Of course, being a bunch of centrist weenies — like the dominant eurocrats within the Olive Tree coalition — the Dems in power almost certainly would do no such thing. In fact power doesn’t really seem to interest them much any more. They are, as a friend of mine puts it, much more comfortable whining about the way others use power than actually getting any for themselves.
Back to Main
October 3, 2005
WB: Clean Hands
Comments
America feels to me like babylon must have been:
From the tao te ching..
The greater the number of laws and restrictions, the poorer the people who inhabit the land.
The sharper the weapons of battle and war, the greater the troubles besetting the land.
The greater the cunning with which people are ruled, the stranger the things which occur in the land.
The harder the rules and regulations, the greater the number of those who will steal.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 3 2005 13:01 utc | 1
A very pessimistic account, Billmon. But I suspect you’re right. If the Democrats have been gutless weenies pretty consistently over the past five years (Social Security being the main exception), why should we expect them to develop courage in the future?
One thing that I think might help bring the circle together in what you’re saying and why we are all mystfied by the Democrats is this: Remember, a lot of that corporate money goes to Democrats, too. And the Dems in Congress have figured out they have it pretty well for THEMSELVES PERSONALLY, regardless of which party is in the White House or controls the House and Senate. So why should they rock the boat?
(Maybe you should write something about what the opposition parties in Germany and Italy were doing while the you-know-whos were in the process of taking over in the ’30s.)
Thanks for your cogent piece. In a perverted way, I feel better knowing that citizens of other democracies are as fucked up as we are.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Oct 3 2005 13:58 utc | 2
In the vacuum created by the collapse of the established parties, property developer and media magnate Silvio Berlusconi swept to power in 1994 at the head of a party he created and funded — Forza Italia (Go Italy), a name lifted from the slogan of the country’s most popular soccer team.
Or rather, the country’s national soccer team, otherwise known as ‘Italy’. 🙂
Posted by: Gag Halfrunt | Oct 3 2005 14:00 utc | 3
Well, the national team is the most popular one, isn’t it 😉
(btw, talking about football/soccer teams, Berlusconi also happens to own a top one, A.C.Milan… oh, and he also controls the biggest advertising firm, some big retail chains, the biggest movie theatre chains, the biggest movie producers, tv producers, etc etc…)
as an Italian expat, I have to say that Billmon’s analysis was extremely accurate. Italy’s left parties were unable to build serious policies after “Mani Pulite”, and they still are. The current rightwing coalition is collapsing once again, but there is a huge political void brought by the inability (and unwillingness) to discuss leftist policies in the face of globalisation. Not just in italy, leftist parties are actually “right lite”, they don’t fundamentally disagree on any issue (bar some basic one about abiding to laws, something the Right really can’t do for the life of them).
“Tangetopoli” is about the blackest Billmon I can remember reading!
…But having said that, I don’t think it’s quite black enough.
If I had any complaint about the master it would be that he can’t seem to follow through to where his clear vision is taking him… Too painful I guess.
Personally I am finding a great many parallels between the collapse of the USSR’s empire and what appears to be happening to the USA’s positions today.
I think there is some sort of universal “dissolvent” at work on large political entities. Is it just home and garden variety entropy, or is there something new, subtle and virulent in the works?
I am hoping that Billmon finally takes the plunge and gets beyond the details to the heart of the question.
Posted by: David Seaton | Oct 3 2005 14:57 utc | 5
I am hoping that Billmon finally takes the plunge and gets beyond the details to the heart of the question.
The heart of the question, IMO, is the convergence of political systems in most of the major industrial “democracies” towards a form of corporatist one-party state — a kind of updated version of Japan Inc. in which a hegemonic center-right party (or in Britain’s case, a post-modern center-left party) essentially remains in power forever, despite the occasional scandals, disgruntled “throw the bums out” elections, ideologically incoherent reform movements, etc.
They’re not all there yet, but they’re getting there, some more quickly than others. (It will be interesting to see whether a “grand coalition” in Germany evolves into a hegemonic centrist force, or whether German democracy still has a few kicks left in her.)
But that doesn’t necessarily mean collapse. Corrupt corporatist regimes can last a long time. Look at Japan. Look at Italy.
