Politics In Modern America (Zsallia)
Zsallia Marieko
The modern world is quite irritating at times. More precisely stated, the people of the modern world can be quite irritating. You live not in a virtual utopia, but in a very real and tangible utopia, yet you still find reason to complain. This alternately amuses and astounds me.
There was a time when the challenges presented by every day life were a matter of brute survival. Misfortune could easily mean the death of the entire family or village. I submit to you that in this modern age (in the civilized world) this is rarely the case. Catastrophe when it strikes is generally a matter of a loss of standard of living- selling the second car and making do with one, or selling the house and resorting to apartment living. Hamburger with macaroni and cheese rather than broiled sea bass and a fine dry Riesling.
This constitutes a crisis?
Enough of jesting. As daily life progressed from a struggle for survival to striving for a better life much of the intensity once directed to that very real, very desperate circumstance of old was sublimated in to other arenas of human endeavor- religion, art, and most prominently, politics. This notion I present to you is admittedly over-simplified; however, it is essentially true in all respects.
Over the past two days I have found myself engaged in a most frustrating correspondence with a gentleman I shall call Albin. Albin is distraught at the notion of a possible John Kerry victory in the election come November 2nd:
MGB: Well, Churchill said "The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, once all other options are exhausted."
Albin: Ok
Albin: then you are content to see America fail here, certain in the knowledge that we will eventually succeed?
MGB: Oversimplified, but essentially yes.
Albin: I'd rather avoid that if at all possible
Albin: silly, yes, but that's just the way I am
MGB: Understandable
Albin: because a Kerry Presidency will drive the butcher's bill so high that 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq will look like a fucking bargain
MGB: To me there exists a fundamental difference between this statement: "The President is evil and incapable of doing right"
MGB: and this statement: "I believe the President has made a fundamental error."
Albin: I don't think he's evil
MGB: I believe you
Albin: I think he is terrifyingly wrong
MGB: Meaning his ideas fail to mesh with your own...
Albin: he believes his own press and expects us to believe it, too
Albin: and when he does surrender, and he will, he'll have the press and Hollywood out in force to spin it as victory
MGB: He will make the case for his new policy, yes
Albin: and he'll get away with it
MGB: You seem to equate disagreement over policy with a crime
Albin: until we suddenly have thousands or god help us millions dead in a major city
Albin: then he'll blame bush
MGB: Hmmm, that would seem possible, assuming such a catastrophe were to fall early in his administration
Albin: and maybe the voters will oust him, and maybe they won't, but it will still be 2008 before anything can be done about it
Albin: it is a thought that fails to fill me with any sense of joy
MGB: Your nation has survived quite a few truly terrible Chief Executives. Should Senator Kerry prove to be another, you shall survive him as well
Albin: nothing personal, but you're pretty irritating, did you know that?
The conversation was quite a bit longer, but I do believe this expresses the tone and nature rather well. My correspondent was so deeply and emotionally invested in the outcome of a simple election that it struck me as being rather over the top. Then I visited this site and read the comments of Australian leftists bemoaning this Saturday's overwhelming victory by John Howard's Liberal Party in the national elections. Of course they are as distraught as Albin was at the thought of a Kerry victory.
That bit of symmetry used to be taken for granted in American Democracy; that one side would be elated in victory and the other somewhat dejected in defeat. Hard on the heels of that realization there followed the fundamental recognition that despite the differences both sides were unified under their shared identity as citizens of the United States of America. This timeworn adage has held together for some two hundred and twenty-eight years; however, some believe it has finally begun to come apart under the strains of modern-day partisanship.
People are unusual in the way they perceive history. For some, anything that occurred in the years before they became sentient, autonomous entities is compressed in to a very short narrative replete with the major highlights of days gone by. Assassinations, catastrophes, a smattering of great quotes and memorable names- that constitutes the historical perspective they bring to bear on modern events. For others, history is a living, breathing thing, the tendrils of which shape the present day. For these people the Teapot Dome Scandal is as relevant to today as it was to the Harding Administration, and the orations of Greek philosophers and Roman Senators waft through the halls of power in every democracy. They are able to draw historical parallels with ease and make their arguments all the more gravid and persuasive (or intimidating, dependant upon one's own point of view) for the ties they make to the past.
Neither of those types is particularly adept at diving what was occurring at the grass roots level. Even the devoted historian is faced with a daunting task should she choose to make such an investigation, but should she do so she would likely come to understand that modern day partisanship is a milquetoast version of its predecessors. There was a time in America where the election went to the one who brought the most whiskey and best food to the polling places. For that matter, simply research the election and presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1828 where John Quincy Adams and his supporters painted Jackson as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the model of Caesar or Napoleon whose election would spell the death of the republic.
Should you detect a haunting familiarity in those characterizations I assure you it is with very good reason.
