So I'm all like, yeah, Barack Obama is going to devour the world, whereas John McCain would just grind his teeth and blink rapidly and shout angry non sequiturs to his "friends," and the usual progressive lurkers lurch to their feet and proclaim that while, sure, Barack Obama is going to launch wars and kill people, he's definitely maybe not going to launch as many wars or kill as many people, so really, you know, ought to be considered a boon to the world's downtrodden. The Donk is plainly excited by the prospect that their golden boy is going to steer the ship straight and true. Right on. I'm often asked--no; I'm often accused of holding all "political activity" to be quixotic and futile. A plain misreading. I think everyone should join their neighborhood association or support their local farms or help their neighbors throw rent parties or equip their houses with solar panels and geothermal wells and cut themselves off the grid. But participating in national politics? Bah. You have to believe that there is something worth improving. The unexamined notion at the heart of the progressive commitment to national electoral politics is the idea that America is good at heart, that it's something to be saved, fixed, bettered for future generations. Me, I think it's a dark and twisted monster with a heart of cadavers, shit, and coal. Working to forestall its eventual demise would be crazy.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Are they all trying to save, or are some merely trying to cash in? Kinda like people aren't trying to save the global market, are they, when they buy and follow stocks?
Of course, in either, most are marks and relatively few really profit. But either way--are all national political actors trying to save the country?
And might some be relatively rational folks who presume that, regardless of their actions, the world power structure will move on, affecting their local power structure--interaction within which you and I both acknowledge as legitimate--as well? So maybe some of these people, though they maintain a sense of detachment, because they know the nature of the beast, nevertheless try to watch it and involve themselves in it? Are they foolish, for that? After all, global power's going to go somewhere. Maybe it devolves, maybe it shifts to some other power, but is it all mission work? Is it all deluded?
Yeah but the margin of error means Kettle is still in the running. Uh… Baby Kettle? Idi Gourmet?
I'm not saying the national actors are trying to save the country. You're misreading the argument. I'm saying that participation on the level of Homo voticus and bloggery are impelled by such desire, which, yes, is uniformly deluded.
IOZ, apparently you haven't gotten the message that this is the most importantest election ever in history in this universe or any other posited by string theory. Behold: http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/10/get-out-vote.html
Less Wars '08!
1 Million Fewer Dead '08!
Carlo Gambino or Crazy Joe Gallo?
I'll see your point that they're both awful, but damn.
I don't think it's irrational to take an interest in which violent hoodlum is going to be shaking you down for the next four years.
Me, I think it's a dark and twisted monster with a heart of cadavers, shit, and coal.
Well, Louis Simpson says we can digest the coal.
Mr. Kingfish makes the key point. If goverment as organized crime is our metaphor, who's to say we wouldn't vote for the less crazy mob boss?
hey guys, if you were in the mob, would you rather have Sonny Corleone running the show, or Michael Corleone?
Me, I'm in the tank for Fredo, clearly.
I'm for the Irish adopted brother. The Irish know how to ruin a fucking country right n proper.
"Me, I think it's a dark and twisted monster with a heart of cadavers, shit, and coal."
Maybe you ought to get out of Pennsylvania, then, the IOZ.
"Loyalty to the country always; loyalty to the government
when it deserves it." Mark Twain
I think you're missing Monsieur's entire schtick, yo.
he's Pro-vania but anti-America. again, refer back to Alaya's scale thingamabobber. or we can do this in movie format if you'd like. . .
true Americans, fwiw, root for fucking insurgencies.
christ.
An amphibious . . . within the city . . . that ain't legal either.
what are you a fucking park ranger?
The Big leborski;
I never saw The Godfather.
It insists upon itself.
Other anon, Tom Hagen would be a terrible choice if your aim is to bankrupt the Family. Dude was far too competent for the rest of those dumbshit guineas, Michael included. Oh waaaah, I wanna take the family legit and will become incredibly corrupt and a bigger monster than my father could have ever dreamed of being in the process.
Come to think of it, he's kinda like McCain.
Thanks for the clarification. Not trying to box you in; just trying to understand. You're saying, then, that as far as national politics, the voter is bound to be deluded?
I'm just wondering if it's the national outlook that's unrealistic, or the national affiliation, or the belief that one vote really does count, or something else.
@ cünyet: "...as far as national politics, [is] the voter is bound to be deluded?"
Deceived is a possibility, too, though deception leads to conclusions that are deluded.