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 3 2005 15:51 utc | 6
It will be interesting to see whether a “grand coalition” in Germany evolves into a hegemonic centrist force, or whether German democracy still has a few kicks left in her.
The grand coalition will hold 4 years or less. If there would come up some additional party on the right side then todays right would have to move more to the center and then the center left and center right could probabably unite. Currently that is not yet possible.
So some kick is left, but we don´t know if this is will be enough.
The heart of the question, IMO, is the convergence of political systems in most of the major industrial “democracies” towards a form of corporatist one-party state — a kind of updated version of Japan Inc.
Billmon might not say it, but I will,
“Arbeit Macht Frei” ‘democracy,is the kind of democracy we are headed for. And it begins today:
’Universal Democracy’ Is the Goal As Congress Eyes New Legislation
Also commenter pat confirmed my idea that the “system” routs around damage and keeps on coming like a
runaway Fright Train.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 3 2005 17:18 utc | 8
I think there is some sort of universal “dissolvent” at work on large political entities. Is it just home and garden variety entropy, or is there something new, subtle and virulent in the works?
That’s the question I’d like Billmon to poke around in.
Posted by: David Seaton | Oct 3 2005 18:01 utc | 9
Paint it black indeed. That Democrats support the investigations enthusiastically and continue them if they’re swept into power is probably the only realistic way of keeping the corporatist Rethugs at bay. If there are serious indictments handed down by Fitzgerald, they could/should immediately turn up the volume and rhetoric even now. It could bring in more and better candidates for 2006. But it might also intimidate the K-Street pay-for-play lobbyists. If they see change imminent on the horizon, the current system will not function as efficiently.
We need more like Charlie Rangel– publicly speculating on Cheney’s health and emotional stability and demanding he resign. Ditto for provoking Bush. I think “unstable” as well as “corrupt” and “incompetent” should be added to the lexicon of critical comments. As an exercise in de-legitimizing the Cheney administration and their cohorts, draining their source of funding, or at least destabilizing it should be high on the list of priorities. But there should also be a lot of thought put into de-legimitizing them symbolically. What if a Dem brought a bag of dollar bills to the floor of the House (or outside on the steps of the Capitol) and tore it open, spreading $$ to the wind to demonstrate how the pay-for-play system works under Delay?
Posted by: opal | Oct 3 2005 19:52 utc | 10
They are, as a friend of mine puts it, much more comfortable whining about the way others use power than actually getting any for themselves.
And that’s an apt description of the Republican Party pre-1994 for they had the same mindset, too, Billmon. “Look at what these dirty liberal hippies have done?!? Jesus fuckin’ Christ!! What — give us power to correct it?!? Screw that shit. With power comes responsibility and accountability and we want neither. Just leave us alone to live off the fat of the land, will ya?!?”
Good thing I’m not God right now. Logitech would make a fortune out of my All-Powerfull Glorified Ass wearing out the “Smite” key on our current crop of Democrats. It’s also a good thing that I’m not a hired Democratic consultant because the moment I showed them my personal homemade “footage” of the party in action (“footage” that I had pre-ripped from Mortal Kombat: Deception where a defeated Havik is shown plucking his own head and spine and handing it to the camera before falling over dead), I doubt I’d be a consultant for long. They’d fire me faster than Lieberman or Clinton could spend another $100 million study into violent videogames.
Okay, first a bit of unadulterated praise. Billmon is a genius. I don’t mean that in the colloquial sense of somebody who’s brighter than normal. Billmon in fact sees things others don’t, draws connections they can’t, and presents a comprehensive, internally consistent vision of what is to come that is deeply disturbing and, alas, quite probable.
A friend of mine who is a former fairly high official in the US State Department (a Democrat who held office under Reagan, no less) said that a politician who combined anti-immigrant rhetoric with support for national health care could remake American politics. I mentioned the concept to my 16 year old son, and his response was “sort of like nationalist socialism?” We looked at each other and laughed, and not because we thought it was funny.
