More on the Quagmire of American Politics

More on the Quagmire of American Politics

P. Schultz

June 22, 2014

            Presently, I am reading a book by Benjamin Ginsberg entitled, “Downsizing Democracy,” in which Ginsburg argues that our democracy has been “personalized” when once it was “politicized.” Ginsberg describes himself as a cynic and, indeed, he is and a thoughtful one at that. His argument that our government has been built in such a way since the rise of the Progressives that it no longer needs to rely on mobilizing the people to govern makes a lot of sense.

            Especially telling is his noticing that although our political elites pretend to be deeply divided and although there are a lot of people who don’t vote, neither of the two major parties shows any interest in increasing the size of the active electorate. “Divided government and political stalemate seem more acceptable to party elites than an effort to shift the balance by activating the politically inert.” [p. 49-50] And he goes on: “Only occasional political outsiders like Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura makes any real effort to bring non-voters into the electorate. Neither of the major parties supports electoral reforms such as the elimination of voter registration requirements or a shift from weekday to weekend voting….The parties’ apparent indifference to this enormous reservoir of potential voters is especially curious in light of the bitter conflicts that divide them….and the inconclusive outcomes of recent electoral contests.” [p. 49]

            This is all well and good. Yet at times, Ginsberg is just too conventional in his analysis. For example, he sees LBJ’s “gradual escalation” of the war in Vietnam as an “effort to sustain consensus among Democrats” and cites Joseph Califano as his source. LBJ’s strategy, by this view, allegedly backfired because as “escalation followed escalation…federal funds flowed away from the War on Poverty to the war in Vietnam.” [p. 70] This strengthened the “resurgent conservative forces in Congress [whose] support for…Vietnam was a federal retreat from social engineering at home.” [Ibid.]

            Now this implies that LBJ had no choice: He had to satisfy these conservatives if he was to continue the Vietnam War. But why did he have to continue that war? Why not go with those who wanted out of Vietnam, some of whom were even members of Johnson’s cabinet? Ginsberg doesn’t answer this question directly but he points us toward an answer.

            As Ginsberg notes in passing, some of those opposed to the war were “student radicals.” That is, they represented a brand of politics LBJ rejected, a brand that his “Great Society” was meant to co-opt. Surprisingly because he is a cynic, Ginsberg does not entertain the possibility that the Great Society was intended to co-opt or avoid more radical possibilities, such as Black Power and “sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll,” to use a shorthand.

            LBJ had to stay in Vietnam not for Vietnam’s sake but to maintain the prevailing and predominant political class and its brand of politics, both of which were threatened by the unrest evident in society in the 60s. And this was a brand of politics and a class of politicians that included the Mayor Daley’s of Chicago. Thus, it could be said that LBJ’s “gradual escalation” did not backfire but succeeded. It led, ultimately, to the election of Richard Nixon and who better to turn to in order to continue and reinforce the ruling political class and its brand of politics?

            Of course, later it became necessary to get rid of Nixon, of “Tricky Dick,” and to do so without upsetting the established too much. This was a “trick” that outdid anything that “Tricky Dick” ever did, at least up to that time. But then, still later, it was useful, and especially useful as it was done under President Clinton, the baby boomer president and former draft dodger, to “resurrect” or “rehabilitate” Richard Nixon as a “statesman.” And with that magic trick, the existing political order seemed to come full circle.

            Now, this is cynicism, is it not? But that doesn’t make it wrong.

Iraq: Caught in the Quagmire of American Politics

Iraq: Caught in the Quagmire of American Politics

P. Schultz

June 14, 2014

            The political class in the United States is reacting as the “storyline” in Iraq seems to be getting away from them as some “militants” seem to be on the verge of taking over large swaths of Iraqi territory. And so it has become essential for our political class to reassert a storyline that will serve its interests. Not surprisingly, the “new” storyline – which is actually an old one, used several times in the past – is that the Obama administration, though well intentioned, has failed to preserve the “victory” that the Bush administration “won” in Iraq.

            Using this storyline, the illusion of “victory” in Iraq can be preserved and the nation need not confront more important questions, e.g., of the efficacy of military might or the efficacy of a militarized foreign policy. And while you might think that the Obama administration, because it is being “victimized,” would respond with a strenuous defense of its actions, don’t bet on it. As part of the reigning political class, the Democrats are as interested in supporting – if only “coyly” – the “new” storyline as are the Republicans! Hence, you can expect Obama to act somewhat indecisively before employing the military to “save the day.” Obama’s “surge” will be less effective than Bush’s. But that is fine insofar as it reinforces the myth of military might.

            And so the status quo is preserved even as the political class pretends to have at it.

