"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison."
Henry David Thoreau
"Civil Disobedience"
"When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game."
John Lennon
In this age of alternative facts, we who commit thoughtcrime need to strengthen our efforts to make our point plainly, repeatedly, and peacefully. Our enthusiasm for resistance to the neofascist policies of the current government of the United States must be expressed in strategies that are smart, effective, and above all (since violence is neither smart nor effective) non-violent. Current outpourings of activism against the one-party state carry an optimism born of desperation that we (who are old enough) remember of the civil rights and anti-war protests of the sixties and seventies. An encouraging rebirth of that confident commitment is essential, but we must learn from past mistakes. Peace activists of the sixties and seventies allied with destructive revolutionary elements because it appeared we shared the same goals. We were wrong, and our mistaken alliance meant death and burial of progressive politics for the next half-century. The lesson is clear, now that we have a new chance: we reject violence outright.
Gandhi and King showed us that peaceful resistance leads to satisfactory redress of grievances, for those who persevere. Peaceful assemblies of the cities and seventies began to fail when movement leaders collaborated with protesters who sought bellicose shortcuts: urban rioting, militancy, robberies and kidnappings, destructions of universities and other public property. The Chicago police riots of 1968 were enormously popular among average Americans, who saw that shocking brutality as necessary pushback to criminals who were destroying the society we had built over a couple centuries. Most Americans, perceiving only two choices, preferred creeping fascism to chaotic revolutionary upheaval. The establishment propaganda machine deserves praise for eliminating any third choices in the culture's perception. "Our" fascism or "theirs" were the only alternatives most Americans could see.
People like orderly existence. Americans are blest with political and social systems which have provided order with reasonable liberty for most of us, in the long run--despite the wars, depressions, genocides and man-made tragedies we share with all mankind. Now, finding ourselves facing government exclusively by corporate interests--real fascism--many of us are exercising our right "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." If we do not want to get used to fascism we have no choice but to resist--peacefully.
Attendance at the "Women's March" of January 21 happily exceeded everyone's predictions. Progressives were uplifted and energized. Soon afterward came a protest at Berkeley against a rightwing speaker. The speaker had a right to be there, as did the protesters against him. Then anarchists entered the scene, breaking and burning. Right-wingers instantly pounced on this news, associating the destructive elements with the peaceful ones. We need to denounce this and all violence--going beyond words. We need to routinely co-operate with police efforts to assure our demonstrations remain peaceful. At the Women's Marches, police officers showed an unexpected tendency to co-operate with the marchers, to share our common humanity. It is to our advantage to build on that understanding.
Acknowledging that civil disobedience means that some laws will be broken, we know the difference between impeding traffic and burning down neighborhoods. When protesters blocking bridges for civil rights are attacked by dogs or sprayed with fire hoses by the police, the general public is confronted with two choices: Build enough jails to hold all trespassers, or ask why they risk arrest. We find they seek for themselves the same rights we all want. Instead of rigidly enforcing the letter of the law, we might look toward redressing their grievances. But since most people (no American exceptionalism here) prefer rigid order to chaos, public attitudes change once peaceful protest turns violent, which helped ruin the hopes of the sixties--proving the means justifies the end.
The prison boom of the past half-century, finally running down from its own inertia, can be revived if average citizens are frightened enough. The rich and powerful skillfully use media to keep people scared, and to take advantage of that fear. We need not help the plutocrats' cause by appearing to embrace or entertain violent resistance to the alternative facts. Our only hopes for surfing this tsunami of neofascism and rebuilding afterward lie in staying focused and saving our strength. To be fair, radical events of the Vietnam era: takeover of public buildings, burning of storefronts, even the odd kidnapping of a rich man's offspring, are tiny compared to the enormous destruction our country committed on a foreign country in our name, or the wholesale violence committed by police on our citizens. No matter--the need for order prevailed fifty years ago, as it will prevail now, and we who seek positive chance must work with that truth. Besides, even if our side won a violent revolution, we would only be taking on fascism with a different name.
Witness Russia a mere century ago.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
REVIVING HOPE
"It was not the least of Hitler's formidable powers that he knew how to drain his opponents (at least in Continental Europe) of all hope."