It seems to me that the United States is certainly headed in the direction of “managed democracy.” I’m reminded of a review of A Clockwork Orange, which described that dystopia: there are elections, but the ruling party always wins. I think that this is exactly what the Republicans are aiming for. They don’t just want to win elections; they want never to lose again. In fact, given the scale of corruption, they can’t afford ever to lose again. The problem is, they can’t simply dispense with the fiction of democracy (and it has in many ways become a fiction in the United States). The answer is simple: cozy up to the big money, use nationalist rhetoric to keep the sheeple happy, and throw the oppositions enough bones to stay in their comfy doghouses.
The problem with the current Republican approach is that, to put it frankly, these people are fucking incompetent. They’re just not any good at doing the things that governments actually have to do. For a party that needs at least the appearance of support from the public, this is hazardous. Mussolini, for all his myriad faults, really did sort of ensure that the trains ran on time, and Hitler and the Nazis were relatively effective at actually operating a modern industrial state. The “people” can be swayed by rhetoric, promises, and wars for a while, but if too many of them are unemployed or lack medical care, they start getting pissed off.
That makes me wonder if Bush is not perhaps a transitional figure in American history. There is no doubt that the Republican party has lunged far rightward over the last 25 years, and that Bush is completely comfortable with its emerging nationalist Christian ideology. At the same time, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest are all products of the old Republican machine, a machine that thought that compromise in politics was not necessarily deadly and that, if nothing else, had a certain sense of noblesse oblige towards the unwashed masses.
The Republicans’ policies (economic, foreign, domestic, environmental — take your pick) are leading the United States towards economic catastrophe. I don’t believe this particular group are smart enough or ruthless enough to keep control. The Democrats, on the other hand, have shown themselves utterly incapable of understanding the truly weird shit going on in American society, like nearly 2/3 of the people polled thinking schools should teach evolutin and creationism. I have unfortunately seen this first hand very recently — yesterday, actually. I attended a small fundraiser for Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia. He gave a nice little talk, describing the problems facing the Commonwealth, his solutions, his background, and why we should support him. It was all very intelligent, very well thought out, very typically Democrat. I asked my son afterwards what he thought. His response was “He’ll lose.” Why? “Because he’s boring.”
The American people appear increasingly incapable of differentiating reality from entertainment. The Democrats just want things to be like they used to be, where sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, and afterwards everybody went and had drinks together. I have no doubt that, if the Democrats were to regain both houses of Congress and the White House, they would in fact act exactly like the Olive Tree Coalition. They do not realize that politics is no longer a spectator sport, that losing has permanent consequences, and that the world is changing faster than they ever imagined.
Which is why Billmon is probably right. The United States has seen leaders along the lines of what he’s describing, most prominently Huey Long. A right-wing movement that combines populism and nationalism, while quietly protecting the interests of the big corporations, could find itself astoundingly successful. We would still have a Constitution, except that the “no law” part about speech and religion wouldn’t really mean no law, and the stuff about no arrests without warrants wouldn’t apply to terrorists. There would still be elections, although only true loyal Merikuns could run. Life in its outward forms would not be that different, except, of course, for the chaos that Peak Oil and global warming are going to cause. If anything, these factors make a cornpone fascist regime even more likely. Heaven forbid that the people actually have to change their lifestyles to adjust!
So, then, what is to be done? Being progressive or liberal or even moderate could become a dubious occupation in the United States in the not too distant future. So we can either go home and quietly tend our gardens ala Candide, or we can start studying our Lenin.
I’ve asked this question before, and I’ll ask it again: What would have happened if the Reichsbanner had gone into the streets to fight the Brownshirts head-on?
Put on your ghost shirts.
Posted by: Aigin | Oct 3 2005 20:23 utc | 12
Billmon wrote: “The heart of the question, IMO, is the convergence of political systems in most of the major industrial “democracies” towards a form of corporatist one-party state — a kind of updated version of Japan Inc. in which a hegemonic center-right party (or in Britain’s case, a post-modern center-left party) essentially remains in power forever, despite the occasional scandals, disgruntled “throw the bums out” elections, ideologically incoherent reform movements, etc.”
Maybe all this was inevitable, but it really accelerated in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. Bush was a failed president up to that point. And if Gore had won, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this at all — even if we were bitching about the DLC’s power over the party. It still wouldn’t be as bad as it is now, and we wouldn’t be headed off the cliff as fast.