Sometimes the light's all shining on me, Part 3

“Sometimes the light’s all shining on me…..” Part 3

P. Schultz

June 12, 2014

            The debate that should take place between “administration” and “community” rarely takes place and largely because these choices are blurred, even blurred by those who sense that the argument for “administration” is wanting. Example: Benjamin Ginsberg, in his book, The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political Fables, when he is discussing those times when “the instrumental character of political issues include some of the great principles debated during the course of American political history” describes the debate during the New Deal era as a “debate over government power versus individualism….” [p. 21]

            Now, it would make a difference, and not a small difference, if that debate in the 1930s was characterized and conducted as one between “government power” and “community.” Rarely does “government power” subordinate itself to “individualism,” nor does it seem that it should given that “government power” claims to be exercised for the sake of society, whereas “individualism” serves the individual. To favor “individualism” over “government power” would be to favor the part over the whole, a difficult argument to make, to say the least. Which should prevail, the government representing society or the individual representing herself? Not much of a contest, not much of a debate.

            But if the contest is between “administration” and “community,” the desirable outcome is not so obvious. Who should prevail, those who rule impersonally, detached as it were from those they are ruling, or those who rule by virtue of being identified with and who identify with those they are ruling? Who should prevail, those distinguished from the many [by expertise or some other distinction], or those who are like, have a likeness with the many? Who should prevail, the detached and the distant or the attached and the close ones?

            When the debate is posed this way, it isn’t so easy to say who should prevail, is it? One reason for this is that it is not as easy to sacrifice “community” as it is to sacrifice “individualism” for the sake of “government power.” This is not to say that “government power” is useless or even merely a necessary evil. But it is to say that a host of questions arise once it is recognized that “government power” can be detrimental of “community.” It could be said that the mantra, “That that government is best which governs least,” does not quite hit the mark. Rather, it should be said “That that government is best which recognizes and respects community.”

           

"Sometimes the light's all shining on me....." Part 2

“Sometimes the light’s all shining on me….” Part 2

P. Schultz

June 10, 2014

            Why is it that administrators or BOBs, Basic Old Bureaucrats, need enemies? That is, those who they consider to be “racist,” or “sexist,” or traditional, reactionary, or standpatters.

            Partly, it is merely political, in the sense that administrators need allies to support their quest for power and this is one to get them. For each enemy there is an ally waiting.

            But this need for enemies goes deeper than that. It is also how administrators seek to replace the cohesion of the community they displaced.

            Make no mistake about it: Administrators are anti-community and communal values. Communities require, rest upon “irrational arrangements,” as it were, arrangements based on, say, tradition, personal connections, or just plain “having fun,” spontaneous, unplanned enjoyments such as that which takes place in bars or pubs, where the bartenders, the keepers of order, do not refer to their “clientele.”

            But having displaced such arrangements, even the BOBs realize that they need replacements for there to be cohesion or some kind of unity. Hence, BOBs like “retreats,” where they go to “interact,” to “build trust,” to experience camaraderie. However, this stuff works, if at all, only among the BOBs. To “cohere” with the non-BOBs, their “clientele,’ as the BOBs call people they interact with, more is needed and “enemies” or “threats” are thought to work well.

            So, the BOBs need “racists,” “sexists,” and other “others” and they will “look” high and low to find them. And as they look for these enemies, they will even create them, e.g., with such bogus concepts as “binge drinking” or very vague definitions of “sexual harassment.” And once these concepts are created, then those who embrace them will be said to “get it,” while those who do not embrace them “don’t get it,” and, hence, can be dismissed as simply ignorant reactionaries.

            This is why there seems to have been “explosion” of behaviors that need addressing. And, of course, it is the BOBs who are equipped to address these behaviors.

            Communities, on the other hand, are characterized by, not their opposition to others [“the other”], but by caring for each other. [See Aristotle’s use of “care” in connection with the polis in his Politics.] Modern states are not communities, however, and hence they are characterized by “opposition to,” even war against “the other,” both internally and externally. These others might be communists, socialists, sexists, racists, or merely traditionalists. But whoever they are, their “presence” is indispensable to the modern, administrative project.

"Sometimes the light's all shining on me......"

“Sometimes the light’s all shining on me, other times I can barely see….”

P. Schultz

June 9, 2014

            When the light is shining on me, this is what I can see, barely: There isn’t but there should be a battle going on between the proponents of “community” and the proponents of “organizations” or “administration.” But the light is not often shining on me – or others – because both of the major parties, factions, sects, or “ideologies” embrace “organizations” or administration at the expense of community.

