TO KEEP IT SIMPLE
"The frustrated follow a leader less because of their faith that he is leading them to a promised land than because of their immediate feeling that he is leading them away from their unwanted selves. Surrender to a leader is not a means to an end but a fulfillment. Whither they are being led is of secondary importance."
Eric Hoffer
The True Believer
"They've got the guns, but we've got the number. Gonna win, yeah, we're taking over. COME ON!"
The Doors
"Five to One"
A sad fact of life is that sometimes, the best we can do is not good enough. This is especially true when we set specific goals. A brutality clear example of this reality is the presidential election of 2016. The result, which shocked both sides, has set off a furious round of blame casting among the losers. The winners of course are preoccupied with grabbing the spoils. Hillary Clinton's supporters are desperate to find reasons for her stunning loss, so that the proper heads will roll. We lost. Hillary Clinton was an experienced and capable presidential candidate with a smart, well-disciplined, organized campaign staff. She campaigned on issues and programs that set well with most Americans, including many who voted against her. She won all three debates and the popular vote. Yet she lost the election, and her party lost everything else. The Democrats put up a good fight and got whipped. They need to accept it--not "get over it" as the victors demand, implying they should bow down and slink off. But if they are to even have a "next time", not to mention win it, they need to accurately appraise the opposition and realize what happened. Otherwise there is no rematch.
After an unexpected loss, human nature demands explanations and scapegoats. Again, the Democrats put up their best efforts and still lost. The election was not entirely above board, but under current laws, rules, and practices, it was fair enough--or at least legal. Voting restrictions probably kept some Democratic voters away from the polls, and campaign finance laws probably gave the plutocratic side a lopsided advantage. We would do well as a nation to work together to make changes that will make our elections freer and fairer. Good luck getting the winners to help. But none of these change the fact that nearly half the voters were eager to vote against their obvious self-interest.
Did the Democrats ignore the needs and fears of the white working class? Good question. But are the aspirations of white workers different from those of working people in other ethnic groups? Strengthening Social Security, Medicare, and unions have been proven to help all workers. Democrats campaigned for them, while Republicans made no bones about their opposition. The Republicans won--not only the White House (Donald Trump, after all, was never clear on how he really felt) but the Congress and most states. Naturally, they had the support of the business class and elites, who look on labor as an expense to be reduced wherever possible. But they could not win on those numbers alone. White laborers voted for politicians who vowed to make life tougher for the working class.
Is climate change only a threat to liberals? Is the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is happening, and is caused by humans, false? Obviously, the Left Coast liberals are first to suffer from rising oceans, but are other Americans immune? Democrats campaigned on facts, Republicans on wishful thinking. We live in an age of conflicting "facts", but the truth is still available, and people who use their reasoning powers can find the truth if they want to. Yet nearly half the voters chose to renounce the evidence of their own rational observations. These people are as intelligent as anyone else, and in everyday matters quite capable of gathering evidence and solving problems. There is no logical explanation for their forsaking reason in this matter. We must look elsewhere.
Donald Trump is a genuine leader, after the fashion of other autocrats: able to persuade crowds to follow them blindly. He promises only that he will be the unsung workers' "voice", and will make the country "great again." Hoffer attributes the success of people like Trump to a general sense of frustration on the part of people who are modestly successful, but who feel their prospects are severely limited. We can theorize, but without getting inside their heads, we cannot know how they actually feel. So far, they appear impervious to rational arguments. And now we face the real prospect of fascism, right here in the United States of America. We have been flirting with fascism for nearly a century, and the flirtation has finally gotten serious--the date rape happened. If we want to change the situation, we must look beyond reasoning with the opposition. We already outnumber them. We must overwhelm them.
The unexpectedly huge turnout for the Women's March, not only in Washington, D.C. but worldwide, not only women, is an encouraging start. It shows that fascism won the battle of 2016, but the fight goes on. Popular, peaceful, joyful yet determined demonstrations, happened on January 21. The momentum for an invigorated campaign based on equality for all, superiority for none--is here. The event was heartening. If we can keep our enthusiasm, we have the possibility for real change. Our side was beaten. Now we need to try winning.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
THE DEMISE OF MANY THINGS
Surprises never cease. I expected by now to be discussing the Republican Party's death and rebuilding. Instead, November 8, 2016 saw the "sudden death" of the Democratic Party, which sent supporters and detractors alike reeling. Freedom depends on a new party arising, and the more input on the party's reincarnation the better for the country. Looking back, the Democratic Party was terminally ill for a long time, and the 2016 presidential loss was its last gasp. Congress, the Supreme Court, judges down the line, and most governorships and state legislatures were already under Republican control. Many Republicans could come to regret their unexpected victory, but their party, now subjugated by Tea Party hardliners, has everything.
Some of us are old enough to remember 1964, when the Democrats held the present, and it looked as if the future belonged to them too. The Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, had won only his home state, Arizona, and five solidly Democratic states in the Deep South. Southerners voted for Goldwater because unlike Texan Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater favored preserving states' rights regarding race relations. Even so, fewer than half the Confederate states, and less than a third of the former slave states, voted Republican. Johnson feared the Democrats could lose the South, but he persevered with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts anyway. Most of the country agreed it was the right thing to do. The War on Poverty was also popular with most Americans, as a continuation of the New Deal. At the time, most Republicans also favored the goals of the New Deal and War on Poverty, though they held other plans for how to accomplish them. Goldwater's proposal to return the country to the free-for-all of the 1920's had been solidly rejected. Under the circumstances, the Democrats could have overcome Southern recalcitrance.