It’s just like America’s decline as a world power. We all knew it was inevitable. It’s just that Bush & Co. brought it home about 50 years sooner than it probably would have happened.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Oct 3 2005 20:43 utc | 14
Totally Outstanding. To reiterate comments above; the Bush Administration is an aberration. It is a revolutionary government led by a troika of neo-cons, religious fundamentalists and small business power hungry Babbitts. History was suppose to have ended but George W Bush brought it back with a vengeance.
Multi-National companies by 2008 will have regained control of the United States, and the Demopublicans will be back in the saddle again doing what is good for business.
Posted by: Jim S | Oct 3 2005 21:39 utc | 15
grrr…I linked to the wrong comment in my last post it should have read:
The heart of the question, IMO, is the convergence of political systems in most of the major industrial “democracies” towards a form of corporatist one-party state — a kind of updated version of Japan Inc.
Billmon might not say it, but I will, “Arbeit Macht Frei” democracy, seems to be the kind of democracy we are headed for here at home and “creative violence” abroad. And it seemily begins today:
’Universal Democracy’ Is the Goal As Congress Eyes New Legislation
Also commenter pat confirmed my idea that the “system” routs around damage and keeps on coming like a runaway Fright Train.
Especially w/ the whole New Atlantic Initiative.
Maybe it’s just me , but in the last decade or so, I’ve observed an increasing tendency for big businesses to depend on litigation rather than innovation in order to remain relevent (which could be a whole topic in and of it self).
Nonetheless, blair is constantly facing the difficult choice between pursuing U.S. and E.U. interests; he appears to be just barely straddling the Atlantic, trying to appease both sides.
If Blair is effectively able to bridge the trans-Atlantic divide, he will have the ability to assert influence over both the world’s remaining superpower and the Union that is arising as a second possible power center.
But the majority of the British do not like being lackeys of the Merican hegemon. As show here .
…“it is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world.”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 3 2005 22:17 utc | 16
The essence of what made the twentieth century work was Henry Ford’s insight that he had to pay his employees enough to afford what they were building, not just what he had to get enough of them to show up on a daily basis.
Supply side economics doesn’t work forever. The rich cannot cook the golden goose and collect its eggs.
The economy is a convective cycle, with energy in the form of labor, materials and ideas rising up, while wealth, civil order and social security precipitate down. Supply side theory has created a situation where far more has been rising then is effectively used or precipitating down and the results are huge storm clouds of surplus wealth boiling over a parched economy. For reference, consider where the money the government borrows would go, if it were not being recycled through the public sector. The investment and asset markets are awash in cash and this money would just increase the inflationary effect. Government borrowing is effectively a nationalization of surplus wealth, but rather than actually taking it, the revenue stream of the government is being transferred to those with surplus wealth in the first place, which only adds to the problem.
In 1996, Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, “We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket.” My first thought was, Well thank God it isn’t my money, or it would be worthless.” The logic behind this insight is that as a medium of exchange, money is actually a form of public commons, much like the highway system. To use the roads as an analogy, it would be as if every time a new road was built, everyone tried to claim as much as possible. The eventual result would be that everything would be paved over and no one would be able to get anywhere. We are close to reaching that situation with our monetary system, as every aspect of life is judged according to the bottom line and the economy is still about to seize up.
I first started questioning economic pronouncements when trying to figure out how Paul Volcker cured inflation by raising interest rates. Yes, it is started by loose money, but reverse engineering in not always so simple. By raising interest rates, his solution for the oversupply of money was to raise the cost of using it. The economy slowed. How do you absorb surplus currency in circulation by slowing the economy? Government borrowing is what brought inflation under control, after supply side economics squeezed it out of the general economy, the government skimmed it off the top and then spent it. As public spending supports private investment, rather then competing with it, the effect was compounded. This surplus was effectively absorbed by October of 1987. At which point, Greenspan opened the gate again.
The boom of the 80’s and 90’s had as much to do with the baby boom going through its most productive years.
The fact that Social Security is a direct transfer is one of the primary reasons it is so efficient. Only as much money can be saved as can be invested and there isn’t enough investment vehicles in the current situation to support the cash out there. It is a situation similar to the electric industry. As it would be prohibitively expensive to build the battery storage for the amounts in question, electricity has to be used as it is generated. Creating the investment vehicles necessary to store private accounts would be like storage batteries for the electric industry.
