfit, enable) to the "position" they seek. what do you think the lamentations over at Protein Wisdom are all about? the underlying assumptions are all right there right in front of you. yet most are content to quibble over compact fluorescents and recycling and hybrids all while they sit in 68 degree offices year round. the Founders or whathaveyou stood around after "victory" or whatever, scratched their nuts, looked at each other, and went: now what? what then? and they all went: we must do something! and this is what we've got. a fucking Master's Thesis for a Constitution.
there never will be incentive to do anything but bolster the monopoly of power. you're insane if you think we're going backwards. . .if you think that we can elect people who will relinquish the reigns or steer the ship in a new direction. . .we're going down, yo.
keep writing though, it's good. and read (or donate to) your Silbur: he's laid down some good tracks. this stuff isn't inaccessible, and it's supposed to be fun.
ps. blawg.
pps. you trolled Gleenwald: now that's power!
ppps. someday you'll look back and realize all this effort wasn't really worth it.
pppps. please learn the html tags because it makes your comments easier to read.
the only hope I have is that nothing will ever get solved.
I can't top anything Mr. Fun just posted, or add enlightenment to the GG/IOZ viewpoints.
However, one phrase sticks in my mind (what's left of it anyways).
I believe it came from the April lead editorial in The Nation. (I believe the original quote was from Beckett.)
To wit: We can do something; we can try again, and fail again, and, we can "fail better".
Now THAT'S a campaign slogan I can get behind!
Mike
Reading Dennis discussing Carlin over at his place, and somehow the following seemed strangely apropos here: "As Jay Leno discovered long ago, the key to winning over an audience is to make them feel in on the joke, and that rarely happens if a comic lambastes Americans for being greedy, fat, violent dolts who'll believe anything so long as it's wrapped in pretty colors. Indeed, I can't think of any serious comic in the past decade other than Carlin who dared to say such shit. If a 22-year-old, unknown comedian delivered Carlin's later bits verbatim, either in a club or on a late night show, he or she would be booed off the stage. Decent people don't want to be preached to! How dare that young cynic describe Americans that way! Oh man, I can hear it from here.
So how did Carlin get away with it? Familiarity played a large role. Whether or not they agreed with him, many people felt that Carlin earned the right to denounce American stupidity and gluttony. The great comedy writer George Meyer once observed, "If people think you’re coming from a place of smugness or viciousness, it won’t be as funny to them . . . George Carlin gets away with murder in his stand-up, because people sense that he’s honestly hurt that the world isn’t a saner place.""
And this, from the same: "Carlin wanted people to reject the fixed state of American politics, reminding them that under the present conditions, there is no chance for serious change, much less reform, since the owners of the country have the place pretty much locked down. That's not "capitulation": that's recognizing reality. Granted, it's a tough thing to process, as there is no ready blueprint for a Better Tomorrow. That can only come if enough fed-up people unplug from this savage game, and begin to explore alternative ways to express themselves politically. That won't be easy or comfortable. Hell, it may be utterly impossible, given what we're up against, both externally and internally, where fear and insecurity keep so many of us chained to what's known, however awful it is."
Speaking of Carlin, this bit of his strikes me as apropos:
"Don't confuse me with those who cling to hope. I enjoy describing things the way they are, I have no interest in how they 'ought to be.' And I certainly have no interest in fixing them. I sincerely believe that if you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem. My motto: Fuck Hope!"
Glenn--
As America is sailing swiftly from its already dubious roots as a representative democracy, I don't see many methods by which we could force the people benefiting from this system to give up their power and create a more egalitarian state.
Because that's what the most basic realignment of our foreign and domestic policy would actually entail: these people would lose their power. The next democratic president wouldn't have the powers of the unitary executive if they repealed the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the soon-to-be FISA bill, ad nauseum. Any real efforts at campaign finance reform would decrease their influence in government. Environmental regulations and worker safety protections would decrease their profits.
They have no impetus to respond to progressive "pressure," because such pressure directs them to act against their own interests. Sometimes you can force them to do it (see women and black civil rights) but the pressure has to be far greater than anything achieved in the last decade, and the system tends to find ways to reapply discrimination in different guises (see "family values" and "law and order").
But still, that sort of constant, in-your-face agitation is something that we could learn from. The only thing that might get our government to pay attention is if the people demonstrated in strength of numbers large enough and long enough to significantly clog the system. Thus stems, I think, IOZ's derided prescription to "drive slowly on the interstate." Maybe not, but large enough numbers of people refusing consistently to participate is, I think, our only chance.