But the Democrats could not overcome Vietnam. Why Johnson, after campaigning against Goldwater's pitch to send American soldiers to fight, suddenly reversed himself, is a matter of argument still. But he did. In the ensuing chaos, perhaps the majority found stability in simply accepting that America was in a fight--unwanted, unessential, but a fight nonetheless--that the country must slog through no matter how unpleasant it got, and it got extremely unpleasant. Somehow, the Republicans vaporized their anti-war members, but the Democrats were hopelessly divided. In 1972 George McGovern, who campaigned for expanding the New Deal and ending the Vietnam involvement, was stomped by widely mistrusted Richard Nixon.
Later, with most of his administration in jail, Nixon resigned. Gerald Ford, the appointed Vice President, fell into the presidency. Ford was in a tough spot, trying to hold together the remnants of the Nixon presidency and oversee the final Vietnam withdrawal. Still, he barely lost to Jimmy Carter, a conservative Democrat from Georgia. After one term Carter was thoroughly defeated by Ronald Reagan, who picked up Goldwater's banner and marched to triumph. The bad news for Democrats was that Carter was the strongest candidate they had.
By the eighties, the consensus of America had moved so far rightward that policies once regarded as "reactionary" were perceived as "conservative." The Republicans had forsaken preservation of the status quo, instead pushing for return to the halcyon past, when capitalism had no controls and no opposition. The Democratic Party adopted conservatism, feebly trying to find a balance that would preserve some of the New Deal while professing loyalty to free enterprise...probably the best they could do, which shows how beaten the party was.
Bill Clinton was successful because he was skilled at getting to the center of many issues before the Republicans did. Still, his presidency was mainly a holding action, an orderly retreat, as the New Deal was attacked and clipped. His major liberal proposal, medical care for all, was trounced. The Republicans arrogantly replaced it with nothing, and for good measure, impeached Clinton over some personal issues that had nothing to do with the nation's business. Though Senate Democrats, sticking together, kept Clinton in office, the ordeal sapped the sickly party of energy it could not spare.
The 2000 presidential election was decided by one vote in the Supreme Court on a straight party-line vote...so much for the expectation that judges hold the law above party loyalty. But the Democrats had no choice but to surrender and sue for peace. Why not--the election had been close, Al Gore had actually won the popular vote, what better time to make peace? But George W. Bush acted as if he had an immense mandate, and the Democrats were too ineffectual to offer much resistance. Bush got us into two unending wars, with support from the Democrats...what choice did they have, with the drums pounding? Bush did fail at privatizing Social Security, because voters of both parties were against it. But the Democrats were too weak to follow that victory with progressive initiatives.
Bush was so unpopular by the end of his second term that a Democratic takeover, with a new spirit of co-operation from Republicans, seemed possible. But the chronically ill Democratic Party was unable to withstand pressure from a fanatically powerful Republican machine. During Barack Obama's eight years in office, no Republicans worked with him, though Obama's policies would have been in line with liberal Republicans back when there were such people. Obama finishes his term as the most popular president ever, yet he could not revive his deathly ill party. This included Hillary Clinton, who had copious experience, a strong organization, solid policy proposals, and many endorsements Instead, the nation chose someone who had none of these qualities. She had character issues, but so did her opponent. She got the most votes, but she still lost. Along with her, the Democrats are now on the outside of every branch of government, on every level.
All that remains of the Democratic Party is the corporate-friendly fundraising machine. It won't be long until the big money people desert to the winning side, leaving that house of cards to crumble. There is an opportunity here to build a party with honest, populist principles and a progressive agenda. Whatever its name, the new party will be up against horrible odds, but we might as well give it a try. A free country needs two parties, and right now America has only one.
Surprises never cease. I expected by now to be discussing the Republican Party's death and rebuilding. Instead, November 8, 2016 saw the "sudden death" of the Democratic Party, which sent supporters and detractors alike reeling. Freedom depends on a new party arising, and the more input on the party's reincarnation the better for the country. Looking back, the Democratic Party was terminally ill for a long time, and the 2016 presidential loss was its last gasp. Congress, the Supreme Court, judges down the line, and most governorships and state legislatures were already under Republican control. Many Republicans could come to regret their unexpected victory, but their party, now subjugated by Tea Party hardliners, has everything.
Some of us are old enough to remember 1964, when the Democrats held the present, and it looked as if the future belonged to them too. The Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, had won only his home state, Arizona, and five solidly Democratic states in the Deep South. Southerners voted for Goldwater because unlike Texan Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater favored preserving states' rights regarding race relations. Even so, fewer than half the Confederate states, and less than a third of the former slave states, voted Republican. Johnson feared the Democrats could lose the South, but he persevered with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts anyway. Most of the country agreed it was the right thing to do. The War on Poverty was also popular with most Americans, as a continuation of the New Deal. At the time, most Republicans also favored the goals of the New Deal and War on Poverty, though they held other plans for how to accomplish them. Goldwater's proposal to return the country to the free-for-all of the 1920's had been solidly rejected. Under the circumstances, the Democrats could have overcome Southern recalcitrance.
But the Democrats could not overcome Vietnam. Why Johnson, after campaigning against Goldwater's pitch to send American soldiers to fight, suddenly reversed himself, is a matter of argument still. But he did. In the ensuing chaos, perhaps the majority found stability in simply accepting that America was in a fight--unwanted, unessential, but a fight nonetheless--that the country must slog through no matter how unpleasant it got, and it got extremely unpleasant. Somehow, the Republicans vaporized their anti-war members, but the Democrats were hopelessly divided. In 1972 George McGovern, who campaigned for expanding the New Deal and ending the Vietnam involvement, was stomped by widely mistrusted Richard Nixon.