Eric Hoffer
The True Believer
To watch congressmen sneak away from their constituents under police escort, or refuse to meet them at all, is astonishing--one thing politicians love is meeting with their voters. Then Donald Trump holds a press conference wherein he answers none of the questions he is asked, instead rambling about his election victory. Afterward he goes on a campaign tour, revitalizing his still loyal base. Something's happening here, something strange to America. Traditional relationships between elected leaders, media, and voters have been shattered, and politicians of the one-party state are making sure we know about it. Steadfast opposition has sprung up. There is a fight, and it matters who will win.
Current issues deal with medical and retirement benefits. Voters elected people who pledged to end these benefits...maybe to replace, maybe to improve, but definitely to end them in their present form. Though it is hard to see how these changes will help commoners, it is obvious how they will improve the bottom line for the upper classes who generously donate to the politicians on the winning side, leaving no doubt where the politicians' loyalties lie, and why they are not interested in hobnobbing with constituents. Going further down the road to hopelessness, Trump bans from press conferences reporters working for news agencies he dislikes. We get the message: the one-percent controls the one-party state, and the sooner we the people shed our tired concepts of democracy, the less trouble we shall have. Ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Get over it.
The marches, demonstrations, town hall protests, and other ongoing happenings show us hopefully that many citizens have no intention of surrendering. The congressmen who avoid their voters look like cowards, and the president who rants against the media looks like a buffoon. But the president and congress, unconcerned by the opinions of public or press, have no intention of recognizing the opposition's validity. Rationally or not, the rightwing base is unwavering in its support for the one-percent and the one-party state, and Trump and the congress will use that loyal following to show the rest of us that resistance is in vain. Tempting as it is to believe it, to get over it, we dare not fall into this trap. The conflict is about how we shall live, and what kind of future Americans will have--indeed, the stakes truly are that high.
The elites who dominate the movement known as conservatism are possessed by a religious determination to restore the social and political order they enjoyed at the end of the nineteenth century, when they held sway over everyone and everything. They are equally determined to strengthen their hold using modern methods of persuasion. Inspired by Saints Ayn, Ronald, and Milton, disciples of this plutocratic faith have been regaining power slowly since WWII. Now they have it all, and will stick at nothing to keep it. Our motivation for resistance springs from a healthy desire to avoid going back to being wage slaves. There is scant room for reconciliation between these two goals. Our resistance strengthens our hope. When the raucous supporters of the election's winners tell us to get over it, they tell us to submit to the hopelessness that (for reasons we cannot see) seems to work for them. With the lines drawn and the curse cast, our choices are clear.
Eric Hoffer
The True Believer
To watch congressmen sneak away from their constituents under police escort, or refuse to meet them at all, is astonishing--one thing politicians love is meeting with their voters. Then Donald Trump holds a press conference wherein he answers none of the questions he is asked, instead rambling about his election victory. Afterward he goes on a campaign tour, revitalizing his still loyal base. Something's happening here, something strange to America. Traditional relationships between elected leaders, media, and voters have been shattered, and politicians of the one-party state are making sure we know about it. Steadfast opposition has sprung up. There is a fight, and it matters who will win.
Current issues deal with medical and retirement benefits. Voters elected people who pledged to end these benefits...maybe to replace, maybe to improve, but definitely to end them in their present form. Though it is hard to see how these changes will help commoners, it is obvious how they will improve the bottom line for the upper classes who generously donate to the politicians on the winning side, leaving no doubt where the politicians' loyalties lie, and why they are not interested in hobnobbing with constituents. Going further down the road to hopelessness, Trump bans from press conferences reporters working for news agencies he dislikes. We get the message: the one-percent controls the one-party state, and the sooner we the people shed our tired concepts of democracy, the less trouble we shall have. Ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Get over it.