Barring that, I'll settle for New York City seceding from the union.
um, i think it is spelled 'commitment'
Chinese fortune cookie say:
"Finite existence leads the idealism for purpose to a quiet rejection of non-action based on unseen principle"
Monsieur IOZ, I do believe that you oversimplify a bit. The purpose of the Democratic Party is first and foremost to serve as an ineffective outlet for those who know that something is wrong and want to change it. That basically makes them a tool for weakening the opposition. The actual advancement of the Empire is the purpose of the other party. There is a symbiosis between two distinct entities.
Always late to the party. Well anyways just wanted to say posting in a legendary thread!!one
Say what you will about this fracas, at least Glenn has the balls to actually show up here and defend himself. The Digbyites don't stray too far from the tard farm.
I tend to agree with Alaya's notion that there aren't "many methods by which we could force the people benefiting from this system to give up their power and create a more egalitarian state."
It's akin to a dog pack mentality. Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" also comes to mind. If we don't evolve beyond capitalist thinking we're fucked. When will greed be seen as a disease like alcoholism?
Just for the record tooearly, copying editing in the comments section of a blog is like, totally gay.
Now that is the compliment I was looking for!
"Just for the record tooearly, copying editing in the comments section of a blog is like, totally gay."
Um, that really should be just "copy editing."
Using the term "is like" is totally gay, too.
Unless one is a 13 year old girl...or plays one on a stage.
Expatriation!!
I am all for it, and, in fact, in the midst of it. I feel the way to bring down the beast is to use it's "market solutions" against it.
To be paid in Euros or GBP is much better than to be paid in dollars. Plus they give me health-care. And they can't fire me for BS reasons (well, not easily - and if they do I get a lot of money while I job hunt.) Tons of vacation, and they actually make you go home at 6:00!!
Thanks for the education and the training, but there are greener fields over the horizon. Bonne chance!
“The difference is between those who want to try to bring pressure and change to alter this behavior…”
I don’t think I’ve ever read a word of Greenwald before today so this is perhaps directed at the general Kos/MoveOn crowd in light of his statement.
There is no pressure you can bring that will make a jot of difference if the bottom line is: We’ll vote for you no matter what. Pretending otherwise is, to use the clinical term, fucktarded. Also, arrogant, weak, sloppy, short-sighted, self-aggrandizing, and you can grab the Thesaurus off you desk for more, of which there is plenty.
Let us not forget that the same day this IOZ piece posted, a poll was published in which the Democrats in Congress got a higher approval rating from Republican citizens than from Democrats.
(turn and face the strain)
What to do? What to do?
I don't have cable TV or internet at home, so that makes me some kind of expatriate. Also I believe everything every politick says is a lie.
If you guys haven't been over to Dennis Perrin's yet you should check it out. He gives a nice summation of this here chat.
I agree with the notion of expatriation. The idea of bringing 'pressure' to alter the ruling elites behaviour could only bode ill for those attemptomg to prematurely pulling the pigs away from the trough. After all, look what happens to people that just want to be left alone to go about their business. I am thinking of the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver types, Texan polygamists, children like Elian Gonzales, people the world over who don't appreciate American bombs raining down on them. The list pretty long.
There are ways to change things, but they require a sort of thinking that most Americans are willing to twist themselves into pretzels to avoid. The current governments of Ecuador and Bolivia did not spring forth fully formed from the brow of Zeus. But middle-class suburban America is incapable of the sort of advanced political and economic ratiocination that is widespread, a commonplace, among illiterate Andean peasants.
we bombed elian gonzales?
Dear IOZ,
You may be right, but there are pleasures to be experienced by standing up in your local Dem legislative district monthly meeting and shouting loudly for the execution of rich people "just for the hell of it".
I'll have to defend Jay Leno here. His "man on the street" segments are cutting indictments of democratic fundamentalism.
I second the promotion of secession as an alternative to expatriation. Check out the Middlebury Institute. They even have a youtube page.
oh shit, IOZ got Little Glenny all pissed off.
Little Glenny has such a BIG EGO now that he has TWO BOOKS published and has moved from Uncharted Fucktardism to Sha-lon.
He's just as fucking stupid and deluded as ever -- he's LOST insight as a result of his "upgrades" and has become an even BIGGER Donekybot than before.
Little Glenny, with his parade of Little Glenny Tagalongs, is a powerful intellectual force! Just ask him/them. They'll tell you!
Post a Comment