Later, with most of his administration in jail, Nixon resigned. Gerald Ford, the appointed Vice President, fell into the presidency. Ford was in a tough spot, trying to hold together the remnants of the Nixon presidency and oversee the final Vietnam withdrawal. Still, he barely lost to Jimmy Carter, a conservative Democrat from Georgia. After one term Carter was thoroughly defeated by Ronald Reagan, who picked up Goldwater's banner and marched to triumph. The bad news for Democrats was that Carter was the strongest candidate they had.
By the eighties, the consensus of America had moved so far rightward that policies once regarded as "reactionary" were perceived as "conservative." The Republicans had forsaken preservation of the status quo, instead pushing for return to the halcyon past, when capitalism had no controls and no opposition. The Democratic Party adopted conservatism, feebly trying to find a balance that would preserve some of the New Deal while professing loyalty to free enterprise...probably the best they could do, which shows how beaten the party was.
Bill Clinton was successful because he was skilled at getting to the center of many issues before the Republicans did. Still, his presidency was mainly a holding action, an orderly retreat, as the New Deal was attacked and clipped. His major liberal proposal, medical care for all, was trounced. The Republicans arrogantly replaced it with nothing, and for good measure, impeached Clinton over some personal issues that had nothing to do with the nation's business. Though Senate Democrats, sticking together, kept Clinton in office, the ordeal sapped the sickly party of energy it could not spare.
The 2000 presidential election was decided by one vote in the Supreme Court on a straight party-line vote...so much for the expectation that judges hold the law above party loyalty. But the Democrats had no choice but to surrender and sue for peace. Why not--the election had been close, Al Gore had actually won the popular vote, what better time to make peace? But George W. Bush acted as if he had an immense mandate, and the Democrats were too ineffectual to offer much resistance. Bush got us into two unending wars, with support from the Democrats...what choice did they have, with the drums pounding? Bush did fail at privatizing Social Security, because voters of both parties were against it. But the Democrats were too weak to follow that victory with progressive initiatives.
Bush was so unpopular by the end of his second term that a Democratic takeover, with a new spirit of co-operation from Republicans, seemed possible. But the chronically ill Democratic Party was unable to withstand pressure from a fanatically powerful Republican machine. During Barack Obama's eight years in office, no Republicans worked with him, though Obama's policies would have been in line with liberal Republicans back when there were such people. Obama finishes his term as the most popular president ever, yet he could not revive his deathly ill party. This included Hillary Clinton, who had copious experience, a strong organization, solid policy proposals, and many endorsements Instead, the nation chose someone who had none of these qualities. She had character issues, but so did her opponent. She got the most votes, but she still lost. Along with her, the Democrats are now on the outside of every branch of government, on every level.
All that remains of the Democratic Party is the corporate-friendly fundraising machine. It won't be long until the big money people desert to the winning side, leaving that house of cards to crumble. There is an opportunity here to build a party with honest, populist principles and a progressive agenda. Whatever its name, the new party will be up against horrible odds, but we might as well give it a try. A free country needs two parties, and right now America has only one.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
TRUMP APPEAL
"One mass movement readily transforms itself into another. A religious movement may develop into a social revolution or a nationalist movement; a social revolution, into militant nationalism or a religious movement; a nationalist movement into a social revolution or a religious movement."
Eric Hoffer
THE TRUE BELIEVER
Those of us who seek logical explanations for the recent election could be looking for something that does not exist. Since logic is essential to enlightened democracy, we must consider that the United States is no longer an enlightened democracy--that the horror stories of despotism in other countries and in other times really can happen here. The Mussolini-like preening and strutting of Donald Trump are merely symptoms of a serious illness infecting our society. The willingness of a nation's people to elect somebody who resembles a strongman-despot tells us that democracy is endangered, if not extinct. When convenient, the supporters of the incoming regime are quick to point out that we have a republic, that the Founders never trusted democracy, that checks and balances were written into the Constitution to prevent mob rule. These reminders are supposed to quiet the majority who voted for Hillary Clinton, and they will fail to convince. What is evident is an America so unbalanced, for whatever reasons, that someone with no government experience and a poor character reputation could get into--not to mention win--a presidential election.
The status quo is shaky, the future is uncertain, the end always near. Bad news strikes from everywhere, all the time. Escape is impossible, and individual attempts to improve the situation seem doomed to failure. And everyone seems to know it. Rational thought and collaboration could devise solutions, unexciting and incomplete to be sure--but progress could be made. But who has time for all that? We are unable to agree on the nature or importance of our problems. Sitting still, communicating calmly about solutions, are astoundingly distant prospects.
The appeal of someone who claims to have all the answers is understandable, if we throw out the possibility of reason. A majority is obviously not necessary for someone to take power who probably should not have power. An alliance of the rich and the religious (some of the leaders of the movement are both) has taken control of the country. Many Americans have long held simultaneous loyalty to both, and in recent times the two seemingly conflicting sensibilities have become solidly merged. Reason has nothing to do with it. Add to this merger of God and Mammon a hot-tempered patriotism, and we have a formidable, if not unstoppable, force.