The marches, demonstrations, town hall protests, and other ongoing happenings show us hopefully that many citizens have no intention of surrendering. The congressmen who avoid their voters look like cowards, and the president who rants against the media looks like a buffoon. But the president and congress, unconcerned by the opinions of public or press, have no intention of recognizing the opposition's validity. Rationally or not, the rightwing base is unwavering in its support for the one-percent and the one-party state, and Trump and the congress will use that loyal following to show the rest of us that resistance is in vain. Tempting as it is to believe it, to get over it, we dare not fall into this trap. The conflict is about how we shall live, and what kind of future Americans will have--indeed, the stakes truly are that high.
The elites who dominate the movement known as conservatism are possessed by a religious determination to restore the social and political order they enjoyed at the end of the nineteenth century, when they held sway over everyone and everything. They are equally determined to strengthen their hold using modern methods of persuasion. Inspired by Saints Ayn, Ronald, and Milton, disciples of this plutocratic faith have been regaining power slowly since WWII. Now they have it all, and will stick at nothing to keep it. Our motivation for resistance springs from a healthy desire to avoid going back to being wage slaves. There is scant room for reconciliation between these two goals. Our resistance strengthens our hope. When the raucous supporters of the election's winners tell us to get over it, they tell us to submit to the hopelessness that (for reasons we cannot see) seems to work for them. With the lines drawn and the curse cast, our choices are clear.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
G.W. Matson: JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID
G.W. Matson: JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID: "Robbery, whether of land or a way of life, requires force or at least its credible threat; it's why thieves carry guns, and often ...
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID
"Robbery, whether of land or a way of life, requires force or at least its credible threat; it's why thieves carry guns, and often use them."
Naomi Klein
The Shock Doctrine
As a businessman, Donald Trump is well aware that he did not win the presidential election in a landslide. Still, he makes the claim: Is he setting America up for another "deal"? America's current one-party government is dismantling what remains of the New Deal, against the will of the American people, while Trump hides the pea, again, under a false election controversy. The drama will end with corporate interests (Trump being one) robbing the country--and the people, realizing they have been robbed, will have to "get over it." We will be reminded that we do not have a democracy. We have a republic, whereby a few rule for the benefit of all. And the few who rule will decide who benefits most. When Donald Trump says "I will be your voice," he invites the rest of us to keep quiet. Some Americans--yes, Americans--will like that freedom. Those who speak out will not be allowed to spoil the party. Force comes in here.
State coercion is now quite sophisticated. Beheading, stoning, and firing squads have fallen out out of fashion, though some despots in small countries are trying to revive the traditions. Dachaus and Gulags are also obsolete, at least on the grand scale of old times. Elites no longer need such gross displays of brute force to retain their power. Certainly, these methods are still available, and are still used by dictators here and there. But to plutocrats who rule on a global scale, who covet real power, subtler and more effective methods are available. That boot can be kept on the human face most of the time without the face's owner even knowing it.
When face owners do become aware of the boot, our corporate rulers have refined ways to make them see reason...cultural, social, bureaucratic, and economic in nature...some artistically simple. They who control the economy control jobs, and high unemployment rates keep most troublemakers harmless if not quiet. The threat of force is there: Starvation is brutal. But it is a step removed from the plutocrats who are manipulating the threat. With joblessness high, the rich can get people to work for less, to surrender medical and pension benefits. The rich can put the money they have taken into stocks--robbery plain and simple.
When the workers start to complain, the powerful point out "others" who are making life tough for the "real American good people." Since tribalism goes back untold thousands of years, humans are already programmed to hate those who look or sound strange; those who pray differently, come from different places, or in the age of electronic information, live far away. Dwelling on and denigrating peoples' superficial differences make it difficult to realize how much in common we all have. If the elites play their cards right they can even convince people to brutalize one another over superficial differences, thus saving both money and blame. Serious rebellion, through force, is out of the question. Police, now equipped with armor, often behave more like occupying colonial armies than neighborhood protectors. And though some individual cases of police brutality may have rational explanations, there is no doubt that police in America are killing far more citizens than police anywhere else in the "advanced" world. And when we allow violence to be routinely visited on "others", we automatically give police the authority to do the same to us.
