Observing the alarming brokenness of our democratic system, it is growing increasingly harder to imagine true systemic justice, ever emerging out of any legal, current democratic recourse. I believe I have some unique questions to discuss here, but I will begin with a quick bulleted preface, to give context to my analysis.
Whether we identify our government's obsolescence in empirical and documented failures:
-the direct influence of the free market on all branches of all levels of government i.e. revolving door, lobbyists, citizens united court decision (to cite a fairly current nail in the coffin)
-current inability to a pass a federal budget
-the pressure of multinational corporate intrests on our government
-the sequester
-2011 and 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
etc...
...Or documented cultural aberrations:
-nearly 50 million Americans living in poverty, 16% of the population, 20% among children according to November 2012 census statistics.
-skyrocketing unregulated costs of healthcare which is limiting access and bankrupting our budget
-the current financial infrastructure of the banks elevating themselves to a level of criminal immunity
-4,700 estimated civilians killed by drones. (that the government admits to)
-sustaining decade plus long wars on unidentified enemies
etc...
...Or documented political aberrations
-the 2012 election "voter ID" laws proposed
-"jerrymandering"
-time wasted in congress on reactionary and racist endeavors: attempted repealing Voter's Rights Act, stalling of Hurricane Sandy disaster relief (just to name a few brazen recent occurrences, etc..)
-blocking of third party debates from official presidential election discourse
etc...
...And all the other moral, philosophical, socio-economic catastrophes that could comprise hundreds of volumes of writing, taking all that into account, can we not agree as a people that our situation is untenable?
Proving that proposition is not the aim of this article. If, after careful observation of their social environment, the reader feels that the status quo, or some kind of purer adherence to a freer free market capitalism and more American style democracy as such, is the answer to our current national and global crisis, then we have little context for discussion. My goal, here, is to pose questions about how truly the public wants change, and to examine approaches to extensive and fundamental political and economic rearrangement.
The current state of affairs that we have in America, beyond being untenable, seems to be unfixable within the current governmental structure. So what recourse does this nation have to stem the explosion of the complex crisis, just beginning to emerge? Outside of democratic recourse lies a chaotic morass of interests and methodologies. The shortcomings of the Occupy movement highlight this point. Do we, as a population, even recognize the extent of the crisis before us and the destruction we sustain by participating in its reproduction? Or would we identify fundamental and dramatic political and economic restructuring as unnecessary and not worth its risks? What would a non violent transition of power and political paradigm look like?
In response to these questions and challenges, I would humbly suggest one small element of perspective. Love, that which harnesses empathy and action, is the guiding force of successful revolution. Radical love (and all true love is radical) that compels justice, is the ethos of true change. Love, which always recognizes human dignity as the pivot of justice, this is the objectivity that demands revolution. The will to power is subjective. Love, in this sense, is objective. Despite countless attempts to mechanize love as a rationale for oppression and condemnation, it remains a universally identifiable phenomenon, its antithesis equally universally identifiable. Thus a true revolutionary spirit demands a justice springing from love. While righteous anger has its role in mobilizing action and challenging injustice, it is philosophically static. Compassion and empathy is procreative. A subjugation of the weak by the strong, overturned by a subjugation of the strong by the weak results in the same inequity. The methodology and goal of a true revolution must respect the dignity of life, even in those who exploit and oppress. But where is the role of the tradition of non-violence in a society whose population is often without shame, attention span, context, or empathy? Where is the role of nonviolence in a global community governed by banks and their political organs? Gandhi shamed the British out of their colonization of India because the philosophical tide of the world was on the side of independence. Who is there to shame the exploitation and violence of our government to, when the rest of the industrialized world is on the same system?
I present these thoughts not because I have answers but because I have more questions than I have answers to. I hope to stimulate your thoughts to respond to some of these suggestions and questions in the hopes of greater understanding and future peace and justice. I would greatly appreciate your comments and discussion.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
In Late Capitalism, if Freedom is Deregulation, then Justice is Authoritarian, but the Invisible Hand is Still a Bitchslap
There is a very weird perception that goes on in critiques of the left concerning how its goal is "less freedom" and ultimately authoritarian. This is not true. The fluffy construction of a notion of freedom that usually frames these critiques sets the stage for the cookie cutter argument that simply sustains the status quo, while pretending to "take back" a nation that has lost its "moral" moorings.