Government budgeting is a mess and the problem with the line item veto is that it would place most of the power of the purse in the hands of the president, but a way around this would be to break the bills into their constituent items and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line at what is to be funded. Not only would this break up the budgetary log jams which make over spending irresistible, but it would take away a lot of the power this process gives to the legislative leadership and parties and returns it to the level of the individual legislators. While the buck really would stop with the president. Democracy is a bottom up process and the Republic is a top down entity. This would clarify that relationship. It is this congealing of power in the legislative branch which is the source of much current corruption.
Money and government are two sides of the same coin. One is rights, the other is responsibilities. Money is like processed sugar, so if we were to learn to maintain a more organic, wholistic society and maintain wealth and value within every aspect of our lives and not continually drain reductionistic units out to put in some bank, then government would be forced to organize itself along similar lines.
I see liberalism as social expansion and conservatism as civil consolidation. Those institutions which expand knowledge/power, such as education, media, sciences, tend to be inherently liberal. Those which consolidate this energy, such as business and government, tend to be inherently conservative. The government social programs of the last century, created, a form of conservative liberalism, often referred to as PC. The reaction to this was a liberal conservatism, otherwise known as libertarianism, which sought to redistribute civil control back to the presumably more culturally conservative local level. Having been originally based on a simplistic rejection of government, now this movement has matured and coalesced, it is in trouble because it lacks any core civil philosophy, leaving its social conservatives and economic conservatives little more than a toxic coalition of greed and cultural rigor mortis.
Posted by: brodix | Oct 3 2005 23:45 utc | 17
the fall of the christian democrats was brought about by one of its most powerful patrons – toto riina & the mafia of corleone & his errand boy guileo andreotti, salvo lima & other assorted assasins & hoods – not unlike this administration
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2005 23:51 utc | 18
ok, I’ll quit after this (my last NAI link was suppose to go here:
New Atlantic Initiative
“Defending the Civilized World: The Transatlantic Challenge”
nices guys…
The Ari Movement
Someone to keep an eye on:
Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin
Project for the New American Century: Founding member
American Enterprise Institute: Resident Scholar
Council for a Community of Democracies: Board
Highlights & Quotes
Gedmin is a European studies scholar active in or supporter of various rightwing outfits, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute. He contributed a chapter on NATO and Europe for Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, a PNAC volume edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 4 2005 0:28 utc | 19
Hey, when Bill Clinton came to office he refused to open up Iran Contra and he let the right get its balance back. When they went after him, it never seems to have occurred to his slack, approval begging, horndog nature to fight back. It is hard to explain the Democrats by mere cowardice or corruption. Their mewling weakness, chickenhearted hand wringing, and tail-between-legs gutlessness must be tied to sub-id thanotic-masochism or sworn fealty to the Devil, or who know what – but it is surely beyond the explanatory range of mere worthlessness.
Posted by: citizen k | Oct 4 2005 2:07 utc | 20
permit me to go a bit off-topic, as i am tempted by this statement from brodix:
The essence of what made the twentieth century work was Henry Ford’s insight that he had to pay his employees enough to afford what they were building, not just what he had to get enough of them to show up on a daily basis.
henry ford’s “insight” apparently had only superficially little to do w/ concern for his employees, so far as i’ve read about the man, and everything to do w/ marketing, market share & exacting a totalitarian control over all aspects of his biz, replete w/ a guaranteed built-in consumer base. on the much-touted $5 per day wage campaign:
In 1914 Henry Ford hired John R. Lee to update the companies labor policies. $5/day was to be split into half wages and half profits. Ford employees would only receive profits when they met specific standards of efficiency and were cleared by the sociology department.
On January 5, 1914 Henry Ford’s announcement of the incredible $5 dollar/day plan swept the newspapers across the nation. The Detroit Journal announced, The surprise of the labor leaders and the consternation of manufacturers,, Henry Ford announced on Jan 5, 1914 that a minimum wage of $5 dollars/day would be instituted immediately in the Ford plants, along with a profit sharing plan for all male employees.
