A lot of people--on the Internet especially--encounter nothing but a mob of angry atheists, and they cannot exactly understand just why they are angry; they simply want them to go away, or liken them to their fundamentalist counterparts in order to try to simply dismiss or belittle them.
But this isn't exactly the case. Atheists view religion completely differently than religious people view it, and the experiences most atheists claim to have about coming out as an atheist to family and friends has an enormous impact upon what they think of religion, above and beyond whatever philosophy they turn to in its place.
To be an atheist--again it depends upon where one lives and goes to school, etc--is more or less the same as being a homosexual, insofar as homosexuality is actively reviled by the dominant group. When one typically comes out as an atheist, especially if one grows up in a very religious household, or attends a religious school, or lives in a small town in the south or midwest, it is not surprising if the open-atheist is ostracized or even exiled from his or her community. Jessica Ahlquist recently won a lawsuit requiring her public school to remove a sectarian banner, and is now being attacked by angry Christians1.
Religion, to the atheist, is nothing more and nothing less than a power structure, a requirement and condition for tribal membership, to the point where whatever meaning may be derived from religious belief for the believers cannot be considered authentic because,as they see it, it is imposed upon the individual by greater society. To the atheist, religion is not unlike the Matrix, the simulation built by the robots in order to pacify their human resources (literally), and as such, religion must be annihilated in order for individuals to be liberated and given the agency they need for intellectual and emotional fulfillment.
The atheist does not commonly recognize that religion may indeed bring authentic meaning to people's lives by way of its transmission from parent to child (the master-slave relationship in which the child does not have any rights or agency under the parent; s/he is not typically given the agency or the knowledge required to make an informed choice about what it is he or she believes).
The atheist is typically right on these points, however: Most Americans have not actually read The Bible, and children--as well as adults--living in a community dominated by a given religion do not have the recourse to forfeit their faith without serious social consequences. If one looked at religious beliefs in society, one may certainly find that it serves as a social control first, and a source of meaning for individuals second.
But the people who know their religion, who know and are comfortable in what they believe, are much less likely to oppress others; the much smaller number of the religious who fit into this category--who have truly studied and care about what it is they personally believe--lends itself to the view that for most Americans, religion is more of a social control than an authentic source of meaning for individuals. They do not have any access to other philosophical or theological frameworks unless they are willing to forfeit membership to their tribes, and this says nothing about the traps built into the religions in order to keep the numbers of the faithful--namely, Hell.
On the other hand, independent of all of what I have said so far, what can be said about the atheist is that s/he has as much allegiance to his or her new group--the drive to belong is the same for all people, no matter what race/religion/sexual orientation/ethnicity/etc, etc--as the Christians do to one another, and this in itself precludes any meaningful dialogue between sides, especially for new (de)converts. This point is the same for every single belief system ever: The new initiate in any system of belief is on shaky ground, and among people in which he can confide--fellow (non)believers--s/he may be more open to exploring new philosophical/ideological ground, but to outsiders, s/he must appear sure of himself or herself, to the point of making claims s/he does not yet know how how to justify.
The Big Bang of the atheist community is leading more people to truly figure out what it is they should identify as according to what they believe: "Am I agnostic? What does that mean? Am I a 'gnostic atheist', or an 'agnostic atheist'?" (Do I know that there are no (G)od(s), or am I only to varying degrees certain that gods do not exist? Conversely, it is possible to be a gnostic theist--to know that (G)od(s) exist--or an agnostic theist--to only be certain by varying degrees that (G)od(s) exist.) This conversation is healthy and productive, to broaden the range of possibilities for belief (or non-belief).
It would, in my view, be very difficult to deny that religion does serve the purpose of social control, but at the same time, I'm not quite certain that it is specifically the fault of religion itself. The truth is that I think people would generally be quick to find some or other political or philosophical difference to fight to the death about after extinguishing all others. It is true that most human conflicts are defined in religious or ethnic terms, but the language used is often just dressing for realities that are much more banal. It is just tragic that, in our time, as globalization continues to become an ever-present reality, the only justifications available to the last bastions of isolationism are religious and nationalistic, to the point where a grotesque hybrid of the two has emerged, a phenomenon with which most of the politically-informed is already familiar.
1) http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/that-christian-compassion/
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Best Books I Read This Year
Top 10 for both fiction and non-fiction, with a brief description of each
1) The Red & The Black by Stendhal - A young literary scholar falls in love with his employer's wife, and then falls in love with another employer's daughter. I love the book because of the drive toward authenticity amidst petty capitalist attitudes. As a political novel, although written in 1830, nearly all of it can be applied to today, and, specifically, to me.
2) Room by Emma Donague - This was a surprise Xmas gift, and I fell in love with it immediately; in fact, I read it in a span of two days. I cannot really give away anything of the plot, for fear of ruining the experience. It was a hauntingly beautiful novel that I will never forget.
3) The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen - This was a hilarious, cynical book about an old, neurotic matriarch desperately trying to coerce her dysfunctional family to get together for Christmas. I loved it.
4) A Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez - A very short account of a murder told in reverse. When it is finally laid bare, it is a sheer spectacle to behold. I was not expecting such a violent conclusion.