Since when did prudent stewardship of our environment become a notion to scoff at? Only when inserted into the value system of a profit oriented free market does this negative distinction make sense. Since when did investment in strong public education warrant accusations of indoctrination and wasteful spending? The same can be said for the critiques of welfare, minimum wage increase, bank regulation, corporate tax increase, graduated income tax, demilitarization, universal health care etc... The right is not stupid. Their ideology is so thoroughly enmeshed with the virtues of the free market (that happens to be currently cannibalizing not only the poor but also the middle class now) that they cannot reconcile an America outside of the parameters of capitalism. What I am getting at here is not a critique of the economic violence or failings of capitalism. I am attempting to examine it's ideological hold on conservative America in the light of its psychological appeal to the "traditional" American ethics grounded largely in Christianity and individualism. Max Weber elaborates on this in different fashions in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". A psychologically symbiotic relationship seems to exist between the traditional religious American right, and the value set of free market economics.
These values seem to relieve the population of what Erich Fromm would refer to as the "burdens of freedom" in his work: "Escape from Freedom". In submitting to the ideals of capitalism, one can be assured that his labor exploitation is only temporary, because of the promise of upward mobility, reassured by his envy of the upper echelons of society that await him. And in addition one can also be comforted by the fact that one's labor exploitation places them in a position morally superior to those unemployed or exploited more intensely than himself, (unfortunate groups guaranteed in vast numbers in a free market society). I do not intend to admonish those who feel this way, but simply to identify the logical agreement, the intersection of values between "traditional" America and the values of the free market.
From this perspective we can answer the initial question of this article. It is easily understood how a government attempting to counteract the inevitable injustices of the system, they identify with on a social and psychological level, would be considered an enemy of freedom and authoritarian. By blaming its injustices on the moral failings of individuals, they are not only freed of their burden of societal responsibility, any value set that would seek to bring justice to disenfranchised, marginalized individuals can be identified as immoral, authoritarian, and against "freedom". In this sense "freedom" can be defined as the smooth functioning of the system, because any deviation is a breach of unhindered operation of things. It is from this paradigm that the ideals of the left are authoritarian.
Since when did prudent stewardship of our environment become a notion to scoff at? Only when inserted into the value system of a profit oriented free market does this negative distinction make sense. Since when did investment in strong public education warrant accusations of indoctrination and wasteful spending? The same can be said for the critiques of welfare, minimum wage increase, bank regulation, corporate tax increase, graduated income tax, demilitarization, universal health care etc... The right is not stupid. Their ideology is so thoroughly enmeshed with the virtues of the free market (that happens to be currently cannibalizing not only the poor but also the middle class now) that they cannot reconcile an America outside of the parameters of capitalism. What I am getting at here is not a critique of the economic violence or failings of capitalism. I am attempting to examine it's ideological hold on conservative America in the light of its psychological appeal to the "traditional" American ethics grounded largely in Christianity and individualism. Max Weber elaborates on this in different fashions in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". A psychologically symbiotic relationship seems to exist between the traditional religious American right, and the value set of free market economics.
These values seem to relieve the population of what Erich Fromm would refer to as the "burdens of freedom" in his work: "Escape from Freedom". In submitting to the ideals of capitalism, one can be assured that his labor exploitation is only temporary, because of the promise of upward mobility, reassured by his envy of the upper echelons of society that await him. And in addition one can also be comforted by the fact that one's labor exploitation places them in a position morally superior to those unemployed or exploited more intensely than himself, (unfortunate groups guaranteed in vast numbers in a free market society). I do not intend to admonish those who feel this way, but simply to identify the logical agreement, the intersection of values between "traditional" America and the values of the free market.
From this perspective we can answer the initial question of this article. It is easily understood how a government attempting to counteract the inevitable injustices of the system, they identify with on a social and psychological level, would be considered an enemy of freedom and authoritarian. By blaming its injustices on the moral failings of individuals, they are not only freed of their burden of societal responsibility, any value set that would seek to bring justice to disenfranchised, marginalized individuals can be identified as immoral, authoritarian, and against "freedom". In this sense "freedom" can be defined as the smooth functioning of the system, because any deviation is a breach of unhindered operation of things. It is from this paradigm that the ideals of the left are authoritarian.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Re-thinking How We Engage Ignorant Ideologies and Their Champions
We are awash in political debate in the era of an ever increasing connectivity to the cyber-world. While most of us can generally accept the majority of political debate as juvenile and superfluous at best, those of us seeking out alternate forms of journalism and dialogue, (myself included) almost inevitably indulge also, in news about the opposing ideology for comic relief. This kind of reporting/humor can run a gamut from sharp satire productively re examining a depressing reality ( in the tradition of Voltaire, Twain etc..) to cheap and easy bashing of ideologies so ignorant and dismissible that nothing can be gleaned from paying them any mind but a sense of self righteousness and superiority like that of a human to an oyster. There is a difference between holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions, and cynically highlighting the ignorance of cultures so isolated and caricaturized that they bear no significance to any edifying debate. Do we not dull our own sense of social resolve and critical acuity when we are inundated with the political equivalent of the Jerry Springer effect in articles, tv shows, blogs, memes, and conversation more focused on the surface stupidity of "the other guys" than a real critique of their actions, maybe even a response to the problem?