The ultimate joining of God, Mammon, and America has no basis in logic. For example, worshippers have long been told that no man can serve both God and Mammon. The Founding Fathers were wary of establishing a national religion, and the followers of a universal God supposedly believe that the deity loves everyone, regardless of nationality. The greedy will claim that avarice is patriotic because it gives jobs to other people in the same country. The ultimate patriotic endeavor, war, despised by religions, is waged to increase trade. More examples are probably endless. The ultimate joining of greed, godliness, and fatherland represents an ultimate triumph for doublethink, the holding of at least two opposing thoughts in the conscious mind simultaneously, and believing them. This has happened in nearly half the American electorate. They have elected a man who has no actual plans, but whose demeanor promises he has all the answers, that he will shake things up, that he will relieve them of the unbearable ennui of their mundane lives.
Whether their lives are superficially better or worse than others' lives is a matter for endless debate. The fact is that the beliefs many Americans, that their candidate can deliver them to a better state of being, are short-lived. A demagogue who wishes to stay in power must continually renew the crowd's enthusiasm. Donald Trump is up to the challenge. Orwell's "Two-Minutes Hates" are too gross for modern methods of mass communication and mind control. As a master of electronic media, Trump is second to none. For brevity, zeal, and finding a despicable "other", nobody is more capable than the new leader of the free world.
Hoffer observed in 1951 that the adherents of religious, social, and nationalist movements could readily shift their loyalties. The only requirement for each movement was that it demanded total self-surrender in return for assurance of having all the answers. Today's electronics allow the instant exchange of dogma in the human mind. Demagogues do not care which philosophy is current as long as the result is constant, total loyalty from their followers. The rapid changes in accepted ideology could resemble a psychic strobe light, with similar emotional results. Small wonder crowds can lash out on command.
Good government is something we had better not hope for--after all, the Republican Congress has been elected and re-elected on a promise to get government off our backs. Trump can be counted on to keep the masses occupied while the politicians go about their business of eliminating the parts of government that help the common people while strengthening the parts that enrich the elites. The ultimate goal is to render working people so impoverished that scraping out a living will keep them too busy to poke their noses into social, political, or commercial reform. Resistance will be difficult, and some will think it impossible. The Constitution was ordained and established in hopes of preventing what has happened, but it provides scant resources for reversing it.
We should insist on rigorous adherence to the Bill of Rights, in both letter and spirit. This will get harder as the president appoints, and the Senate approves, judges who will toe the party line. Violent revolution being useless, we will need to resist peacefully, and the powers that be will not be peaceful. Some of us, perhaps all of us, will be tempted to change sides, to play the game and line up with the winners. I doubt if they will have any success in their efforts--ideologues and authoritarians do not forgive or forget. Those who continue to resist will need to constantly strive to "hang loose, stay strong, and watch for the signs." It will not be easy.
Eric Hoffer
THE TRUE BELIEVER
Those of us who seek logical explanations for the recent election could be looking for something that does not exist. Since logic is essential to enlightened democracy, we must consider that the United States is no longer an enlightened democracy--that the horror stories of despotism in other countries and in other times really can happen here. The Mussolini-like preening and strutting of Donald Trump are merely symptoms of a serious illness infecting our society. The willingness of a nation's people to elect somebody who resembles a strongman-despot tells us that democracy is endangered, if not extinct. When convenient, the supporters of the incoming regime are quick to point out that we have a republic, that the Founders never trusted democracy, that checks and balances were written into the Constitution to prevent mob rule. These reminders are supposed to quiet the majority who voted for Hillary Clinton, and they will fail to convince. What is evident is an America so unbalanced, for whatever reasons, that someone with no government experience and a poor character reputation could get into--not to mention win--a presidential election.
The status quo is shaky, the future is uncertain, the end always near. Bad news strikes from everywhere, all the time. Escape is impossible, and individual attempts to improve the situation seem doomed to failure. And everyone seems to know it. Rational thought and collaboration could devise solutions, unexciting and incomplete to be sure--but progress could be made. But who has time for all that? We are unable to agree on the nature or importance of our problems. Sitting still, communicating calmly about solutions, are astoundingly distant prospects.
The appeal of someone who claims to have all the answers is understandable, if we throw out the possibility of reason. A majority is obviously not necessary for someone to take power who probably should not have power. An alliance of the rich and the religious (some of the leaders of the movement are both) has taken control of the country. Many Americans have long held simultaneous loyalty to both, and in recent times the two seemingly conflicting sensibilities have become solidly merged. Reason has nothing to do with it. Add to this merger of God and Mammon a hot-tempered patriotism, and we have a formidable, if not unstoppable, force.
The ultimate joining of God, Mammon, and America has no basis in logic. For example, worshippers have long been told that no man can serve both God and Mammon. The Founding Fathers were wary of establishing a national religion, and the followers of a universal God supposedly believe that the deity loves everyone, regardless of nationality. The greedy will claim that avarice is patriotic because it gives jobs to other people in the same country. The ultimate patriotic endeavor, war, despised by religions, is waged to increase trade. More examples are probably endless. The ultimate joining of greed, godliness, and fatherland represents an ultimate triumph for doublethink, the holding of at least two opposing thoughts in the conscious mind simultaneously, and believing them. This has happened in nearly half the American electorate. They have elected a man who has no actual plans, but whose demeanor promises he has all the answers, that he will shake things up, that he will relieve them of the unbearable ennui of their mundane lives.