Not only did Henry Fords new deal shock the nation, it sent a tremendous number of workers to Detroit. For the next ten years people would do anything to become a worker of one of Henry Ford’s plants. It was unheard of to be offered $5/day by any automobile company. In fact the average salary for most was a mere $2.50/day at GM and Chryslers. But Henry Ford’s $5/day plan was truly an illusion, it allowed for greater control of his workers. It was said that “The 5 dollar/day plan was an important early attempt at implementing a corporate welfare program.” Ford wanted to see his company prosper, his employees were a part of this company.
The development of the Sociology department would allow Henry Ford to exploit his employees private lives. “Employees were advised by investigators on how to live in order to receive his/hers share of the profits.” The result of this was a tight knit community with no corruption. This department also monitored the daily happenings in the plant. In fact, the department had over 1000 informers who would notify the department if any stealing or illegal plans were taking place. Social workers conducted extensive interviews on subjects ranging from household finances to sexual patterns. It was stated at that time that, the intrusion into workers lives, in the minds of Ford officials, was a small price to pay for increased wages, efficiency, production, and in the end profits for the Ford Motor Company. [source]
here’s more on ford’s sociology dept from stuart ewen’s book captains of consciousness: advertising and the social roots of the consumer culture
The industrial inroads into family structure coincided with the rise of mass industrial production and employment. As the goods of industry increasingly called for mass distribution, and as the scope of industry encompassed a growing proportion of the population, the world of business became more concerned with the question of how social life and family life coincided with the demands of industrial production, consumption, and the broad issue of social order. Henry Ford, who had pioneered in the mass production of goods, also pioneered in the extension of industrial authority to family relations. Ford, through his “Sociology Department,” entered the homes of his workers to ensure their fidelity to his concept of proper living. While many of the values enforced by this department seem counter to the values of spendthrift consumerism (thrift, sobriety and religion were Ford’s central values), the important thing about this practice was not its particularly puritanical bent. For central to Ford’s philosophy was the assumption that the corporation had assumed a right to administer, directly, to family matters. Antonio Gramsci…had this say about the patriarchal-corporatism inherent in “Fordism” (while focusing on Ford’s sexual ideology, Gramsci’s statement may be applied to the whole of the question of social life):
It is worth drawing attention to the way in which industrialists (Ford in particular) have been concerned with the sexual affairs of their employees and with their family arrangements in general. One should not be misled, any more than in the case of prohibition, by the “puritanical” appearance assumed by this concern. The truth is that the new type of man demanded by the rationalization of production and work cannot be developed until the sexual instinct has been suitably regulated and until it too has been rationalized.
cast in this light, i see that “essence of what made the twentieth century work” in an entirely different color. the centralization & commercialization of control advanced by “fordism” and other industrial captains of consiousness paved the way for this culture of consumption that exploded forth in the early twentieth century. a system grounded in the exploitation of a labor force of assembly-linked automatons enslaved to the dream of escape through commodity fetishism. being able to pay another for the results of your very labor somehow became freedom. being able to choose how you spend those wages somehow became democracy. funny how essential “our ford” continues to be in the twenty-first century, or should i say the year 97 a.f.
Posted by: b real | Oct 4 2005 3:37 utc | 21
The idea that either the Republicrats of Demoplicans represent Americans is an idea whose time has gone… thirty years ago.
The PACs and corporate interests have long since bought “our” representatives. They are not evil people, just out-sourced employees of “our” corporations who do nothing more evil than canonical corporate employees.
From the first day the pols show up on the job and receive their first corporate/PAC briefing on the legislation that their masters want passed they’re hard-working wage slaves, just not working for us.
At present the job assigned to the Demoplicans is to sit back and let the Republicrats run to exhaustion, then to pick up the common strand and run themselves until they drop.
All of the things they do are done at the direction of the corporate PACs, including the AIPAC. There is no “grand cabal”, it’s just business as usual and goods delivered to the highest bidder, as Juan Cole pointed out yesterday.
It’s all come about because we’ve been too lazy to involve ourselves with politics. Or with the goals our corporate employers set us to work upon.
All institutions tend to subvert the goals set out for them by their creators at their creation to the simple goal of institutional self preservation, and to subvert the humans who compose their corporate bodies into subservience to that same simple goal.
It takes a commitment each and every generation to reconquer “our” institutions that are otherwise certainly commited to conquering us if we are to remain free.