5) In the Beauty of the Lilies by John Updike - I remember the book more for Updike's enjoyably indulgent prose (remember, I was an English major) than its substance, but I did find the theological debates between characters and points of view quite interesting.
6) One Hundred Years of Solitude by GGM - This was a fast and engrossing read, but keeping track of the characters was somewhat difficult (coming from someone who read Russian novels for fun), probably because names of matriarchs and patriarchs are repeated in subsequent generations. Much like Island by Aldous Huxley without the LSD, it is about a small town slowly getting taken over by surrounding territories, populated with lively characters who have a lot of sex.
7) The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingslover - A Ragnarok between an ossified religious worldview, and the harsh realities of the third world in the sixties. It was a sheer pleasure to anticipate the deranged preacher's demise.
8) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson - I finished this book a few weeks ago, and have just started The Girl Who Played With Fire. It isn't much of an intellectual read by any stretch, but it does contain some history and economics to justify itself. It's a fairly decent story that reminded me of Clue, and it has a very good cast of characters. Too bad Lisbeth Salander, the real star of the series, doesn't show up until halfway through the book.
9) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by JK Rowling - This is my favorite book in the series. One of my friends persuaded (forced) me to finish it (Goblet of Fire is the last one I read, and that was years ago). This is the book with Professor Umbridge, the juvenile version of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, and she turns Hogwarts into a totalitarian dystopia.
10) Out by Natsuo Kirino - I embarked on a quest for Japanese crime stories for a friend, but ended up finding something for myself instead. A group of women who work the night shift at a package lunch factory conspire to murder one of their abusive husbands. If you are looking for a glimpse into the lives of ordinary Japanese women, or are looking for a seriously violent novel, this is it.
1) Being & Nothingness by JP Sartre - I identify as an Existentialist; I got a TON out of this book.
2) Capital vol 1 by Karl Marx - I was compelled to read Capital because of my chronic unemployment, my swiftly waning confidence in capitalism, and my support of Occupy Wall Street. Reading Capital was difficult, but, like Being & Nothingness, I was greatly rewarded for my persistence.
3) The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir - The back of the book claims that she pissed a lot of men off, but I'm not one of them. I really enjoyed it.
4) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter - Thank you Richard Hofstadter for explaining how America got to be so devoid of intellectual culture, and for so beautifully illuminating the internal conflict of the intellectual between conformity and alienation.
5) Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault - This book is more than just about the rise of the prison; it is about power, its structures, and how it operates, not only upon prisoners, but also greater society.
6) The Economics of Good & Evil by Tomas Sedlacek - I have been increasingly pressured to begin reading about economics, and so I chose this little book. Sedlacek presents economics and its history in a context to which my political/philosophical/literary brain can easily relate. I may read Adam Smith (whom Marx quoted extensively in Capital) and Keynes next year.
7) God: A Biography by Jack Miles - After reading Walter Brueggemmann last year, I found this little book that approached the Old Testament precisely from a perspective that closely matched mine. God: A Biography approached the Old Testament from a literary perspective and attempted to construct God as a full character, as a subject. Because of this book, I have a much greater respect for the Old Testament than I had previously.
8) The Savage City by TJ English - I saw the author appear on The Daily Show, and decided that I should read this book. It turned out that I made a good decision: English deconstructs the power structure of the police department and--to borrow from Foucault--its illegalities between the 60s and 70s. The book converged three vantage points to tell a complete story: That of George Whitmore, an unfortunate bystander devoured by the machine; a corrupt cop; and a Black Panther member.
9) Phenomenology of Mind by Georg W.F. Hegel - *DISCLAIMER*: I only understood about half of this book, but what I did understand, I really liked. What I did understand was about the synthesis of knowledge in the mind, but the rest of it was about the existence of Absolute Knowledge, and I had absolutely no idea what he was trying to say on that point (pun sort of intended).
10) Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Steven Breyer - I really like Steven Breyer as a SC Justice. In MODW, Breyer compares and contrasts what he considers--for lack of a better term--consequentialism/pragmatism with Originalism (Antonin Scalia's constitutional hermeneutic framework), while attempting to explain on a basic level what the SCOTUS actually does. While I was already familiar with much of what Justice Breyer had to say, it still proved to be worth my time.
Fiction
1) The Red & The Black by Stendhal - A young literary scholar falls in love with his employer's wife, and then falls in love with another employer's daughter. I love the book because of the drive toward authenticity amidst petty capitalist attitudes. As a political novel, although written in 1830, nearly all of it can be applied to today, and, specifically, to me.
2) Room by Emma Donague - This was a surprise Xmas gift, and I fell in love with it immediately; in fact, I read it in a span of two days. I cannot really give away anything of the plot, for fear of ruining the experience. It was a hauntingly beautiful novel that I will never forget.
3) The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen - This was a hilarious, cynical book about an old, neurotic matriarch desperately trying to coerce her dysfunctional family to get together for Christmas. I loved it.
4) A Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez - A very short account of a murder told in reverse. When it is finally laid bare, it is a sheer spectacle to behold. I was not expecting such a violent conclusion.