Whether their lives are superficially better or worse than others' lives is a matter for endless debate. The fact is that the beliefs many Americans, that their candidate can deliver them to a better state of being, are short-lived. A demagogue who wishes to stay in power must continually renew the crowd's enthusiasm. Donald Trump is up to the challenge. Orwell's "Two-Minutes Hates" are too gross for modern methods of mass communication and mind control. As a master of electronic media, Trump is second to none. For brevity, zeal, and finding a despicable "other", nobody is more capable than the new leader of the free world.
Hoffer observed in 1951 that the adherents of religious, social, and nationalist movements could readily shift their loyalties. The only requirement for each movement was that it demanded total self-surrender in return for assurance of having all the answers. Today's electronics allow the instant exchange of dogma in the human mind. Demagogues do not care which philosophy is current as long as the result is constant, total loyalty from their followers. The rapid changes in accepted ideology could resemble a psychic strobe light, with similar emotional results. Small wonder crowds can lash out on command.
Good government is something we had better not hope for--after all, the Republican Congress has been elected and re-elected on a promise to get government off our backs. Trump can be counted on to keep the masses occupied while the politicians go about their business of eliminating the parts of government that help the common people while strengthening the parts that enrich the elites. The ultimate goal is to render working people so impoverished that scraping out a living will keep them too busy to poke their noses into social, political, or commercial reform. Resistance will be difficult, and some will think it impossible. The Constitution was ordained and established in hopes of preventing what has happened, but it provides scant resources for reversing it.
We should insist on rigorous adherence to the Bill of Rights, in both letter and spirit. This will get harder as the president appoints, and the Senate approves, judges who will toe the party line. Violent revolution being useless, we will need to resist peacefully, and the powers that be will not be peaceful. Some of us, perhaps all of us, will be tempted to change sides, to play the game and line up with the winners. I doubt if they will have any success in their efforts--ideologues and authoritarians do not forgive or forget. Those who continue to resist will need to constantly strive to "hang loose, stay strong, and watch for the signs." It will not be easy.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
THAT RIPPING, TEARING SOUND
"It will take a lot more time to understand the full implications of what happened in America on November 8. But one outcome is already clear: Half of Americans are convinced their country is on a steadier path, and the other half are filled with fear and despair about its future. Half think they have avoided catastrophe; the other half know they have collided with it head-on."
Laila Lalani
THE NATION 11/28/2016
Had the other side won, this statement would still be true. Our country is really The Divided States. Despite the obvious sameness shared by all human beings, the American people are divided into two oppositional camps. Not since the Civil War have we witnessed such division. We are beyond mere disagreement over public policy. We are at a fighting point about what our nation stands for, and what our leadership needs do about it. Although we all must eat, drink, sleep and die--though we all want to raise happy families and live with dignity and respect--we are sundered as a people between two absolute opposites, with no room, even in this vast land, for the twain to meet. Peaceful co-existence is impossible.
Any thoughtful person knows that all-or-nothing attitudes are deadly to free societies. What are we to do? Some Californians entertain the fantasy of secession, just as some Texans did four years ago. But we are the United States, no matter how divided we might be within our borders. There is no escape. We have to deal with each other.
Since the election was roughly equal (the losers, as we all know, actually got more votes) some cautionary compromise on the part of the winners would be welcome. But no one expects compromise. How do we partially privatize Social Security? Or build half a wall? Ban some abortions? Is climate change half real, and half hoax? The list goes on: Obamacare, torture, money in politics, marijuana, guns, voting laws...we disagree on so many vital social, economic, and political issues. Compromise is not going to happen because each side is, for better or worse, thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of its beliefs.
Compromise is a boring, uncomfortable process, which leaves neither side satisfied. However, it is essential to governing a free society. Governing on a daily basis requires unceasing compromise. This is the duty that "We the People" took on when we decided to dispense with the Divine Right of Kings. It is a grown-up decision, and as adults know, nobody gets his own way all the time. The nature of maturity is acceptance of the mundane necessity of compromise.
Yet no one expects compromise. In the first place, the winning side won everything, under the laws: House, Senate, and Presidency. The Supreme Court will soon be irrevocably in its grasp. The losing side has some justified claims of foul play, but these claims will be ignored. We would like to look for generosity from the winners, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nor should we expect the losers (who represent the actual majority, and who still hold some potent resources) to grovel in hopes of mercy. Had the election gone the other way, the situation would be the same. If the winners are seeking to govern effectively, they must extend the peace offerings, and there is no evidence that they will do any such thing.
The losers might seek solace in the fact that, despite the pledges of party and national unity since the election, the wining side is led by people who loathe and mistrust one another. This is a false hope. The personalities will jockey for power within their own ranks, but none will ally with the other side. Whoever ultimately comes out on top will be more powerful than anyone was before. Whoever gains complete power over the winners will not be considerate of the losers.
The losers must dig in and fight. The fight had better be non-violent, because the winning side has many guns, and the police. And history proves that non-violence is actually effective in bringing about positive social change, while in most cases violence merely changes despots. The victors will romp. But if we would preserve anything of freedom for the future--not necessarily the next election cycle, but for some time in the dim, unforeseen future--we dare not surrender. We are in for a long fight, and we need to be ready and willing to take beating after beating and still get back up.
Long ago, in the polis of Athens, democracy was invented for only one reason: none of the warlords could gain absolute power. Finally tired of fighting, and seeing no side could really win, they decided to let people govern themselves. By people, they meant warlords and their male relatives and friends. But for mankind to make progress, people have to start somewhere. We are still in the growing and learning process. As Barack Obama reminds us, the line of history is not straight. But the struggle for a freer, fairer history cannot stop.
