Isn’t that deeply, deeply frightening? Even if you are fundamentally conservative - especially if you are fundamentally conservative - don’t you recognize the atavism of the appeals being made, and doesn’t it frighten and disgust you? There is certainly no "Principle of Good Order" at work here, or prudent recognition of mortal limits, or even a grateful recognition of the authority of one’s betters. And if you’re a liberal, dedicated to human flowering and the role of government in fostering it, don’t you quail before the gibbering face of vox populism? This is the system by which one will do the greatest good for the greatest number? And more darkly, do these bastards deserve Health Care; good jobs at good wages; "a quality, affordable education"; The Presumption of Innocence? Shouldn’t any system that rewards and results in such proudly precognitive slavering be sanely restricted in its scope and sweep? Shouldn’t we, indeed, try to figure out how to do without it?See, this is why I keep saying that insofar as it represents, at root, a matter of succession, democracies in all their various and sundry forms are no more rational, reasonable, equitable, or just than patrilineal descent or a roll of the dice. Succession in post-Republic Rome, with its kooky mixture of democratic processes, military coups, genealogical imperatives, aristocratic intrigues, and pure, dumb luck might have been the most similar process to the one we got goin', but all throughout the history of states and empires each system in and of itself managed to produce a few wise statesmen amidst a gaggle of pure crazies. The fact that we farm out our selection process to The People is not inherently wise, nor good, nor fair. It ensures only that we can blame our neighbors for the bastards that lead us ever toward ruin, rather than blaming the poor issue of some half-impotent monarch, or the College of Cardinals, or the alignment of stars. Democracy does not, in other words, pick the best rulers. Occasionally, good rulers happen to democracy. And by "good rulers," I only mean: warlords who manage to increase the domestic comfort and protect the plain people from the cruel practices necessary for the maintenance of their comfortable lives.
-Jim Henley on the GOP convention, etc.
I am so tired of listening to people prattle on about America this, America that, as if we represent some social apotheosis heretofore unseen upon this earth. I'm certainly tired of the fierce conviction of every political partisan that he is going to fix America. Take it back. Make it better. Faster. Stronger. Whatever. To the questions: what are we going to do? what are you doing?--I'm proud to report: not a damn thing, and as actively as I can. This is especially true in the realm of national politics. The Democratic Convention, with all its post-Kennedy raptures about worlds safe for democracy and men on the moon and chickens in every pot was bad enough, but I dare you to watch the vicious spectacle in St. Paul, the mewling chorus of creationist morons worshipping like Spielbergian Thuggees at the alter of destruction, and contemplate that they represent a full 50% of your countrymen, who haven't even the decency to require circumspection from their empire of death, and tell me that what this nation--this world--needs is more elections.
27 comments:
you'll note that only around 50 percent of the US population votes.
I don't know, what were the turnout percentages last time we reached into the jar to pick the black egg? 64% or somewhere near that? So a little over 50% of the 64% who actually bothered to vote in the last most important and totally tubular election ever voted Republican. The other 36% of the country stayed home, ate Mac N Cheese and watched Rockford Files re-runs on WGN (this is what *I* did anyway, and I assume this to be true of all my other non-voting brethren as I am the living avatar of ALL Americans, natch). That's the kind of progress I can get behind. If the turnout this year is no higher than, say, 70%, I will be satisfied, particularly if Obama wins, because the lack of actual change and hope his administration will inspire will no doubt transform a lot of the starry-eyed morons clapping like circus seals for him now into adherents of The First Church Of Voter Apathy. I'll start organizing the anti-voting canvassing just as soon as this 1/8th is no more.
what are we going to do?
We're gonna rock down to Electric Avenue.
And then we'll take it higher!
Damn you Mr. Fun, you beat me to the punch!
Yeah, honestly, I think a lot more people are joining the ranks of the rest of us navel-gazing nihilistic cynics, and will continue to do so. I know at least three people at work (and I work in a traditionally conservative industry) who I've got reading this here blog and a few other somewhat like-minded ones (ATR, Dennis Perrin, Distant Ocean, SMBIVA, etc), and it's brought to light the fact that a whole lot of people recognize a.) that we are ruled by a bunch of corrupt lunatics and b.) we are an empire and all the patriotic snake-oil we are expected to swallow by both wings of the War Party is utter horseshit.
the problem with voting is you end with someone who wants power in power. and those fuckers can't be trusted.
garbage in, garbage out
I always vote, but never for somebody who could actually win. So I'm doing my part.