"I'm just wondering if it's the national outlook that's unrealistic, or the national affiliation, or the belief that one vote really does count, or something else."
Short answer: Yes.
The apparatus and institutions of the state and economy give rise to a seemingly coherent national entity. Whether that is a sustainable or desirable entity is another question. If affiliation is limited to one faction or another of the ruling party, i.e., the Donk or the Thug, then said affiliation is unrealistic in so far as one has any expectation that supporting one or the other will serve other than oligarchic interests except in the most accidental and deceptive ways. As to the belief in one's vote 'counting' at a national level, given the wholesale corruption of the process, no. And if the term 'count' is used in the sense that turning the election to one faction or another will alter more than the style of empire, then also no.
IOZ said:
Me, I think it's a dark and twisted monster with a heart of cadavers, shit, and coal.
Jim said:
Well, Louis Simpson says we can digest the coal.
Don't rule out the cadavers. Plenty good meat on those bones! And broth from the bones, too! Sausages from the organ meats! A bounty of delights!
In a pinch, even shit has nutritional value; after all, no creature has a 100% efficient digestive system. Bon appétit!
And you don't believe that differing styles of empire have quantifiable distinctions, or preferable distinctions?
And is any preference legitimate, or is it all abstract? Are all valuations delusional?
Hi cünyet,
And you don't believe that differing styles of empire have quantifiable distinctions, or preferable distinctions?
I accept the internal logic of the position that holds that there is a chance that an Obama regime will result in less overall death and suffering than a McCain regime. For many that may be sufficient reason to support Obama's election over McCain's. I question the assumptions about Obama's policies that would lead to that conclusion. For myself I have seen nothing that can convince me that Obama's government will be any less blood-soaked than the past 10. It could be possible to quantify the differences between BHO and JMcC, i.e., BHO turns out to be .005% less bloody, .002% less monstrous. Determining preferable distinctions strikes me more an aesthetic choice than one that can be arrived at in any sense scientifically, or perhaps even rationally.
And is any preference legitimate, or is it all abstract? Are all valuations delusional?
Preferences are legitimate; you have what you have for your own reasons, which may be abstract or not. Likewise valuations. It depends on what you think you are doing, are accomplishing, by acting on those preferences and valuations (since holding them, in and of themselves, is irrelevant to the world outside your self). My position is that acting in support of either ruling class faction will not make a significant, long term difference in the way things will develop. There may be short term differences that will undoubtedly have serious effects on exactly who dies and who is made to suffer. If you think that whatever differences would distinguish a BHO vs. a JMcC regime are of such weight as to make you support one over the other, fine. Such a choice cannot be gainsaid. Nor, in my opinion, defended on rational, historical grounds.
I guess I'm just wondering if your national political skepticism is based on principle or particulars. Are there any national tickets, hypothetical, historical, or otherwise, which might be rationally supported? Or is your objection based on the inscrutability of these tickets, at this time?
And I know your arguments are distinct, but to carry this a bit further, I'd like to explore IOZ's distinction between local and national politics. I actually agree with him, but I wonder why he feels the way he does. Does he think there is less deception on the local level (doubtful that he does, but something to consider)? Does he believe that the "wide" world doesn't really bear impact on our lives, and that we really are local beasts with rare exception? Why is national politics so different from the basic politics of home, hearth, and hamlet? Or is it at all?
I really don't see what's so terrible about devoting some energy to attempting to make the Democrats - as currently constituted - the farthest-right fringe of the spectrum. What else are you going to do with that time besides masturbate?
Hmph, well I do believe there is something worth improving. You know what I like? Getting blitzed on martinis in the cafe car while rocketing from Boston to New York at 150 miles an hour. I cannot do this on the Delta Shuttle, or, gods forbid, U.S. Airways.
So since I'm paying taxes anyway, would I rather a miniscule slice of that money go to a bunch of corrupt Teamsters nominally running Amtrak, or a bunch of corrupt ex-military suits running Blackwater?
This is more important than war and death, M. le IOZ, cocktails and leather seats are at stake here.
Despite sharing your outlook, by and large...I can't help but be chilled by potential parallels to the Sendero Luminoso mentality in Peru.
They killed aid workers, union organizers, moderates, and anyone else working to improve life for everyday people -- because they thought all that was just murking up the distinction between 'neofascist capitalism' and the pure, Maoist orthodoxy they espoused.
But still, I remain on a personal Hope Fast until Wednesday, at the very least.
Post a Comment