"It will take a lot more time to understand the full implications of what happened in America on November 8. But one outcome is already clear: Half of Americans are convinced their country is on a steadier path, and the other half are filled with fear and despair about its future. Half think they have avoided catastrophe; the other half know they have collided with it head-on."
Laila Lalani
THE NATION 11/28/2016
Had the other side won, this statement would still be true. Our country is really The Divided States. Despite the obvious sameness shared by all human beings, the American people are divided into two oppositional camps. Not since the Civil War have we witnessed such division. We are beyond mere disagreement over public policy. We are at a fighting point about what our nation stands for, and what our leadership needs do about it. Although we all must eat, drink, sleep and die--though we all want to raise happy families and live with dignity and respect--we are sundered as a people between two absolute opposites, with no room, even in this vast land, for the twain to meet. Peaceful co-existence is impossible.
Any thoughtful person knows that all-or-nothing attitudes are deadly to free societies. What are we to do? Some Californians entertain the fantasy of secession, just as some Texans did four years ago. But we are the United States, no matter how divided we might be within our borders. There is no escape. We have to deal with each other.
Since the election was roughly equal (the losers, as we all know, actually got more votes) some cautionary compromise on the part of the winners would be welcome. But no one expects compromise. How do we partially privatize Social Security? Or build half a wall? Ban some abortions? Is climate change half real, and half hoax? The list goes on: Obamacare, torture, money in politics, marijuana, guns, voting laws...we disagree on so many vital social, economic, and political issues. Compromise is not going to happen because each side is, for better or worse, thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of its beliefs.
Compromise is a boring, uncomfortable process, which leaves neither side satisfied. However, it is essential to governing a free society. Governing on a daily basis requires unceasing compromise. This is the duty that "We the People" took on when we decided to dispense with the Divine Right of Kings. It is a grown-up decision, and as adults know, nobody gets his own way all the time. The nature of maturity is acceptance of the mundane necessity of compromise.
Yet no one expects compromise. In the first place, the winning side won everything, under the laws: House, Senate, and Presidency. The Supreme Court will soon be irrevocably in its grasp. The losing side has some justified claims of foul play, but these claims will be ignored. We would like to look for generosity from the winners, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nor should we expect the losers (who represent the actual majority, and who still hold some potent resources) to grovel in hopes of mercy. Had the election gone the other way, the situation would be the same. If the winners are seeking to govern effectively, they must extend the peace offerings, and there is no evidence that they will do any such thing.
The losers might seek solace in the fact that, despite the pledges of party and national unity since the election, the wining side is led by people who loathe and mistrust one another. This is a false hope. The personalities will jockey for power within their own ranks, but none will ally with the other side. Whoever ultimately comes out on top will be more powerful than anyone was before. Whoever gains complete power over the winners will not be considerate of the losers.
The losers must dig in and fight. The fight had better be non-violent, because the winning side has many guns, and the police. And history proves that non-violence is actually effective in bringing about positive social change, while in most cases violence merely changes despots. The victors will romp. But if we would preserve anything of freedom for the future--not necessarily the next election cycle, but for some time in the dim, unforeseen future--we dare not surrender. We are in for a long fight, and we need to be ready and willing to take beating after beating and still get back up.
Long ago, in the polis of Athens, democracy was invented for only one reason: none of the warlords could gain absolute power. Finally tired of fighting, and seeing no side could really win, they decided to let people govern themselves. By people, they meant warlords and their male relatives and friends. But for mankind to make progress, people have to start somewhere. We are still in the growing and learning process. As Barack Obama reminds us, the line of history is not straight. But the struggle for a freer, fairer history cannot stop.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
TEA PARTY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." Franz Kafka
Rod Serling's prophetic "Twilight Zone", still tremendously popular half-a-century after its prime time, reminds us now what we were reminded then: there are stranger things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Our eyes are opened to realities we thought we had neatly stowed. "A Stop at Willoughby", aired in 1960 during the first season, looked at the frustrations of the modern corporate individual and the impossibility of escape into a simpler, serener, stabler yesteryear. In 2012, mass movements, notably the Tea Party, have been demonstrably determined to move the entire country back to a halcyon past. Tea Partiers, extolling the individual, have substituted a collective for an individualist solution to the troubles of modernity, but the result is the same.
James Daly plays Gart Williams, a high-powered Madison Avenue executive harassed by his boss at work and his wife at home. Napping on the train back to the suburbs at night, he hears the conductor announcing "Willoughby." Upon awakening, he finds it is daylight, summertime, and...1880. The train starts moving, he awakens again, having returned to winter, 1960, nighttime. He asks another conductor about "Willoughby", only to be told there is no such stop on this line. As the pressure increases from all sides, as he gets no respite at work or at home, Williams again naps on the train, and again wakes up in Willoughby, in a summer past. He learns a little more, but he stays on the train, which returns him to modern times. His situation grows more hectic desperate. At his wits' end, he makes up his mind that next time--he stops at Willoughby.
He does. In the sleepy summertime, with the band playing on the stand, he meets a couple of boys who have been fishing. Tomorrow, he will join them. He walks happily into his new life. The scene fades to a snow bank by the railroad track, in 1960, where the authorities are picking up the body of Gart Williams, who jumped off the train. Willoughby is the name of the undertaker, into whose hearse they load the corpse.