American upper class citizens, like those everywhere, crave the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Having lost some of that power in the Great Depression (when Franklin Roosevelt, termed by the upper class he came from a "traitor to his class", instituted measures to reduce some of the social and economic differences between classes) they have ever since been plotting and implementing a coup to restore their power. Having achieved gradual success over the past forty years, they have now completed the coup. The only struggle now is between those in the upper crust, concerning who will be in charge. The rich and powerful do not consider Donald Trump to be their first choice, even though he is one of them. Still, he can be counted on to enhance his assets--and therefore their own. However, there are risks with their base.
The French aristocrats thought they could control the Jacobins, and the German capitalists and Junkers thought they could control the Nazis. Hope springs eternal, and greed crowds out rational thought. But if civilization survives, the one percent should see their fortunes improve dramatically, at the expense of everyone else. America's flirtation with fascism is over. It has become a date rape.
Naomi Klein
The Shock Doctrine
As a businessman, Donald Trump is well aware that he did not win the presidential election in a landslide. Still, he makes the claim: Is he setting America up for another "deal"? America's current one-party government is dismantling what remains of the New Deal, against the will of the American people, while Trump hides the pea, again, under a false election controversy. The drama will end with corporate interests (Trump being one) robbing the country--and the people, realizing they have been robbed, will have to "get over it." We will be reminded that we do not have a democracy. We have a republic, whereby a few rule for the benefit of all. And the few who rule will decide who benefits most. When Donald Trump says "I will be your voice," he invites the rest of us to keep quiet. Some Americans--yes, Americans--will like that freedom. Those who speak out will not be allowed to spoil the party. Force comes in here.
State coercion is now quite sophisticated. Beheading, stoning, and firing squads have fallen out out of fashion, though some despots in small countries are trying to revive the traditions. Dachaus and Gulags are also obsolete, at least on the grand scale of old times. Elites no longer need such gross displays of brute force to retain their power. Certainly, these methods are still available, and are still used by dictators here and there. But to plutocrats who rule on a global scale, who covet real power, subtler and more effective methods are available. That boot can be kept on the human face most of the time without the face's owner even knowing it.
When face owners do become aware of the boot, our corporate rulers have refined ways to make them see reason...cultural, social, bureaucratic, and economic in nature...some artistically simple. They who control the economy control jobs, and high unemployment rates keep most troublemakers harmless if not quiet. The threat of force is there: Starvation is brutal. But it is a step removed from the plutocrats who are manipulating the threat. With joblessness high, the rich can get people to work for less, to surrender medical and pension benefits. The rich can put the money they have taken into stocks--robbery plain and simple.
When the workers start to complain, the powerful point out "others" who are making life tough for the "real American good people." Since tribalism goes back untold thousands of years, humans are already programmed to hate those who look or sound strange; those who pray differently, come from different places, or in the age of electronic information, live far away. Dwelling on and denigrating peoples' superficial differences make it difficult to realize how much in common we all have. If the elites play their cards right they can even convince people to brutalize one another over superficial differences, thus saving both money and blame. Serious rebellion, through force, is out of the question. Police, now equipped with armor, often behave more like occupying colonial armies than neighborhood protectors. And though some individual cases of police brutality may have rational explanations, there is no doubt that police in America are killing far more citizens than police anywhere else in the "advanced" world. And when we allow violence to be routinely visited on "others", we automatically give police the authority to do the same to us.
American upper class citizens, like those everywhere, crave the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Having lost some of that power in the Great Depression (when Franklin Roosevelt, termed by the upper class he came from a "traitor to his class", instituted measures to reduce some of the social and economic differences between classes) they have ever since been plotting and implementing a coup to restore their power. Having achieved gradual success over the past forty years, they have now completed the coup. The only struggle now is between those in the upper crust, concerning who will be in charge. The rich and powerful do not consider Donald Trump to be their first choice, even though he is one of them. Still, he can be counted on to enhance his assets--and therefore their own. However, there are risks with their base.
The French aristocrats thought they could control the Jacobins, and the German capitalists and Junkers thought they could control the Nazis. Hope springs eternal, and greed crowds out rational thought. But if civilization survives, the one percent should see their fortunes improve dramatically, at the expense of everyone else. America's flirtation with fascism is over. It has become a date rape.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
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.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)