I think I could spend a lifetime disarming people and, and of, their "issues," such as abortion, poor people, the children, global climate change, Health Care, terrorism, so on and so forth, and at the end of it, I would conclude that I had lived a good life, and spent my time wisely. anti-agitators unite!
lol.
la confidential pantload: I do the same. Cynthia McKinney FTL.
Right on Mr. Fun, let's not take to the streets! What do we want? NOTHING! When do we want it? WHENEVER DUDES!
But dday quotes someone who says Obama is like Jesus and Palin is Pontius Pilate. You don't want to sit on your hands while Jesus gets crucified again, do you?
(I am betting, though, that Mr. Fundamental is one of those 800 lb. blobs who need to have the wall of their house knocked down to allow them to get airlifted off the sofa. I never thought I would see someone who could be described as a fanatic for apathy, but thanks to the internet...)
I don't know, my mental image of Mr. Fun is that of a modern day Adonis, and he's certainly got his priorities in order. The only sane response to this insane system of ours is to drop out (individual readers may choose to tune in and turn on prior to dropping out, but the management takes no responsibility for any injuries, physical or psychic, that may be incurred by such actions).
And thank you for once again upping the ante on the "which of the three heads of Hullabaloo is dumber/more mawkish" What a week it's been for the triumrative of histrionic horseshit! Just when I thought Tristero was taking the lead, dday comes out of nowhere and, without the slightest hint of irony, compares Obama to J.C. Un-be-fuckin-lievable.
IOZ dude, are you really reduced to recycling Winston Churchill? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." Nothing you've written here seems to contradict that.
Normally I'm your biggest fan, but I'm gonna have to resort to college-dorm philosophy and play devil's advocate here. I'm with you almost all the way up to your point, but --
-- despite what the Libertarians and Objectivists etc. tell us, (ignore all those kooks), humans are fundamentally social animals. We are biologically different from sharks and tigers and so forth who live alone their whole lives and never co-operate. Humans' nearest primate relatives live in extremely sophisticated social structures.
Humans naturally and inevitably form tribes, groups, and societies. So since humans are pretty much always going to form institutions, the best course of action might be for masses of people to participate, to try to plan and regulate institutions, and make them as fair as possible and as beneficial as possible to everyone. As fallible humans, we will screw up this process, and make mistakes, even horrific ones. But perhaps it's better to try to guide this process than not to guide it.
If we do not -- if we try to deny or suppress the natural tendency to form institutions, and live like individual sharks or whatever -- then there is a power vacuum. In that case, spontaneous institutions tend to arise anyway, from people seeking to insert themselves into the power vacuum and grab that power, another natural tendency. The spontaneous institutions that arise from a power vacuum have a very strong tendency to be aggressive and protect only a few at the expense of many, such as Fascism. Fascism "appeals" to certain people, not because of its own tautology (which you demolished a week ago), but because they see it as filling a power vacuum.
I'm right there with you at the notion that much of the social structure humans have built over the centuries needs to be torn down before it strangles us, particularly oppressive structures in the U.S., the most powerful nation. And this tearing-down process will be destructive and painful, but ultimately not as painful as the oppression and strangulation. Also opting-out should be a fundamental right.
But perhaps you'd mollify my little divergence from you if you specified more often that local community involvement is not futile. Discussing the Federal government all the time leaves me with the impression that you don't think any two human beings are capable of co-operating ever, which brings us back to the Objectivists and Libertarians again.
Mawkishly earnest posting? Sure, fire away, guys. Even if I don't bother continuing the argument, it'll be more fun than my job.
Speaking of Chez Digby, I just scanned like the last dozen entries, and not a fuckin one of them is about the cops pre-emptively busting people in MN, they're almost all just a bunch of armchair Howie Kurtz horseshit about branding and how utterly unfair the media is being to the Anointed One and Wise Old Owl. Fuck, what a bunch of assholes.
Well, Digby already went there way back when the Wright brouhaha was the issue du jour - she took note of that weird bald freak James Carville saying that Bill Richardson was like Judas for endorsing Obama instead of Hillary, and Digby said that Rev. Wright was more deserving of that label! Again, no hint of irony.
"IOZ dude, are you really reduced to recycling Winston Churchill? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." Nothing you've written here seems to contradict that."
Churchill's quote implies that democracy is the best of a bad lot. IOZ's standpoint seems to be that democracy is equal to the rest of the bad lot, no better and no worse than any other form of government (save for the annoying fact that some citizens of democracy think they're special.) I don't think it's a terribly difficult distinction to make.
But perhaps you'd mollify my little divergence from you if you specified more often that local community involvement is not futile.