5) In the Beauty of the Lilies by John Updike - I remember the book more for Updike's enjoyably indulgent prose (remember, I was an English major) than its substance, but I did find the theological debates between characters and points of view quite interesting.
6) One Hundred Years of Solitude by GGM - This was a fast and engrossing read, but keeping track of the characters was somewhat difficult (coming from someone who read Russian novels for fun), probably because names of matriarchs and patriarchs are repeated in subsequent generations. Much like Island by Aldous Huxley without the LSD, it is about a small town slowly getting taken over by surrounding territories, populated with lively characters who have a lot of sex.
7) The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingslover - A Ragnarok between an ossified religious worldview, and the harsh realities of the third world in the sixties. It was a sheer pleasure to anticipate the deranged preacher's demise.
8) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson - I finished this book a few weeks ago, and have just started The Girl Who Played With Fire. It isn't much of an intellectual read by any stretch, but it does contain some history and economics to justify itself. It's a fairly decent story that reminded me of Clue, and it has a very good cast of characters. Too bad Lisbeth Salander, the real star of the series, doesn't show up until halfway through the book.
9) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by JK Rowling - This is my favorite book in the series. One of my friends persuaded (forced) me to finish it (Goblet of Fire is the last one I read, and that was years ago). This is the book with Professor Umbridge, the juvenile version of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, and she turns Hogwarts into a totalitarian dystopia.
10) Out by Natsuo Kirino - I embarked on a quest for Japanese crime stories for a friend, but ended up finding something for myself instead. A group of women who work the night shift at a package lunch factory conspire to murder one of their abusive husbands. If you are looking for a glimpse into the lives of ordinary Japanese women, or are looking for a seriously violent novel, this is it.
Nonfiction
1) Being & Nothingness by JP Sartre - I identify as an Existentialist; I got a TON out of this book.
2) Capital vol 1 by Karl Marx - I was compelled to read Capital because of my chronic unemployment, my swiftly waning confidence in capitalism, and my support of Occupy Wall Street. Reading Capital was difficult, but, like Being & Nothingness, I was greatly rewarded for my persistence.
3) The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir - The back of the book claims that she pissed a lot of men off, but I'm not one of them. I really enjoyed it.
4) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter - Thank you Richard Hofstadter for explaining how America got to be so devoid of intellectual culture, and for so beautifully illuminating the internal conflict of the intellectual between conformity and alienation.
5) Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault - This book is more than just about the rise of the prison; it is about power, its structures, and how it operates, not only upon prisoners, but also greater society.
6) The Economics of Good & Evil by Tomas Sedlacek - I have been increasingly pressured to begin reading about economics, and so I chose this little book. Sedlacek presents economics and its history in a context to which my political/philosophical/literary brain can easily relate. I may read Adam Smith (whom Marx quoted extensively in Capital) and Keynes next year.
7) God: A Biography by Jack Miles - After reading Walter Brueggemmann last year, I found this little book that approached the Old Testament precisely from a perspective that closely matched mine. God: A Biography approached the Old Testament from a literary perspective and attempted to construct God as a full character, as a subject. Because of this book, I have a much greater respect for the Old Testament than I had previously.
8) The Savage City by TJ English - I saw the author appear on The Daily Show, and decided that I should read this book. It turned out that I made a good decision: English deconstructs the power structure of the police department and--to borrow from Foucault--its illegalities between the 60s and 70s. The book converged three vantage points to tell a complete story: That of George Whitmore, an unfortunate bystander devoured by the machine; a corrupt cop; and a Black Panther member.
9) Phenomenology of Mind by Georg W.F. Hegel - *DISCLAIMER*: I only understood about half of this book, but what I did understand, I really liked. What I did understand was about the synthesis of knowledge in the mind, but the rest of it was about the existence of Absolute Knowledge, and I had absolutely no idea what he was trying to say on that point (pun sort of intended).
10) Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Steven Breyer - I really like Steven Breyer as a SC Justice. In MODW, Breyer compares and contrasts what he considers--for lack of a better term--consequentialism/pragmatism with Originalism (Antonin Scalia's constitutional hermeneutic framework), while attempting to explain on a basic level what the SCOTUS actually does. While I was already familiar with much of what Justice Breyer had to say, it still proved to be worth my time.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
In Defense of Apathy, OWS
I just finished an amazing book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1964. The book discusses the fate and impact of intellectuals in and on American society. The picture he paints is not a pretty one.
What was most interesting about the book was the conflict between intellectuals and society from the intellectuals' point of view: The idea of "selling out" is not simply a petty one, but rather the notion that through getting a comfortable position, the intellectual will eventually become docile, and no longer be in a position to function as a social critic. Alienation is a perspective from which one sees society in its stark nakedness, and yields a certain freedom to say what one truly believes, and to no longer be alienated means to be exposed to the temptation to moderate or radically shift one's views in order to maintain a position. Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, refused the Nobel Prize in Literature, protesting that he "did not want to become an institution." The entire dynamic hinges on the temptation of power: The intellectual values the truth as s/he sees it, and in no longer being alienated, runs the risk of falling victim to some other idol (power, fame, fortune, etc).