Serling protested the fast pace and high pressure that some people succumb to in modern times, how people can be driven to suicide. There is a simple lesson here: we all need to take it easy. But two generations later, we live in a world that is obsessed with material acquisition, one that celebrates high pressure and derides the "whiners" who are unable to keep up the pace. Some of those who cheer the breakneck temper of modernity would take us back to a time before government began to interfere with the ability of the successful to really trample on everyone else. The Tea Party Patriots, the politicians who exploit them and the billionaires who finance them, have set us a goal of marching boldly into the future by going back to the past, by jettisoning all the social policies and programs that America and all other industrialized countries have adopted, starting around the 1880's. The ambitions of this mass movement resemble a collective Willoughby. Anyone who knows night and winter happen--in short, reasonable people--can see that what this movement seeks is self-destruction.
The Tea Partiers of the new millennium are a far cry from traditional conservatives. Not too long ago (say, the 1960's), conservatives were for maintaining the status quo. Believing society to be mostly in good shape, they felt it unwise to change too much, too quickly. Some change is desirable, even conservatives would agree, but changes should come slowly, only after proving they are really needed, and they will actually work. In contrast, liberals would advocate for the changes they think are needed, believing we can always make adjustments as we go along. In this respect conservatives and liberals differ only in degree. There is always room for honest disagreement and compromise. Modern "conservatives" actually detest the present. They would destroy every government function save the military and police, and compel the whole society to return to the nineteenth century, forcefully if necessary. Then (and only then) do they believe we can proceed into a future of health, wealth, and happiness. Lacking a clear explanation from the Tea Partiers as to what they seek, we are free to conclude that Serling's "Willoughby" aptly describes their goal.
Many flaws are evident in any actual Willoughby of 1880. The times were simpler, lacking the automobiles, radio, and television of the mid-twentieth century--certainly missing the computers and electronic gadgets of the twenty-first. Yet the Tea Partiers make no proposals to rid our planet of modern inventions. They would free us from the social, political, and economic changes of the modern age. They want a return to a time of low taxes and freewheeling capitalism, when each of us could theoretically ascend to celestial heights or descend into deep misery, depending on our ability and drive. With opportunity for material improvements universal, there was no need for government handouts or taxpayer giveaways. A man earned what he got and kept it. Life, they believe, was ideal.
The fishing might not be so good, though, with raw sewage and industrial waste going straight into streams. But with the twelve-hour day and six-day week, fishing might be more fantasy than experience. Still, without TV, movies, computer games and the like, there was less to do. There were books, and kids did learn to read--those who did not avail themselves of the "opportunity" to go into factory work at six years old. Concerning opportunity, we know the plutocrats who owned the country rigged the game so they and theirs had more "good old equal opportunity" than everyone else. There were no intrusive government regulations trying to give commoners a chance to improve their lot. The list: epidemics, pollution, corruption, Jim Crow, ongoing colonial wars--goes on. The point is that 1880 had its own troubles, and we cannot trade the problems we have now for those we solved then, even if we desperately want to.
The emotion of nostalgia is part of human nature, necessary in its place. Tearing down the social contract because some of us think we were better off without it is a psychotic proposition. Even without a boss as sadistic as Mr. Misrell, or a spouse as coldly ambitious as Jane Williams, the stress of living can torment even the sturdiest souls. Desperation to simplify is perfectly understandable. We can resolve to take life easier, to smell the flowers, to think. We can encourage others to do these things. We cannot get rid of bullying bosses and grasping family members by stealing Social Security for Wall Street, by turning Medicare into a cheap coupon exchange. We might improve our individual lives by realizing we all face the same challenges, and treat our fellow humans accordingly. We cannot turn back time.
Gart Williams, a man alone, gave up the fight and jumped to Willoughby. America at the start of the third millenniuim has many isolated individuals, trying to live in a corporate-dominated world We all have a rough time. Some people have banded together in a vain attempt to bring us back to halcyon days. In the process they have allied themselves with the very corporate interests that have made their lives so impossibly complicated. In terms of society, a stop at Willoughby comes down to collective suicide.
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." Franz Kafka
Rod Serling's prophetic "Twilight Zone", still tremendously popular half-a-century after its prime time, reminds us now what we were reminded then: there are stranger things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Our eyes are opened to realities we thought we had neatly stowed. "A Stop at Willoughby", aired in 1960 during the first season, looked at the frustrations of the modern corporate individual and the impossibility of escape into a simpler, serener, stabler yesteryear. In 2012, mass movements, notably the Tea Party, have been demonstrably determined to move the entire country back to a halcyon past. Tea Partiers, extolling the individual, have substituted a collective for an individualist solution to the troubles of modernity, but the result is the same.
James Daly plays Gart Williams, a high-powered Madison Avenue executive harassed by his boss at work and his wife at home. Napping on the train back to the suburbs at night, he hears the conductor announcing "Willoughby." Upon awakening, he finds it is daylight, summertime, and...1880. The train starts moving, he awakens again, having returned to winter, 1960, nighttime. He asks another conductor about "Willoughby", only to be told there is no such stop on this line. As the pressure increases from all sides, as he gets no respite at work or at home, Williams again naps on the train, and again wakes up in Willoughby, in a summer past. He learns a little more, but he stays on the train, which returns him to modern times. His situation grows more hectic desperate. At his wits' end, he makes up his mind that next time--he stops at Willoughby.
He does. In the sleepy summertime, with the band playing on the stand, he meets a couple of boys who have been fishing. Tomorrow, he will join them. He walks happily into his new life. The scene fades to a snow bank by the railroad track, in 1960, where the authorities are picking up the body of Gart Williams, who jumped off the train. Willoughby is the name of the undertaker, into whose hearse they load the corpse.