When have I ever sought to mollify anyone? To quote the great man, I am not a constructive critic. The purpose of my writing, such as it has a purpose (blog!), is most definitely not to provide people with feel-good alternatives and personal validation or edification. Hint: I spare urban gardens and community cleanup crews and neighborhood corporations my razor-faggot condescencion and disdain. But I'm not here to pen panegyrics to, uh, community organizing.
In any case, I love ya, bro, but how "social animal" leads directly to "accomodate the modern nation-state" escapes me.
not having noticed that the host has already responded:
"...sharks and tigers and so forth who live alone their whole lives and never co-operate" ...and yet they manage to procreate.
I doubt IOZ ever planned on stopping all human co-operation. And it is rather the idea of social interaction being based on abiding by laws or requiring you to vote that makes it all so hilarious.
I think Thomas is confusing brutish with social. we will arrange ourselves accordingly as humans have always done. I think there's a distinction here at work, Thomas, that we've seen before. there is the plain fact that we're going to wind up in these arrangements no matter what, because we're a brutish (and in turn, cowish) animal; so the state is only a logical result, or a manifestation of this trait. via democracy or whatever, this is where we will wind up, and we will eventually fall. and then there's the actual functioning of such arrangements, and whether or not they could or should be entirely voluntary. no one is forcing you to vote, or forcing you to care in this country. it is entirely optional. why do you vote? what difference do you think it makes? can't we just walk away from it?
we're going to have to shift and evolve our conception of power, or let go of it entirely. here's some inspiration:
Institutions and governments will seek to control the net and us through processes of simplification, screening, monitoring, etc., but will find that surveillance is impossible in the beautiful mess; the whole concept of power will have to be radically reconceived as communicative and pseudo-organic rather than ideological.
You need to shut up the sad lonely philosopher in your sad lonely head and relax into the noise, the senseless beautiful noise that is our medium of life. Stop trying to suck up messages that you can regurgitate on the standardized test in your mind and start blowing the blues or something. Your goddamn life is not a multiple choice examination; it's a gorgeous chaos or cacophony of communication bombarding you from all sides at once. Stop trying to organize a rational polity and come back here where we are playing, because your rational polity is in fact just a whole lot more empty noise. Stop trying to convey to me what you know and start playing with me, start messing with me, start kissing me, start beating me, start dancing with me; and start calling all of that communication. The going accounts are so barren that they're empty. You know and I know that all we do is hiss.
of course, when I read this stuff, usually I wind up telling myself to shut up and go back to being agitated or whatever. they're good for meditative reading but one look at the world and I'm like, sheeeet, nigga, whatchoosmokin?, and then set about cleaning the house or whatever.
and actually I am a 43 year old, 400 pound, butt length blonde tipped, brunette at the roots, female shut-in, to, I am sure, many people's surprise (and dismay).
I really think we're kind of late Republic in the Rome comparison sweepstakes. Started as a anti-monarchical state with a sense of manifest destiny, will hit a high point of some sort of despotism in the next century, then decline so that mall resembles the forum, only with more feral dogs than cats and very few pigs indeed. The OINKOINK type, not any of the other types. They'll survive.
I'll vote for Obama and the straight Democratic party. Then, we'll have an infinity of fun for the next four years watching them fuck things up but in a well-meaning as opposed to bullying way while the Republicans try to re-invent themselves as, I don't know, Whigs? Jacobins? Sans-culottes only with a spare set of knickerbockers or leiderhosen in the closet, just in case?
I'm actually looking forward to Palin going gagagagaga at some point, and not at Toad or whatever the kid's name is. Is this trend on the looney right to name kids for bizarre things and in bizarre ways a la Latroyrone Fantaser Lasertag or whatever?
Hey thanks for responding! I sure wasn't looking for "mollification" on this blog, but it will always brighten my day when the great and powerful IOZ himself addresses me directly in a comment.
For the record, though, when I said "much of the social structure humans have built over the centuries needs to be torn down"... I was including most of the trappings of the modern nation-state in the tear-down, not accommodating it. I'm just sayin' there has to be some kind of multi-human large-scale interaction, even if lousy and/or random, whereas a post like this makes it seem like all human interaction inevitably fails. I'm with you on the destruction of the modern nation-state, I think at this point we're headed that way no matter what anyone wants. Peak oil, global warming, systems disruption, blah blah blah. My big point is that, if we pretend there can or should be no multi-human large-scale interaction, then very quickly, unpleasant ones will arise to pick up the slack. Even the most hard-core drop-out individualist survivalist can't pretend that social structures aren't at least effective, or he's going to get squished just like any Branch Davidian or Waco dude. Maybe, instead of asking "whaddooweedooooooo" with existing polities, this blog might collectively devote some thought towards the best ways individualists can protect themselves as they drop-out and shun society. Might not be our host's cup-of-tea, but hey, us smaller fish rule the comments page after about the 40th comment down.