There were fleeting moments in which the intellectual community in America (we actually had one!) possessed some power, during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency to World War 1, and later during the Great Depression, and one might suggest also the first two years of Obama's presidency. But each of those moments was but fleeting, and followed by enormous backlash: World War 1 was by all accounts a wanton holocaust, the New Deal was followed by McCarthy era, and Healthcare Reform was followed by the Tea Party with continuous effort to kill it. I might say that Occupy Wall Street, while right, is a failed movement, born too late and will probably die too soon. The Tea Party and TARP have only further ensconced the derivative traders and the corporate bogeymen in the seat of power when they should have been duly and severely punished for their excess.
The pattern of progressive policy in the United States leaves me to wonder about how someone described Michel Foucault's action/inaction dynamic, which at first I didn't like because apathy only enables further action by oppressors, but now I am starting to realize just what kind of position educated people find themselves in, and whether or not Foucault is indeed right.
Foucault, according to this person I was talking to, suggests that any kind of protest--such as Occupy Wall Street--legitimizes the current power structure. Protest, in this view, falls far short of what could be argued necessary revolution, and in this way, does not seek to make substantial changes to the prevailing order. As an example, look at women's rights, which are never so secure. Despite sexual liberation, widespread birth control, and new economic opportunity, women are still paid substantially less than their male counterparts. Examine the wanton manner in which cases of rape and sexual harassment are handled, Herman Cain being the latest example: Here is a man who is blatantly misogynist, indicating that he is most likely to have been guilty of sexual harassment by way of his low opinion of women, and we as a society seek not to punish him for this behavior, but rather to undermine the claims of his accusers. So often, despite the enormous advances in women's rights generally (not just abortion, that is an entirely more rabid and dangerous animal), they never feel quite so secure. African-Americans, however, appear to be so secure in their status that they are more than happy to align themselves with their previous oppressors and disparage homosexuals in their struggle for equal marriage rights, when the actual reality is that they suffer economically more than other groups in the current crisis. "You can still hold the keys to the kingdom, but I want X, Y, and Z" just doesn't work; when the truth is that it may be a choice of all or nothing.
Is there a way that intellectuals could have a lasting impact on society given the pattern of brief success followed by overwhelming backlash? Is it possible for those who know anything at all about how our society operates to be heard and listened to by anyone who has real power? What happens when intellectuals do get power? The Russian Revolution was born through the intelligentsia, and only unimaginable horror followed. The American Socialist Party, for their turn, owed much to intellectuals, but were just as confused by their presence as the capitalists, despite the fact that Marxism gained ground first in academia. The gulf between theory and praxis has never been bridged; the men who act are always at odds with the men who think.
So what do the intellectuals do, putting aside the anxieties of acceptance, if they cannot have a lasting impact on the course of society because of quintessential popular American mistrust? Do they wring their hands and allow those who show themselves to be malevolent, both to society and to intellectualism, to simply take over?
After Bush left office, I was fairly optimistic that Obama could have a real positive impact on society because of his intellect; I voted for him because of it. And what happened to him has happened to every other public figure with any significant degree of intellect: He was immediately lampooned by the most ignorant, backward, and even malicious among us, and arguably his most brilliant success is still being campaigned against, and is being tried at the Supreme Court. Halfway through his presidency--a span of merely two years--he was declared a lame duck by a pseudo-movement that could be described as nothing short of rabid. His reelection chances, depending on the commitments of our electorate, are slim. Because of the backlash against his intellect by a vagrant and uncommitted voting population, our election cycles have seemed to be rapidly accelerated, leaving far less time for any responsible public official to be productive, leaving those with questionable aims and the means to sell their poison pills to the public as though they were selling candy ample opportunity to wreak havoc.
The difference is stark: The Tea Party came out with a loud, clear, anti-intellectualist and xenophobic message that, to its own demographic, would prove suicidal were it pursued. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is a genuinely populist movement, taking into account a very diverse membership, had difficulty deciding on more than a few decent slogans, but anyone with half a brain could figure out exactly what OWS was trying to say, and the conversation that Occupy movements across the country have been having with greater society have been rather...insightful.
Through Occupy Wall Street, we have learned some interesting things about how much we learn from the past, the range of acceptable political debate, and where our professional press stands: With the people it was supposed to serve, or the current power structure? UC Davis students were wantonly pepper-sprayed by a thug in a uniform. Lt Anthony Bologna in New York City pepper-sprayed a young girl behind a barricade, despite the fact that she was doing nothing. Oakland Police used military action against nonviolent protestors in order to evict them, and war veteran Scott Olsen was hit in the head with a tear gas canister, and a flashbang grenade was thrown into the group of people who rushed to help him. Where police officers get flashbang grenades, I would very much like to know. The militarization of police is an issue that will surely crop up again. Police officers, I should remind everyone, are unionized, and they are fighting for a power structure that will only exploit them and diminish their rights as public employees. The only explanation for rampant and unwarranted police violence is that they don't know or don't care about this technicality, and only get off on having a gun and holding power over others (top two responses of a survey my Sociology professor conducted on a class of police recruits). This is an interesting fact because there was almost no violence when the Tea Party held their rallies, despite their strong use of revolutionary and brazenly violent rhetoric, anti-union views, and their fetish for second amendment rights.