The partisan rabble-rousing currently under way in this American Presidential Election season seems more strident due to its immediacy. Words spoken in Denver are accessible nearly instantaneously across the entire nation and the world. I have offered the notion before in this very forum that cheap long distance communication and the Internet have combined to allow the most strident voices on the political fringes to interact in such a way as to magnify their volume. Volume being power in this media age they have taken on the facade of a political movement; however, those fringes remain outliers no matter how great an Irish toothache they engender from beating their chests and proclaiming their historical inevitability.
Your nation does not face a revolution. It does not face imminent collapse. It does not face the greatest calamity since the Second World War. No, the only thing your nation faces is a choice. The selection you are offered is rather stark: Preemption in the form of proactive military confrontation with or without the blessing of old allies, or a return to what many are convinced is a more civilized approach to threats posed by extra-national entities. This may seem overly simplistic, but I submit to you that both candidates' positions on other topics of interest are either essentially the same, or are of such a nature that despite their most fervent hopes they have no real prospect of finding success in the Congress. The War on Islamic Fascist Terrorism is the sole topic of concern here. On this subject both candidates are quite clear regarding what their stance is, advertisements to the contrary notwithstanding.
Americans have a choice to make. Those screaming on the fringes wish to influence your thinking, and that is their God-Given and Constitutionally Protected Right. What many people seem to fear is the notion that these groups hold some inordinate sway over the electoral process, but they do not. The American voter is a far more intelligent and engaged entity than either side is willing to credit. The people will choose, and that choice will reflect the mind of the electorate. Should Senator Kerry prevail the American people will have made a clear statement that preemptive war is not a strategy they are willing to endorse. That being the case it is incumbent upon those who feel otherwise to stand behind the new president and do whatever they can to make his new policies effective, for you people have a vested interest in seeing your government prevail in its endeavors. Should President Bush prevail, the same message is sent- the American people have spoken and endorsed a proactive strategy in combating terrorists and the nation-states that support them. Once again, that being the case it is incumbent upon those who feel otherwise to stand behind the president and do whatever they can to make his policies effective, for you people have a vested interest in seeing your government prevail in its endeavors.
It is that last point that engenders the most fear in partisans from both sides- the notion that those in opposition will not be content to engage in "civilized" opposition, but will move to demonize their opponent and cripple his ability to govern effectively. This has been a reality of American politics since the ratification of the Constitution. The modern world merely brings the strife to the fore where it can be seen and commented upon by all.
As the Twentieth Century rolled on past World War II the "new media" of Television dramatically altered the dynamics of political debate and discourse. Human beings are highly visual in their cognitive processes and such immediacy of information coupled with visual cues designed to evoke visceral responses proved an intoxicating tool for those who would shape the national conscience to their liking. For a time they did wield this power fairly indiscriminately for the flow of information was controlled by some few select entities. As the century wore on many became deeply dissatisfied with the state of affairs, and when cable television began its spread across the nation new, rival information sources came to the fore. The Internet is yet another manifestation of this. Designed originally as a tool to provide redundant and reliable communications for the military it became available to the public, setting off an organic process whereby information could be widely and cheaply distributed. In just a decade it has become the tool of choice for thinking individuals to validate facts presented as truths by Politicians, Special Interest Groups, Main Stream Media and any other entity that seeks to influence the national debate for any purpose whatsoever.
This is a frightening pace of change regardless of where one sits. All of this information, all of this access to facts and details and varying accounts of events would seem to be conducive to a better informed and more engaged electorate, and I submit that it is, for the most part. The problem one faces is that this is an unlovely solution, sorely lacking in the area of controls and filters. The Internet is brought to you raw, and it is up to you to sift through the deluge of information and choose what to believe and what to dismiss- a daunting challenge for even the most dedicated information addict. Regardless of one's preferences, in the back of your mind where that primitive beast still lives, there is a sense that this is very, very dangerous. Bloggers and other entities have begun to provide those missing filters, each holding to some area of expertise or simply offering an admittedly biased, but critical aspect of the information people seek, while the Internet itself remains in raw form, always available to those who might feel the need to challenge what is presented as fact or opinion.
In the end, this massive overdose of information both enlightens and frightens. It offers clarity, but threatens to obscure. It also fails to provide immediate context, for a single individual can easily build and maintain a site that seems as authoritative and reliable as one run by say a professor of history, or a panel of lawyers. This is where the fringe thrives. This is where rationality finds its voice. This is where you are forced to sift through the vast and ever-changing sea of information and attempt to come to a reasonable decision. This is where you find comfort, fear, love, anger, hate and reconciliation.
You have a decision to make. You have only 22 days in which to make it. This is your current iteration of the "struggle for survival". It is not a crisis. It is merely a test.
That is why I fear a Kerry victory.
You, Zsallia, may see an end of it, but I doubt even that. I think it unlikely that you can remember any significant length of time in which a struggle of this sort has not been engaged in one form or another. What, after all, is terrorism, but the efforts of a minority to force their will on the majority by any means. It is, with apologies again to Mr. Anderson, absolute selfishness, which is the overly-simplified definition of Evil. At the risk of sounding Fundamentalist, this is not a battle that can be won by humanity, because humanity as a species is incapable of the regular practice of putting the good of All ahead of individual self-interest.