Hmmmm, Anon 4:40, now we're getting somewhere! Of course sharks and tigers propagate, but my point is we're not like them. It is a much more interesting political conversation to ask whether rules and laws are the current basis of human interaction -- and claim they shouldn't be because they taint it somehow -- rather than to simply point out how badly all systems have failed. See, now I get to ask [if only asking myself], first of all is this true, then second, what are the alternatives to this basis, and how can I go about promoting them. (None of that precludes any ideas or discourse from being hilarious.)
For example, currently I live in Mexico, and I can assure you that rules and laws are neither the express nor implied basis of social interaction around here. In the USA, however, I can see your point: we explicitly claim to be a "nation of laws", and we are lying through our teeth. Now the question becomes, can I imagine a country with the "good" aspects of Mexican lawless living, without the "bad" aspects. Or with a few of the American aspects that I personally happen to like. Hmmm, I'll get back to you.
Mexico of course has a reputation for inefficiency. But in some ways, social systems in Mexico are intentionally lousy because people fear that if they were efficient, they would be oppressive. They're there because a herd of humans needs them to function, but they're kept at arms'-length. Real social interaction -- cultural, but to a surprising degree economic too -- occurs face-to-face only and tends to ignore rules and laws. Could we design a United States to reflect that principle?
But I guess I'm veering dangerously close to "whaddooweedoooooooo", so I'll get off the mike now. Oh, just read the comment from Mr.[?] Fundamental. Nice comment, and I think you can see the ways that your questions dovetail with mine.
thomas: and exactly what kind of flavour is added to the conversation by mentioning other species? certainly being different does not help much in understanding human societies. And then most features making us so social are at some level present in a multitude of species.
Rules and laws are certainly not the basis of our interaction. They are its product and they are so important because they are presented as being its basis. So I don't see them tainting anything. They provide great amusement at times and alas even greater grief at other times. A society without laws still seems quite unimaginable or rather unlikely, they seem to be as natural a product of human interaction as plastic bags, politics or a foot massage.
And don't know about the USA. The only United States I have visited have been those of Mexico. Which certainly is a place to learn about social interaction.
So whaddowedoo? Write comments to blogs for gratification. Or try to make the difference for somebody even though nobody else gives a damn and another few hundred million persons still die and suffer. Or thats what I'd do if I was not so lazy.
4:40
I played Devil's Advocate for patrilineal succession over democracy here.
Anon 4:40, you've only got the tip of the iceberg! If a society without laws/politics/government seems unimaginable, ya gotta try and imagine a little more. Even one-note survivalists, Objectivists and Libertarians imagine this fictitious society all the time. Most of 'em say that commerce and/or guns could replace laws completely and eliminate politics or should even eliminate Democracy itself. Of course this is a lie, particularly regarding commerce, 'nuff said. But, as you correctly point out, it's also a lie -- and a vulnerability -- to claim that the US or any society is "based on laws" when it's clearly the other way around. Laws are symbols which represent moral human interaction, and by now we've got too many symbol junkies who focus on the symbols rather than the actual human interaction.
Nevertheless, politicians, to protect their own careers mostly, keep saying our society is based on, organized around laws. And once you buy that idea, most people automatically slide down the slippery slope to bureaucracy, democracy, totalitarianism, etc., all the things our host is condemning here. I'm asking, can we find some other explicit organizing principle besides picked-over, interest-group scribblings in a legal ledger, which might form a basis for interaction. "Morality"/religion is too vague and subjective. "Family", "dignity", "ecology" might be candidates, but none of them seem complete, all have drawbacks.
If we found such an organizing principle, and it was strong enough -- if it appealed to the brute/cow masses as well as the individualists -- it might be strong enough to protect dropouts and individualists (such as our host, and many of the commentators) from attacks by the organized gang of society. It might not necessarily entail the abolishment of all laws, but if it's a better organizing principle, it might render written laws a bit more obsolete and enable a more honest interaction. Might help individualists participate in society on their own terms and then walk away from it when they desire. Objectivists say this overriding principle is commerce, but I don't think this is true. Any other options?
i bet Mr. Fundamental eats salad with his dinner fork, washes whites with colors, types in all caps in emails and leaves the toilet seat up.
montag, are we married? also, I fart in my cubicle.
It all boiled down to style: The Repubs and their tacky slide show cum town hall podium and the Demos fabulously gay Styrofoam Parthenon.
Post a Comment