All of these things happened in previous eras: African-Americans were attacked by police dogs, beaten, and sprayed with fire hoses. Students were shot on a campus during the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. And we know how those turned out. But with Occupy Wall Street, they are using a wholly different tactic. Those in power are indirectly undermining the movement by intentionally diluting its message, claiming that they don't know what it is. So they would have us believe that a few hundred thousand people are gathering in public space and enduring extreme police violence for no reason? Either they are have lost all capacity for critical thinking, or this apparent confusion is deliberate. Our press is failing us absolutely, regardless of which of those two options you choose.
The allegiance of the press in times of crisis is always helpful to figure out, in order to gauge the degree to which the people should trust it. There are always those who will trust the media no matter what, even if violence rages in the streets outside their windows, and only one side has the weapons and armor.
Occupy Wall Street is also about how much we can actually say in our democracy. In the wake of massive financial meltdown--as I have oft repeated--we still have prominent people who will go to their graves reciting the mantras of the virtue of free-market capitalism, while millions are starving. Many adults who have lost their jobs, whose lives fell into ruin, still love the capitalism that killed them. The True Believers will never be swayed, even as they find themselves homeless. Can Occupy Wall Street fulfill its promise? Can it consolidate its myriad voices, and scream what needs to be said? Can it rise above the crowded voices of the corporate bogeymen, speculative sycophants, and alter forever the discourse of this country?
I personally believe that as a consequence of TARP, the management teams of any and all firms that participated in the program should have been immediately fired without severance, retirement, or a "parachute". I also believe that the banks, as a consequence of their irresponsibility, should have been placed under the control of the federal government, even though this does not by itself guarantee that the firms would behave more responsibly. I also believe that the IRS should thoroughly investigate all banks that participated in the program as a necessary condition of their receiving taxpayer funds, and lastly, that all derivative trading being pursued by these banks should be stopped immediately. Lastly, I urge everyone to move their money into a smaller institution on the condition that the bank they choose has not received TARP funds.
I realize that the question of apathy has not been solved, that I have spent more time on Occupy Wall Street than I intended. I have not worked out whether or not apathy is warranted, because we still live here and are still affected by the decisions of our politicians, even if we do not hold any real influence, but this could be said to be true for all Americans, intellectual or not.
What was most interesting about the book was the conflict between intellectuals and society from the intellectuals' point of view: The idea of "selling out" is not simply a petty one, but rather the notion that through getting a comfortable position, the intellectual will eventually become docile, and no longer be in a position to function as a social critic. Alienation is a perspective from which one sees society in its stark nakedness, and yields a certain freedom to say what one truly believes, and to no longer be alienated means to be exposed to the temptation to moderate or radically shift one's views in order to maintain a position. Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, refused the Nobel Prize in Literature, protesting that he "did not want to become an institution." The entire dynamic hinges on the temptation of power: The intellectual values the truth as s/he sees it, and in no longer being alienated, runs the risk of falling victim to some other idol (power, fame, fortune, etc).
There were fleeting moments in which the intellectual community in America (we actually had one!) possessed some power, during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency to World War 1, and later during the Great Depression, and one might suggest also the first two years of Obama's presidency. But each of those moments was but fleeting, and followed by enormous backlash: World War 1 was by all accounts a wanton holocaust, the New Deal was followed by McCarthy era, and Healthcare Reform was followed by the Tea Party with continuous effort to kill it. I might say that Occupy Wall Street, while right, is a failed movement, born too late and will probably die too soon. The Tea Party and TARP have only further ensconced the derivative traders and the corporate bogeymen in the seat of power when they should have been duly and severely punished for their excess.
The pattern of progressive policy in the United States leaves me to wonder about how someone described Michel Foucault's action/inaction dynamic, which at first I didn't like because apathy only enables further action by oppressors, but now I am starting to realize just what kind of position educated people find themselves in, and whether or not Foucault is indeed right.
Foucault, according to this person I was talking to, suggests that any kind of protest--such as Occupy Wall Street--legitimizes the current power structure. Protest, in this view, falls far short of what could be argued necessary revolution, and in this way, does not seek to make substantial changes to the prevailing order. As an example, look at women's rights, which are never so secure. Despite sexual liberation, widespread birth control, and new economic opportunity, women are still paid substantially less than their male counterparts. Examine the wanton manner in which cases of rape and sexual harassment are handled, Herman Cain being the latest example: Here is a man who is blatantly misogynist, indicating that he is most likely to have been guilty of sexual harassment by way of his low opinion of women, and we as a society seek not to punish him for this behavior, but rather to undermine the claims of his accusers. So often, despite the enormous advances in women's rights generally (not just abortion, that is an entirely more rabid and dangerous animal), they never feel quite so secure. African-Americans, however, appear to be so secure in their status that they are more than happy to align themselves with their previous oppressors and disparage homosexuals in their struggle for equal marriage rights, when the actual reality is that they suffer economically more than other groups in the current crisis. "You can still hold the keys to the kingdom, but I want X, Y, and Z" just doesn't work; when the truth is that it may be a choice of all or nothing.