The commitment to force our institutions to serve us, as was our original intent, has been lacking. We are reaping a harvest of weeds, sprung up in the abscence of a crop purposefully sown.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 4 2005 3:41 utc | 22
b real,
Funny (not really), how they had that weird “in your bedroom” thing back then too. Whats with that? And also, I think it was the Pullman Company, of railcar sleeper- car (would’nt you know it) fame, near Chicago, went to the extreme of creating an actual community. Or rather, what could only be considered as a utopian corporate commune — with housing, strict community standards, and sworn allegence to the company. Really not that much different than the 19th century company town model, where everyone in the community works at the company interest, paid in company script, and forced to shop in the company store, except that weird bedroom thing, which maybe came later.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 4 2005 5:04 utc | 23
Billmon seems to have caught up with my Sept. 29th. Diary on Kos.
Great minds etc.
Posted by: Lupin | Oct 4 2005 5:50 utc | 24
I didn’t say the twentieth century was heaven. The point is to look ahead, not just fuss that life is cruel and mean. Yes, social organizations like to dictate, the question is how to define both bottom up growth and top down order to an increasing civilized middle ground. Do you have any ideas on that regard?
Posted by: brodix | Oct 4 2005 10:36 utc | 25
Lupin,
Your KOS post, as a worst case scenario (also floated by slothrop some months ago) while plausable, fails to take into consideration several demographic / historical facts unique to the Americal politcal landscape, which may hinder such a ready evolution (into outright fascism). The Bush appeal of course, finds its base resonance historically in the synthesis between antebellum southern culture and scotch-irish culture — call it (redneck) exceptualism, in brief. Now its trure that collectively from this group flows militarism, (veiled) racism, seeming anti government sentiments like taxation, and a special bent toward hell and damnation christianity (calvanism). And its also true that this particular brew would appear condusive to fascism, American style, were it not for the rest of the picture — which would have to include the other characteristics inherent in this grouping that would definitly run counter to fascism. Foremost, this group also is at heart anti-authoritarian, with respect to government control and or regulation, so more government controls would seem antithical to the mindset. Typically this would be romanticized as individualism or “freedom” in this sense, and definitely has limits to the degree at which it would conflict with the imposition of personal limitations. To cut to the chase, these folks are inherently unreliable with regard (ask the English prior to their exodus from Ireland) to being the tool of govermental (or corporate) domestic power — as soon as it impedes upon their own notion of freedom — which while conflicted and contradictory, is not self defeating. A microcosm, here on the steady deflation of moral (among the troops) in Iraq, amongst this demographic, which would hold the best promise of the fascist ethic here, illustrates the” weakness” born within the ethic at self defeatism. Hardly the stuff of unquestioning blind fascism being prepared for the domestic front. And while this group has givin the present administration its impetus to power, it has also born the brunt of its gluttony, and I’m not sure they’d be willing to want more, here at home. Otherwise it is civil war, again.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 4 2005 10:45 utc | 26
Billmon wrote: The heart of the question, IMO, is the convergence of political systems in most of the major industrial “democracies” towards a form of corporatist one-party state — a kind of updated version of Japan Inc. in which a hegemonic center-right party …
If it makes any sense to consider the opposition between the Democrats and the Republicans as real, rather than being just a show to befuddle or distract the sheeples — it seems that the Democrats are completely convinced that they cannot win, care of Lord Diebold, amongst other.
The best they can do is trail along after power gathering up the very considerable crumbs scattered about (as pointed out above also.)
In Europe, I have several times heard expressed the opinion that most – or ‘all’- Americans fundamentally agree with BushCo policies and that the hand wringing is self-serving, fake. I heard it again at lunch today. As I read and post at MOA and another ‘progressive’ board I generally argue against that POV and spout what I can muster…
It is a hard road, as my opponents can always come up with the inactivity of any kind of opposing force, and quote examples of successful opposition from their own experience. I usually give up, for various reasons.
Truth 😉
One cannot on the one hand ascribe to the belief that Muslim terrarists attacked the US on 9/11 and then bemoan how BushCo manages to manipulate, squash others, etc.
Somehow, a blatant and completely transparent fiction was presented as ‘reality’ and was accepted. One can’t take it on board, ascribe to it, bow down to it, and then oppose its consequences.