            The “liberals” or “progressives” embrace government, seeing it as the engine of progress and seeing progress as the way to go to arrive at our destination, which is somewhere off in the distant future. The “conservatives” embrace what are called “corporations,” seeing these organizations as the engines of progress and seeing progress as the way to go to reach our destination, which is off in the distant future.

            Those who reject the embrace of organizations or administration – and all that these phenomenon imply – are seen as reactionaries, as those who oppose progress out of fear or a lack of faith [“Men of Little Faith,” title of one the earliest assessments of the Anti-Federalists] and who want to standstill in isolation from the world and in denial of the force of “history.” “Ahistorical isolationists,” as it were.

            Illustration: The “fight” over tenure [at least there is something of a fight in North Carolina]. Tenure is a way of creating community, both among the teachers and between the teachers and the local community. Tenure ensures stability or fights turnover “in the ranks,” while bringing teachers together as a community of scholars. It arose in part as a way for small colleges to keep their faculty from being taken away by larger, more prestigious colleges and universities with more money to offer. Those who oppose tenure want to replace it with organizational or administrative requirements or methods of evaluation, even or especially at the expense of community.

            [NB: Tenure often empowered teachers, as they were the ones passing on tenure, whereas a non-tenure regime empowers and is intended to empower administrators.]

            What is today labeled “the reform movement” in education – e.g., both “No Child Left Behind” and the “Race to the Top” – is called “standards based” or “assessment based.” And these standards are not – and definitely should not be – local or community standards. To wit: What is called “the common core.” [NB: The apparent “confusion” among Republicans in North Carolina, who fight tenure and fight the common core. But perhaps their fight against the common core is not undertaken in the name of community.]

            Note that Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and Obama’s “Race to the Top” see education as a race of some kind or as a competition by which some, but necessarily only some, will “win,” i.e., become members of an elite that is constantly changing and in need of “restocking.” Hence, the need for standards, that is, administrative standards, quantifiable standards, because the alternative is social standards, which lead to what are called “social promotions,” which are of course promotions that take into account communal imperatives.

            And increasingly “impersonal assessments” – which means supplementing the traditional system of awarding grades – are required by the reform movement in order to ensure that other, extraneous concerns [ often concerns reflecting communal concerns] do not taint the “process.” And who else should make these impersonal assessments than administrators, than bureaucrats, as they are required to be and even strive to be – if only to be considered properly “professional”  and therefore “promotable” – impersonal. In fact, many or most administrators see impersonal as a virtue, as the way they and the world should be!

           

Greewald v. Kinsley, Part 2

-->

Greenwald v. Kinsley, Part 2

P. Schultz

June 7, 2014

            Below is a link to Glenn Greenwald’s review of Michael Kinsley’s review of his book, No Place to Hide. It isn’t long and deserves to be read, especially as Kinsley’s review skipped over the last chapter in Greenwald’s book on the rather incestuous relationship between the media and the US government. And as Greenwald points out, Kinsley’s review confirms his, Greenwald’s, characterization of how dissenters are marginalized in the U.S. when they dissent publicly. And pay particular attention to the advice Lawrence Summers gave Elizabeth Warren after was elected to the Senate.

            Still think the argument that our politicians are, almost universally, servants of the status quo is fanciful? Not so much.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/05/23/response-michael-kinsley/

Greenwald v. Kinsley

Greenwald v. Kinsley

P. Schultz

June 2, 2014

            Below is a link to Michael Kinsley’s review of Glenn Greenwald’s book, No Place to Hide, which is about Edward Snowden’s adventure as a “leaker par excellence.” Of course, Greenwald sees Snowden’s activities as quite useful and even honorable in the current environment in the United States, which Greenwald characterizes as repressive in the extreme.

“Greenwald writes about ‘the implicit bargain that is offered to citizens: Pose no challenge and you have nothing to worry about. Mind your own business, and support or at least tolerate what we do, and you’ll be fine. Put differently, you must refrain from provoking the authority that wields surveillance powers if you wish to be deemed free of wrongdoing. This is a deal that invites passivity, obedience and conformity.’”

            For Kinsley, this is just poppycock and Greenwald himself illustrates why this is the case:

“Greenwald doesn’t seem to realize that every piece of evidence he musters demonstrating that people agree with him undermines his own argument that “the authorities” brook no dissent. No one is stopping people from criticizing the government or supporting Greenwald in any way. Nobody is preventing the nation’s leading newspaper from publishing a regular column in its own pages dissenting from company or government orthodoxy. “

            But Kinsley seems to miss or perhaps he wants to miss the character of what he labels “repressive tolerance,” a concept he identifies with Herbert Marcuse and attributes to Greenwald. Kinsley fails to recognize that Greenwald and his likes, and the apparent tolerance of his and their views, are absolutely essential to a regime of “repressive tolerance.” Without dissenters like Greenwald, how could the regime demonstrate its alleged “tolerance?”