Is there a way that intellectuals could have a lasting impact on society given the pattern of brief success followed by overwhelming backlash? Is it possible for those who know anything at all about how our society operates to be heard and listened to by anyone who has real power? What happens when intellectuals do get power? The Russian Revolution was born through the intelligentsia, and only unimaginable horror followed. The American Socialist Party, for their turn, owed much to intellectuals, but were just as confused by their presence as the capitalists, despite the fact that Marxism gained ground first in academia. The gulf between theory and praxis has never been bridged; the men who act are always at odds with the men who think.
So what do the intellectuals do, putting aside the anxieties of acceptance, if they cannot have a lasting impact on the course of society because of quintessential popular American mistrust? Do they wring their hands and allow those who show themselves to be malevolent, both to society and to intellectualism, to simply take over?
After Bush left office, I was fairly optimistic that Obama could have a real positive impact on society because of his intellect; I voted for him because of it. And what happened to him has happened to every other public figure with any significant degree of intellect: He was immediately lampooned by the most ignorant, backward, and even malicious among us, and arguably his most brilliant success is still being campaigned against, and is being tried at the Supreme Court. Halfway through his presidency--a span of merely two years--he was declared a lame duck by a pseudo-movement that could be described as nothing short of rabid. His reelection chances, depending on the commitments of our electorate, are slim. Because of the backlash against his intellect by a vagrant and uncommitted voting population, our election cycles have seemed to be rapidly accelerated, leaving far less time for any responsible public official to be productive, leaving those with questionable aims and the means to sell their poison pills to the public as though they were selling candy ample opportunity to wreak havoc.
The difference is stark: The Tea Party came out with a loud, clear, anti-intellectualist and xenophobic message that, to its own demographic, would prove suicidal were it pursued. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is a genuinely populist movement, taking into account a very diverse membership, had difficulty deciding on more than a few decent slogans, but anyone with half a brain could figure out exactly what OWS was trying to say, and the conversation that Occupy movements across the country have been having with greater society have been rather...insightful.
Through Occupy Wall Street, we have learned some interesting things about how much we learn from the past, the range of acceptable political debate, and where our professional press stands: With the people it was supposed to serve, or the current power structure? UC Davis students were wantonly pepper-sprayed by a thug in a uniform. Lt Anthony Bologna in New York City pepper-sprayed a young girl behind a barricade, despite the fact that she was doing nothing. Oakland Police used military action against nonviolent protestors in order to evict them, and war veteran Scott Olsen was hit in the head with a tear gas canister, and a flashbang grenade was thrown into the group of people who rushed to help him. Where police officers get flashbang grenades, I would very much like to know. The militarization of police is an issue that will surely crop up again. Police officers, I should remind everyone, are unionized, and they are fighting for a power structure that will only exploit them and diminish their rights as public employees. The only explanation for rampant and unwarranted police violence is that they don't know or don't care about this technicality, and only get off on having a gun and holding power over others (top two responses of a survey my Sociology professor conducted on a class of police recruits). This is an interesting fact because there was almost no violence when the Tea Party held their rallies, despite their strong use of revolutionary and brazenly violent rhetoric, anti-union views, and their fetish for second amendment rights.
All of these things happened in previous eras: African-Americans were attacked by police dogs, beaten, and sprayed with fire hoses. Students were shot on a campus during the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. And we know how those turned out. But with Occupy Wall Street, they are using a wholly different tactic. Those in power are indirectly undermining the movement by intentionally diluting its message, claiming that they don't know what it is. So they would have us believe that a few hundred thousand people are gathering in public space and enduring extreme police violence for no reason? Either they are have lost all capacity for critical thinking, or this apparent confusion is deliberate. Our press is failing us absolutely, regardless of which of those two options you choose.
The allegiance of the press in times of crisis is always helpful to figure out, in order to gauge the degree to which the people should trust it. There are always those who will trust the media no matter what, even if violence rages in the streets outside their windows, and only one side has the weapons and armor.
Occupy Wall Street is also about how much we can actually say in our democracy. In the wake of massive financial meltdown--as I have oft repeated--we still have prominent people who will go to their graves reciting the mantras of the virtue of free-market capitalism, while millions are starving. Many adults who have lost their jobs, whose lives fell into ruin, still love the capitalism that killed them. The True Believers will never be swayed, even as they find themselves homeless. Can Occupy Wall Street fulfill its promise? Can it consolidate its myriad voices, and scream what needs to be said? Can it rise above the crowded voices of the corporate bogeymen, speculative sycophants, and alter forever the discourse of this country?
I personally believe that as a consequence of TARP, the management teams of any and all firms that participated in the program should have been immediately fired without severance, retirement, or a "parachute". I also believe that the banks, as a consequence of their irresponsibility, should have been placed under the control of the federal government, even though this does not by itself guarantee that the firms would behave more responsibly. I also believe that the IRS should thoroughly investigate all banks that participated in the program as a necessary condition of their receiving taxpayer funds, and lastly, that all derivative trading being pursued by these banks should be stopped immediately. Lastly, I urge everyone to move their money into a smaller institution on the condition that the bank they choose has not received TARP funds.