Accepting that first fiction is the seal of doom. (I say ‘first’ as it was very public, provides a good example, etc.) Being a victim of group-think and then kicking out in other directions (Plame-gate, health care, the poor in NO, etc.) is a clear confession of complicity.
One can’t have one’s cake, no matter how much fancy cream and cherries is poured on top, and eat it too.
Posted by: Noisette | Oct 4 2005 17:13 utc | 27
brodix wrote: The essence of what made the twentieth century work was Henry Ford’s insight that he had to pay his employees enough to afford what they were building, not just what he had to get enough of them to show up on a daily basis.
Yes, fine, agree.
But:
The essence of what made the 20th century work was the availability of cheap energy.
Black gold killed slavery, lead to egalitarian policies, provided machines that churned out all we dreamed and wanted: agri, transport, manuf, artifacts, endless innovative goods, arms and more arms…even trips to Da Moon.
Now that fossil fuels – a stock of energy laid down in past millenia – is halfway used up by greedy humans, or at least dwindling, even if not in reality but through perceptions created by inadequate measurement, the crunch is here, and policies like Henry Ford’s belong to an era that is way past.
Posted by: Noisette | Oct 4 2005 17:35 utc | 28
Hey, the world as we know it is coming to an end, but somebody has to pick up whatever pieces remain. Isn’t there any comment on any of my ideas?
Posted by: brodix | Oct 5 2005 0:18 utc | 29
if/when someone does pick up whatever pieces remain, let us hope that they don’t try to reassemble them to reflect a model based upon “top down order” and intangibles. brodix, i enjoyed your post, though i don’t have anything substantive to offer on it. the sooner we reduce our reliance on growth & abstraction, the better, so far as i am concerned.
Posted by: b real | Oct 5 2005 2:18 utc | 30
b real,
Not to get to abstract here, but we can’t live without these broadly shared understandings.
I do agree top down has its limitations. Personally I think the biggest fallacy in that regard is monotheism. The absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual absolute would be the essence of concsiousness out of which we rise and to which we fall, not an intellectual point of focus from which we fell and seek to return. As medium and equilibrium, it’s the state around which opposing elements revolve. The top is just a particular extreme.
As for expansion(and contraction), it’s just an aspect of nature, like spring and winter. I can safely say nature is eventually going to win this contest, it’s just a matter of how fast we burn our candle. In that regard, I see Bushandco. as a necessary evil, in that like a pimple coming to a head, he has served to focus and isolate a lot of the poisons, from runaway greed to religious paranoia and nationalist egomania, that would have done far more damage if they had otherwise continued to fester. Yes, I may seem overly optimistic, but that’s just how I see it.
Posted by: brodix | Oct 5 2005 10:13 utc | 31
brodix- we’ve been staring at this volcanic pimple in our mirrors ever since the 2000 elections & yet a seeming domestic majority still, after nearly six years of ongoing, festering eruptions, pretend(?) to either not see it or think that covering it up w/ makeup or a band-aid will make it go away. and many appear content to live w/ it while some act quite proud & flaunt it in public spaces, all as the infection deepens. if yet another blatantly illegitimate & aggressive genocide against yet another sovereign people cannot motivate immediate repudiation of those responsible, in this age of information & instant access to a wealth of accumulated knowledge, even for those of who point out the pimple everyday & call for some combination of surgery & medication, our hands will still not wash clean, no matter how hard we scrub. i want to be optimistic that some morning we will wake up & wash all of the blood stains from our hands and find that we have the time to actually look at ourselves & see clear, smiling faces.
Posted by: b real | Oct 5 2005 15:51 utc | 34
Anna,
Fraid I’ve spent my life raising and training race horses, so that’s pretty much my starting point. Must admit though, I am one of the local gods in this situation and boss around their social and sexual lives. We do try to be somewhat lower impact than most.
b real,
You are the one dreaming here. When it does pop, it’s going to be all over everything. We are headed for interesting times. Look at it as an opportunity for charactor building. I’m just trying to get in on the ground floor of what develops after. Not that I personally expect to live to enjoy it. I tend to do stupid things.
Posted by: brodix | Oct 5 2005 16:52 utc | 35