            But where does the “repressiveness” come in? Precisely in reviews like Kinsley’s review, which is an attempt to marginalize Greenwald, as this is how a regime of “repressive tolerance” works. The dissenters are allowed to speak, even encouraged to speak, but then they are marginalized in this way and that. This is the meaning of David Gregory’s attempt to criminalize Greenwald’s activities, an attempt that Gregory thought was subtle. Consider the following:

Greenwald’s notion of what constitutes suppression of dissent by the established media is an invitation to appear on “Meet the Press.” On the show, he is shocked to be asked by the host David Gregory, “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, . . . why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” Greenwald was so stunned that “it took a minute to process that he had actually asked” such a patently outrageous question.

And what was so outrageous? Well, for starters, Greenwald says, the “to the extent” formulation could be used to justify any baseless insinuation, like “To the extent that Mr. Gregory has murdered his neighbors. . . .” But Greenwald does not deny that he has “aided and abetted Snowden.” So this particular question was not baseless. 

            I agree that Greenwald should not have been surprised by Gregory’s attempt to marginalize him in this way. But Kinsley misses the crux of this little drama, which is that Gregory felt free to raise a question with Greenwald he would never raise with, say, President Bush or Obama or even the head of the NSA. Can you imagine the outrage if a reporter had asked Bush or Obama whether they should be charged with “a crime” or with “high crimes and misdemeanors” given the illegality or secretiveness of the NSA spying activities? “To the extent that you lied to the nation about WMDs in Iraq, President Bush, why shouldn’t you be charged?” Oh boy, wouldn’t the outcry be fun to hear? 

            What Gregory and Kinsley are doing is marginalizing Greenwald and Snowden, which is the essence of “repressive tolerance.” It is the equivalent of Socrates’ banning of the poets from his best political order in book 10 of the Republic. Only the “banning” is disguised in such sentences as these from Kinsley’s review:

But in “No Place to Hide,” Greenwald seems like a self-righteous sourpuss, convinced that every issue is “straightforward,” and if you don’t agree with him, you’re part of something he calls “the authorities,” who control everything for their own nefarious but never explained purposes.

And, the proof of the pudding, so to speak, is that after having read Kinsley’s review of Greenwald’s book, if you take it seriously, there is no reason to read the book. You can dismiss as the work of “a self-righteous sourpuss,” even overlooking perhaps that Kinsley is as self-righteous in his review as Greenwald is said to be in his book! Why is it easy to overlook Kinsley’s self-righteousness? Well, because his is in the service of the established order. To wit: 

The question is who decides. It seems clear, at least to me, that the private companies that own newspapers, and their employees, should not have the final say over the release of government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no legal consequences. In a democracy (which, pace Greenwald, we still are), that decision must ultimately be made by the government.

NB: Without anything approaching an argument, Kinsley asserts that the U.S. is still a “democracy,” where, allegedly, decisions made by the government are in fact made by a majority of “the people.” BUT THIS IS THE ISSUE! Or, at the very least, it should be the issue. And how can it be asserted that a government which is secretly spying on its citizens, and even lying about doing so, be considered “democratic?” It is quite incredible, literally, to argue that a government that secretly undertakes activities and lies about them to its citizens is “democratic” insofar as in a democracy, it is the people who are suppose to determine the government’s policies. 

            But you would never know this from Kinsley’s review. And it is only once this issue is obfuscated that Greenwald and Snowden and their actions can be assessed solely from the point of view of “national security.” If this issue is not blurred, however, then Greenwald’s and Snowden’s actions can and should be assessed from a political point of view. Were Snowden’s actions – and Greenwald’s – in the service of “democracy” or not? And if they were in the service of “democracy,” rule by the people, shouldn’t the cost in terms of “national security” be assessed in light of this? 

            This is the essence of “repressive tolerance,” viz., the most important political questions are replaced with other, less important questions, allowing the powers that be to govern independently of and even contrary to the wishes of the people. And those who point to this situation are deemed “marginal” at best, “criminal” at worst, because after all we all know, or should know, that crimes against the state are far worse than crimes against the people and their right to self rule. In fact, it is the essence of “repressive tolerance” to teach the people that those who wield power are incapable of criminal behavior and that, therefore, their actions must be accepted or, at the very least, tolerated because they were done with the best of intentions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/books/review/no-place-to-hide-by-glenn-greenwald.html?ref=books&_r=1