I realize that the question of apathy has not been solved, that I have spent more time on Occupy Wall Street than I intended. I have not worked out whether or not apathy is warranted, because we still live here and are still affected by the decisions of our politicians, even if we do not hold any real influence, but this could be said to be true for all Americans, intellectual or not.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
No, I Will Not Worship Steve Jobs
In the process of death, it is often that those surrounding the dying or recently deceased will romanticize or flat-out whitewash that person--especially if it is a person that they already admire for things that have nothing to do with their personality--such as in the case of Steve Jobs.
During an argument with my parents, I discounted Steve Jobs as an inspiration because while he was good at making shiny gadgets that don't do very much (I am talking about the fairly totalitarian third-party app policies, such as the removal of Google's VoIP service a few years ago, and, more relevant, the lack of a donation system in apps for charities), his record for using his money for public good is rather "thin"1.
His defenders claim that he may have donated to social causes privately, but I don't find this convincing because he was a man beloved by millions, and really the first person (this is why I should like him) to make those damned hipsters look like the hypocrites they are. Think about it: Steve Jobs, beloved by the public, could have used his fame and fortune to do enormous good. Pick a cause--any cause--and his fans and followers would have solved it instantly. But curiously, he didn't do that, despite having ample opportunity2.
Bono claimed that he donated anonymously to Project RED, and in the 80s, Jobs set up a philanthropic organization, but that quickly shut down because "[he] didn't have time"3.
But look at what I said before, about how charities don't have donation systems in their apps. If Steve Jobs really cared about philanthropy, about social responsibility, wouldn't he at least have opened the doors to non-profit organizations on the most popular platform in the industrialized world? From this view, despite claims to the contrary--that in his death his estate may donate his fortune--there is no indication that he cared about anything but shiny objects and money.
The amount of attention and praise Steve Jobs is receiving is inversely proportionate to the amount of good he did as a person. Sure, he founded Apple, but Apple isn't dead; Steve Jobs, the person, is.
What matters to me when considering what he has to say is how much he did. During the last years of his tenure at Apple and his life, he traveled a dangerous road by cordoning off his technology, strictly regulating what could and could not interact with his devices.
In studying for the CompTIA A+ Certification exams, I learned that the computing industry took off and became what it is today precisely because those myriad technology companies had the foresight to share their technology for the betterment of everyone involved, which led to industry-wide standards and more freedom for consumers to mix and match computer peripherals and components. This is why I can build computers from scratch.
But none of this is true for Steve Jobs or Apple today, and it is ironic to me that a man so responsible for restricting technology is idolized--dare I say, worshiped--by people who claim to value freedom.
No, I don't feel compelled to join in worshiping Steve Jobs for two reasons: 1) The long-term impact of his isolated technology will have a detrimental effect on the greater industry precisely because of its restrictions, which may or may not result in the rest of the computing industry following suit, which means an Internet that is less free, less versatile, and more expensive. Imagine using a Windows OS and only being able to install pre-approved software! How many games and Open-Source applications like Firefox would be lost!? 2) Steve Jobs' lack of a record of social responsibility and philanthropy immediately discredits him as an inspirational figure.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html
2) http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
3) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/yes-you-can-think-less-steve-jobs-not-being-philanthropist/41885/
During an argument with my parents, I discounted Steve Jobs as an inspiration because while he was good at making shiny gadgets that don't do very much (I am talking about the fairly totalitarian third-party app policies, such as the removal of Google's VoIP service a few years ago, and, more relevant, the lack of a donation system in apps for charities), his record for using his money for public good is rather "thin"1.
His defenders claim that he may have donated to social causes privately, but I don't find this convincing because he was a man beloved by millions, and really the first person (this is why I should like him) to make those damned hipsters look like the hypocrites they are. Think about it: Steve Jobs, beloved by the public, could have used his fame and fortune to do enormous good. Pick a cause--any cause--and his fans and followers would have solved it instantly. But curiously, he didn't do that, despite having ample opportunity2.
Bono claimed that he donated anonymously to Project RED, and in the 80s, Jobs set up a philanthropic organization, but that quickly shut down because "[he] didn't have time"3.
But look at what I said before, about how charities don't have donation systems in their apps. If Steve Jobs really cared about philanthropy, about social responsibility, wouldn't he at least have opened the doors to non-profit organizations on the most popular platform in the industrialized world? From this view, despite claims to the contrary--that in his death his estate may donate his fortune--there is no indication that he cared about anything but shiny objects and money.
The amount of attention and praise Steve Jobs is receiving is inversely proportionate to the amount of good he did as a person. Sure, he founded Apple, but Apple isn't dead; Steve Jobs, the person, is.
What matters to me when considering what he has to say is how much he did. During the last years of his tenure at Apple and his life, he traveled a dangerous road by cordoning off his technology, strictly regulating what could and could not interact with his devices.