Now, we can't be impartial observers, interacting with our society in an emotionless vacuum, however we can certainly take another look at how we approach the opposition, internally as well as externally, because both are connected. While the unfortunate phenomenon outlined earlier can leave an observer in a mental stasis, ironically unsuited to the critique the mental stasis they identify in opposing ideologies, simply ignoring sardonic mockery is not going to re frame societal perceptions.
One can engage the opposition, even from a revolutionary standpoint with our common humanity not only in mind, but the foundation of our philosophical and communicative approach. Losing sight of this integral part of societal conception, we limit not only the potentialities of our ideological opponents, but also those of our own minds. I do not refer to semantic nonsense like: "agreeing to disagree", or "don't hate the player, hate the game". But I do find a succinct expression of the kind of approach I'm trying to articulate in the language of Dr. Cornel West when he says, as he often does: "we love oligarchs, but we hate oligarchy" This is a more revolutionary response, because it recognizes not only the revolutionary burden to overthrow the current system, but also to exercise human love within the parameters of those constraints, while holding those in power accountable, to the highest degree, for their actions within the corrupt system they organize and perpetuate. In referring to even his most heinous opponents as brother and sister, he directs his approach from an affirmation of our commonality, a reminder of the intrinsic value of that humanity we hold in common, and a warning not to lose touch with the reality that we are, like our species, at times evil and at times good. We cannot dehumanize evil people, just as we cannot elevate ourselves to an untouchable superior position. Both of these approaches redraw reality to make it fit our fantasy. If we want any chance of understanding and positive motion toward a better society, we need to reject not only the fanatasies of those that oppose us, but also those fantasies we are tempted to create in our own minds. Our approach must be from a grounded mind, aware of its stature in the project of humanity.
Now, we can't be impartial observers, interacting with our society in an emotionless vacuum, however we can certainly take another look at how we approach the opposition, internally as well as externally, because both are connected. While the unfortunate phenomenon outlined earlier can leave an observer in a mental stasis, ironically unsuited to the critique the mental stasis they identify in opposing ideologies, simply ignoring sardonic mockery is not going to re frame societal perceptions.
One can engage the opposition, even from a revolutionary standpoint with our common humanity not only in mind, but the foundation of our philosophical and communicative approach. Losing sight of this integral part of societal conception, we limit not only the potentialities of our ideological opponents, but also those of our own minds. I do not refer to semantic nonsense like: "agreeing to disagree", or "don't hate the player, hate the game". But I do find a succinct expression of the kind of approach I'm trying to articulate in the language of Dr. Cornel West when he says, as he often does: "we love oligarchs, but we hate oligarchy" This is a more revolutionary response, because it recognizes not only the revolutionary burden to overthrow the current system, but also to exercise human love within the parameters of those constraints, while holding those in power accountable, to the highest degree, for their actions within the corrupt system they organize and perpetuate. In referring to even his most heinous opponents as brother and sister, he directs his approach from an affirmation of our commonality, a reminder of the intrinsic value of that humanity we hold in common, and a warning not to lose touch with the reality that we are, like our species, at times evil and at times good. We cannot dehumanize evil people, just as we cannot elevate ourselves to an untouchable superior position. Both of these approaches redraw reality to make it fit our fantasy. If we want any chance of understanding and positive motion toward a better society, we need to reject not only the fanatasies of those that oppose us, but also those fantasies we are tempted to create in our own minds. Our approach must be from a grounded mind, aware of its stature in the project of humanity.
Friday, February 15, 2013
"Drones: Seeing Ourselves for What We Really Are"
The recent publicity and controversy over the Obama administration's drone strikes in the Middle East forces a critical conversation on US foreign policy that before was far less pronounced or mainstream. We have quietly transitioned into a constant state of war, because our war is a containment of terrorists, or "terrorism", spread across the world. Our remote preemptive approach to perceived threats that has been cultivated in the past years, proceeds the US's interventionist nation building, and "containment policy" of the past decades. This policy of "proactive" "safeguarding of our interests" has been publicly reaffirmed in the recent hearings concerning the nomination of Brennan to head the CIA. But it is this very military perspective that our drone policy is simply the logical conclusion of. Attempts to sugar coat a policy of globally murderous American exceptionalism, in calls for transparency and judicial oversight neglect the very core of the crime we commit. This is the crime of the devaluation of human life, and the trauma we subject entire generations to, in the name of a war, whose enemies are whoever ends up dead at the end of the day.