It does beg one particular question, though. As humanity has developed a penchant for self-interest over the course of millennia, is this a natural portion of the evolutionary course of humanity? True, it's just a variation of a question we have discussed before, but the current audience may find it of interest.
On the whole, I agree that [hopefully] enlightened self-interest is the overall motivating factor in humanity, or civilisation, what have you.
But there is a question I have about it: No doubt, some of us have 'suffered' under this Admin, just as Kerry frequently reminds us between 'Nam references, but not all of them hear his call to abandon Bush, obviously. OTOH, some have done quite well under Bush but still will attempt to vote him out.
So we have a curiousity where these voters at least are thinking beyond themselves, not in a sense of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' but for the advantage to the Greater Good, possibly interpreted as the survival of the Republic. Even Dean's Pledge to act in a way that supports whoever wins is an effort in that direction.
I'm not entirely surprised by this, BTW. Views like this always occur and its one that I appreciate. But is that self-interest or altruistic? I'm still flipping coins on that one.
As to the notion of enlightened self-interest versus altruism in political choice, one must not underestimate the power of ideology. In the mind of an individual there is a sense of group, or tribe if you prefer, that can quite easily motivate one to vote in favor of ideology over self-interest. It is not quite altruism; rather it is a manifestation of the “group thought” phenomenon and as such is nothing new or surprising. In this case conformity to ideology offers a form of comfort- perhaps this could be argued as self-interest, but the difference is one of degree.
Is this a form of cultural evolution? I think not. There has been little of fundamental change in the past sixty years, the counter-culture so celebrated by the Baby Boomers notwithstanding. Americans may be approaching a fundamental change in their thinking regarding their nation and its place in the world, but I must come to the unfortunate conclusion that the deaths of 3000 civilians and two successful wars of liberation may not be sufficient to cement that notion of change.
So if we look at the trends, what can we extrapolate regarding the future of society? We are developing and progressing in technology at an increasingly rapid rate, with no indication that humanity has ever, in any society, ever reverted to a previous level of technology, so it appears to be a one-way street. We are either decreasing the intrinsic value of human life, or we are increasing our level of selfishness to the point that our own interest is so much more valuable than others that we are willing to disregard their suffering.
Now add to that the ability for more to be acomplished using less physical manpower, with the inverse relationship rising along with technology. This is true whether we speak of manufacturing, agriculture, or warfare. My conclusions should by this point be obvious, hence my efforts to save the world, and my frequent doubts that I will succeed.
As much as I may disagree from a theological standpoint, at least in our distant past, when we feard the retribution of angry gods, we had something that directed self-interest toward the good of society. For lack of a better term, call it "enforced altruism".
I'm sure that I'm not alone in my fear. And perhaps the easiest way to stop this chain, is to stop Iran from getting nukes.
What is probability that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?
Under Kerry, 50%; under Bush, 10%.
My view of the future -- I'd be interested in yours.
"What is probability that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?
Under Kerry, 50%; under Bush, 10%."
I'm not so optimistic. My estimates are:
Under Kerry, 90%; under Bush, 50-60%.
Zsallia wrote:
"For that matter, simply research the election and presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1828 where John Quincy Adams and his supporters painted Jackson as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the model of Caesar or Napoleon whose election would spell the death of the republic."
John Quincy Adams was absolutely right. Andrew Jackson began our slide from a Constitutional republic to a mob-rule democracy.
"The Supreme Court is an issue, but both ends of the political spectrum view victory by the other as a disaster on that front."
This is why we need a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional spectrum rather than the grossly misleading 1-dimensional Left-Right spectrum. There are at least 3 wings on the Supreme Court and jurisprudential philosophy:
1) the individualists like Anthony Kennedy (or, more consistently, Timothy Sandefur) who see our Constitutional republic as islands of stringently limited government powers within an ocean of inviolable individual rights,
2) the collectivists like Antonin Scalia (or, more consistently, Robert Bork) who see our "democracy" as an ocean of unlimited government powers surrounding and eroding islands of stringently limited individual rights,
3) the liberal believers in a "living Constitution" which expands both individual rights and government powers whichever way the wind seems to blow.
There is also the polarity of legal positivists vs. believers in a higher law which ties in with above.
Mr. E Poet wrote:
"It is, with apologies again to Mr. Anderson, absolute selfishness, which is the overly-simplified definition of Evil."
Then I say, with Nietzsche: "Evil, be Thou my Good!" HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!!
"At the risk of sounding Fundamentalist, this is not a battle that can be won by humanity, because humanity as a species is incapable of the regular practice of putting the good of All ahead of individual self-interest."
I'm not so optimistic. Humanity is quite capable of creating ideologies such as Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, and Islam. which subordinate the individual to the "good of All". Humanity is all too capable of reverting to the collectivist ant-heap. The hardest thing is to be selfish, to recognize what selfishness truly is, to stand up for one's own values against the collective.