Serling protested the fast pace and high pressure that some people succumb to in modern times, how people can be driven to suicide. There is a simple lesson here: we all need to take it easy. But two generations later, we live in a world that is obsessed with material acquisition, one that celebrates high pressure and derides the "whiners" who are unable to keep up the pace. Some of those who cheer the breakneck temper of modernity would take us back to a time before government began to interfere with the ability of the successful to really trample on everyone else. The Tea Party Patriots, the politicians who exploit them and the billionaires who finance them, have set us a goal of marching boldly into the future by going back to the past, by jettisoning all the social policies and programs that America and all other industrialized countries have adopted, starting around the 1880's. The ambitions of this mass movement resemble a collective Willoughby. Anyone who knows night and winter happen--in short, reasonable people--can see that what this movement seeks is self-destruction.
The Tea Partiers of the new millennium are a far cry from traditional conservatives. Not too long ago (say, the 1960's), conservatives were for maintaining the status quo. Believing society to be mostly in good shape, they felt it unwise to change too much, too quickly. Some change is desirable, even conservatives would agree, but changes should come slowly, only after proving they are really needed, and they will actually work. In contrast, liberals would advocate for the changes they think are needed, believing we can always make adjustments as we go along. In this respect conservatives and liberals differ only in degree. There is always room for honest disagreement and compromise. Modern "conservatives" actually detest the present. They would destroy every government function save the military and police, and compel the whole society to return to the nineteenth century, forcefully if necessary. Then (and only then) do they believe we can proceed into a future of health, wealth, and happiness. Lacking a clear explanation from the Tea Partiers as to what they seek, we are free to conclude that Serling's "Willoughby" aptly describes their goal.
Many flaws are evident in any actual Willoughby of 1880. The times were simpler, lacking the automobiles, radio, and television of the mid-twentieth century--certainly missing the computers and electronic gadgets of the twenty-first. Yet the Tea Partiers make no proposals to rid our planet of modern inventions. They would free us from the social, political, and economic changes of the modern age. They want a return to a time of low taxes and freewheeling capitalism, when each of us could theoretically ascend to celestial heights or descend into deep misery, depending on our ability and drive. With opportunity for material improvements universal, there was no need for government handouts or taxpayer giveaways. A man earned what he got and kept it. Life, they believe, was ideal.
The fishing might not be so good, though, with raw sewage and industrial waste going straight into streams. But with the twelve-hour day and six-day week, fishing might be more fantasy than experience. Still, without TV, movies, computer games and the like, there was less to do. There were books, and kids did learn to read--those who did not avail themselves of the "opportunity" to go into factory work at six years old. Concerning opportunity, we know the plutocrats who owned the country rigged the game so they and theirs had more "good old equal opportunity" than everyone else. There were no intrusive government regulations trying to give commoners a chance to improve their lot. The list: epidemics, pollution, corruption, Jim Crow, ongoing colonial wars--goes on. The point is that 1880 had its own troubles, and we cannot trade the problems we have now for those we solved then, even if we desperately want to.
The emotion of nostalgia is part of human nature, necessary in its place. Tearing down the social contract because some of us think we were better off without it is a psychotic proposition. Even without a boss as sadistic as Mr. Misrell, or a spouse as coldly ambitious as Jane Williams, the stress of living can torment even the sturdiest souls. Desperation to simplify is perfectly understandable. We can resolve to take life easier, to smell the flowers, to think. We can encourage others to do these things. We cannot get rid of bullying bosses and grasping family members by stealing Social Security for Wall Street, by turning Medicare into a cheap coupon exchange. We might improve our individual lives by realizing we all face the same challenges, and treat our fellow humans accordingly. We cannot turn back time.
Gart Williams, a man alone, gave up the fight and jumped to Willoughby. America at the start of the third millenniuim has many isolated individuals, trying to live in a corporate-dominated world We all have a rough time. Some people have banded together in a vain attempt to bring us back to halcyon days. In the process they have allied themselves with the very corporate interests that have made their lives so impossibly complicated. In terms of society, a stop at Willoughby comes down to collective suicide.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
BEFORE WE GLOAT
Rachel Maddow has revived her show's"GOP in Exile" segment. It is entertaining, but liberals and progressives are not entitled to gloat about the 2012 election. We are understandably relieved: Social Security, Medicare, Planned Parenthood, even Sesame Street (among other popular government programs) will be preserved. The losing side made no bones about taking them out. Though we get a sigh of relief, we had better forego hubris. This is not a matter of "getting down to their level" or practicing the Golden Rule. In reality the election results were, overall, decisive and pleasant for left-wingers, but still very close. Overconfidence will persuade many liberals to relax their guard, which we dare not do.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
SCAPEGOATS AND PUBLIC DECENCY
The Davis pepper-spraying incident has been settled for a cool million. And John Pike, the sprayer, is now an ex-UC Davis policeman. From a corporate standpoint, a guilty party has been punished, complainers paid off, public outrage placated, problem solved. A former policeman needs to find a new line of work. His education, training, and experience (mostly funded by taxpayers) are all down the rat hole. The important fact to everyone up and down the chain-of-command: the UCD administration, the University of California hierarchy, the politicians who lay down the rules for education and the businessmen who control the funding--is that the proper authorities have dealt with the problem. To the proper authorities, Pike's misdeed was not that he sprayed poison on citizens who were acting within their rights, but that he caused a public relations difficulty that higher-ups--way higher-ups--could not avoid addressing. Another scapegoat bites the dust.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)