The fact that remote killings from the sky are extra psychologically disturbing has brought our policy of preemptive attack to a philosophical trial that before might have been dismissed as pacifist idealism and lefty contrariness.
The obvious defense of the drone program is that they eliminate terrorist threats while keeping troops off the ground and so protect the American public and its armed services. The clear criticism of this policy is that we are causing substantial civilian casualties, while terrorizing entire populations that live in fear and whose children are dying or surviving, to grow up in trauma. To say nothing of the outrageous moral aberration that these policies pose, it would seem strategically counterproductive to fight terrorism, not only in a endless campaign of acute covert raids and assassinations, but also in the inevitably indiscriminate bombings that will serve to cement not only present antiquated religious prejudices but also create new terror and justifiable rage in multiple generations in more countries across a region that is already the most volatile part of the globe.
To take a clear stance against our drone warfare policy is to indite our policy of preemptive warfare.
Our population has grown increasingly detached from our state of war. We are isolated from the monetary burden (temporarily) via tax cuts that coincided with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are isolated from information by a media castrated and lobotomized by chasing ratings and pleasing sponsors. And we are governed by inert legislative bodies muted by revolving door politics and powerful lobbies. In short, we do not experience the fact that our country is at war. Together with our presumed moral infallibility, the pervading fear inherent in a war on an enemy as amorphous as"terror" assures our population's complicity. Now with a darker, louder, more sinister symbol of our military foreign policy, we may be able to engage its strategic failings and moral horrors in a viable conversation with stronger political momentum.
The fact that remote killings from the sky are extra psychologically disturbing has brought our policy of preemptive attack to a philosophical trial that before might have been dismissed as pacifist idealism and lefty contrariness.
The obvious defense of the drone program is that they eliminate terrorist threats while keeping troops off the ground and so protect the American public and its armed services. The clear criticism of this policy is that we are causing substantial civilian casualties, while terrorizing entire populations that live in fear and whose children are dying or surviving, to grow up in trauma. To say nothing of the outrageous moral aberration that these policies pose, it would seem strategically counterproductive to fight terrorism, not only in a endless campaign of acute covert raids and assassinations, but also in the inevitably indiscriminate bombings that will serve to cement not only present antiquated religious prejudices but also create new terror and justifiable rage in multiple generations in more countries across a region that is already the most volatile part of the globe.
To take a clear stance against our drone warfare policy is to indite our policy of preemptive warfare.
Our population has grown increasingly detached from our state of war. We are isolated from the monetary burden (temporarily) via tax cuts that coincided with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are isolated from information by a media castrated and lobotomized by chasing ratings and pleasing sponsors. And we are governed by inert legislative bodies muted by revolving door politics and powerful lobbies. In short, we do not experience the fact that our country is at war. Together with our presumed moral infallibility, the pervading fear inherent in a war on an enemy as amorphous as"terror" assures our population's complicity. Now with a darker, louder, more sinister symbol of our military foreign policy, we may be able to engage its strategic failings and moral horrors in a viable conversation with stronger political momentum.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Gun Control Today
"law abiding gun owners will not accept blame for acts of violent or deranged criminals." wayne la pierre jan. 30 2013. The call for responsible control and oversight of the purchase of guns is aimed at creating a more safe and responsible culture. No one is blaming gun owners. No one is trying to take your guns. The only ones who profit from these ideas is the weapons industry and their ideological thugs (see above), who would turn a moment for a societal evolution and frank examination of its violence into a cheap and reactionary freedom wank, and a false victimization.
The intensified gun debate of these past months forces us to interact with our society in a way that before was relegated to college students and professors, your annoying friend, social workers and talking heads on cable. I don't mean simply that our last year's irking surplus of massacres forces us to talk about the regulation of assault weapons and magazine sizes. I point rather to the way the "camps" frame their debates.
If our culture is going to push most of us to side one way or the other on the issue of gun control, then the underlying points of view that frame our opinions have a venue, now, to be analyzed. These tragedies have pressed "us" to respond with calls for or against particular legislation or permutations therein. But I would have to take this opportunity to call out both "sides" on their lack of scope.
The overwhelming response on the left has been a call for gun control, adding increased oversight to gun transactions while creating a more peaceful culture through stigmatization of violence. This is in reaction to a recent outbreak of massacres, and in the face of an extremely weakened ATF, and a culture of state laws waging the battle for gun rights (a la deranged and misdirected channeling of the founding fathers) with outrageous legislative concoctions borne of ideological symbolism. Perhaps in such a moment more concrete regulation is needed to decrease the flow of guns to criminals and the mentally ill.
The overwhelming response of the right has been a call against gun control. The aims of tighter regulation resulting in less available guns in the hands of less criminals and mentally ill people is framed as an assault on the second amendment, and the genesis of a new dawn of tyranny, while purveying a false notion of what gun control is really being proposed. Perfecting our society via laws that can net an overall result of less massacres is juxtaposed to Hitler and Mao before the discussion can even be entertained by those who watch FOX news. The right seems to be set on making the people believe that they are being victimized and that the government wants their guns.
What a smooth ideology that can all at once lull a culture into a symbolic distrust of the people they pay to govern themselves (symbolic, because the lobbyists and the money have major influence on the government) and at the same time be pushing the culture of a brand and a product that they themselves are physically selling. (And at record high rates)
Are conservatives really ready to do battle with the defense department? Are they really going to take out the US army with their AK 47s? No they are deluded and they are pacified by their guns. The notion that "this AK is for my government if they want to infringe on my rights" is laughable. Coordinating a colonial era styled overthrow of tyranny would entail cooperating with your fellow man towards a common goal, it would be collectivist and infringe upon the individual.
As for those who would relegate our societal problems and propensity for violence to lack of gun control, I would argue that this is the same flawed logic of: "Main street, not wall street", when wall street creates the conditions for those on main street to buy electronics, finance a house and car, and retire with a pension.
You can't vilify greed and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue, without acknowledging the fact that greed in inherent to the capitalist system. You can't vilify violence and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue without acknowledging the fact that it is a function of the culture we live in.
The intensified gun debate of these past months forces us to interact with our society in a way that before was relegated to college students and professors, your annoying friend, social workers and talking heads on cable. I don't mean simply that our last year's irking surplus of massacres forces us to talk about the regulation of assault weapons and magazine sizes. I point rather to the way the "camps" frame their debates.
If our culture is going to push most of us to side one way or the other on the issue of gun control, then the underlying points of view that frame our opinions have a venue, now, to be analyzed. These tragedies have pressed "us" to respond with calls for or against particular legislation or permutations therein. But I would have to take this opportunity to call out both "sides" on their lack of scope.
The overwhelming response on the left has been a call for gun control, adding increased oversight to gun transactions while creating a more peaceful culture through stigmatization of violence. This is in reaction to a recent outbreak of massacres, and in the face of an extremely weakened ATF, and a culture of state laws waging the battle for gun rights (a la deranged and misdirected channeling of the founding fathers) with outrageous legislative concoctions borne of ideological symbolism. Perhaps in such a moment more concrete regulation is needed to decrease the flow of guns to criminals and the mentally ill.
The overwhelming response of the right has been a call against gun control. The aims of tighter regulation resulting in less available guns in the hands of less criminals and mentally ill people is framed as an assault on the second amendment, and the genesis of a new dawn of tyranny, while purveying a false notion of what gun control is really being proposed. Perfecting our society via laws that can net an overall result of less massacres is juxtaposed to Hitler and Mao before the discussion can even be entertained by those who watch FOX news. The right seems to be set on making the people believe that they are being victimized and that the government wants their guns.
What a smooth ideology that can all at once lull a culture into a symbolic distrust of the people they pay to govern themselves (symbolic, because the lobbyists and the money have major influence on the government) and at the same time be pushing the culture of a brand and a product that they themselves are physically selling. (And at record high rates)
Are conservatives really ready to do battle with the defense department? Are they really going to take out the US army with their AK 47s? No they are deluded and they are pacified by their guns. The notion that "this AK is for my government if they want to infringe on my rights" is laughable. Coordinating a colonial era styled overthrow of tyranny would entail cooperating with your fellow man towards a common goal, it would be collectivist and infringe upon the individual.
As for those who would relegate our societal problems and propensity for violence to lack of gun control, I would argue that this is the same flawed logic of: "Main street, not wall street", when wall street creates the conditions for those on main street to buy electronics, finance a house and car, and retire with a pension.
You can't vilify greed and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue, without acknowledging the fact that greed in inherent to the capitalist system. You can't vilify violence and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue without acknowledging the fact that it is a function of the culture we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)