In studying for the CompTIA A+ Certification exams, I learned that the computing industry took off and became what it is today precisely because those myriad technology companies had the foresight to share their technology for the betterment of everyone involved, which led to industry-wide standards and more freedom for consumers to mix and match computer peripherals and components. This is why I can build computers from scratch.
But none of this is true for Steve Jobs or Apple today, and it is ironic to me that a man so responsible for restricting technology is idolized--dare I say, worshiped--by people who claim to value freedom.
No, I don't feel compelled to join in worshiping Steve Jobs for two reasons: 1) The long-term impact of his isolated technology will have a detrimental effect on the greater industry precisely because of its restrictions, which may or may not result in the rest of the computing industry following suit, which means an Internet that is less free, less versatile, and more expensive. Imagine using a Windows OS and only being able to install pre-approved software! How many games and Open-Source applications like Firefox would be lost!? 2) Steve Jobs' lack of a record of social responsibility and philanthropy immediately discredits him as an inspirational figure.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html
2) http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
3) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/yes-you-can-think-less-steve-jobs-not-being-philanthropist/41885/
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Why Are They So Desperate For Christie?
Just yesterday, NJ governor Chris Christie clarified what New Jerseyans have known all along: He isn't running for President1. But I can't seem to figure out why it is, exactly, that they think he could run in the first place. The conditions governing Christie's potential as a candidate in the current Republican field perfectly illustrates exactly what the Republican party is, and those who wish he would run are trying as best they can to ignore the fact that their party is inherently broken.
In my last article, I described how audience members cried "Let him die!", cheered Perry's record number of executions, and finally booed a gay service member, all without comment from the candidates themselves (Santorum claims that he couldn't hear the boos, but I think he's lying). Some doubt that the audiences at these debates constitutes the "base", that they are not representative of the larger GOP electorate, but I disagree. What one has to understand about the Republican party is that it consistently chases after the lowest common denominator: The least educated and the most vulnerable, the most terrified and the most xenophobic; the Republican party appeals to the very worst in all of us.
If you disagree with that, I present to you the current presidential lineup: Michele Bachmann, who, nearly everyone agrees, is categorically insane. Rick Perry, a demagogue who hates cancer, and, as Brit Hume remarked, "threw up all over himself." Perry's administration in Texas is so incompetent that it had to pray to solve problems because his state is on fire (the prayer session, as it turned out, did nothing). Rick Santorum is vociferously homophobic and has a "Google problem" because of it. Herman Cain, who absolutely hates Muslims, doesn't like to read. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife multiple times while claiming to be a "Christian", and trips over himself in debates. Mitt Romney is a Mormon (the evangelicals HATE Mormons), and appears inauthentic generally; nobody trusts anything he says. Romney is currently believed to be the frontrunner. Jon Huntsman had to put "Call me crazy, but..." before announcing that he listens to scientists on global warming, and believes evolution to be true. That alone is enough to cut him out of the race. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a shot at being the President in an effective capacity, but hardly anyone pays attention to anything he says but pot-smoking anarchists. The greater media establishment is so terrified of dealing with difficult questions that it is easier for them (as well as the greater American public) to simply pretend that Ron Paul does not exist.
Finally, I present the long period between 2008-2010 in which the Republican establishment was infatuated with Sarah Palin, whom everyone has since admitted is basically an idiot. She still possesses a small base of fans, and the media is still watching her like they watch the groundhog to know how long winter will last.
Given this environment, how could someone who is articulate, intelligent, bombastic, and tolerant (Christie nominated a Muslim to the State Supreme Court2!) have a chance? He doesn't, and he probably knew it. The fact that they came to him so desperately--that they hounded him--speaks either to their delusion regarding their own party, or to their desire to fix it, which a political candidate cannot do alone.
Moderate Republicans can only marvel at their party's descent into lunacy, but as Paul Krugman once pointed out, this was an evolution that occurred only because nobody realized it was happening. Glenn Beck was a clown, yes, but with no one on the right devoted to calling him a clown, to refuting the bizarre conspiracy theories fed continually to people who largely didn't know any better in a way that they could understand, he was allowed to thrive.
Doing nothing does not make extremism go away. I am often told that the Christian Right is "just a fringe", that it isn't representative of what "most people" believe, but with polls stating that belief in Creationism to hover around 50% for a decade, for gay marriage to be such a divisive issue, for Birtherism to become dogma for a major political party even for a time, can we really call it a fringe?
What is the reason for this insanity, anyway? Why stoke up baseless fears about a rival candidate? Well, who has the money? Look to Wisconsin, in which Scott Walker fabricated an economic crisis in his state to disenfranchise public unions. Look to Michigan, in which boundless power was given to Emergency Financial Managers. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests that are happening right now. Look at Congress, which hasn't done a single thing since 2010. Who has the money?
The entire Republican party is focused on preserving the status quo in the face of the hardships of those who were wronged by the actions of the few in 2008. This is the reason for the distractions and the apparent stupidity: They got their money (our money via TARP, which, to be fair, is largely paid back), and all they need to do to keep the cash rolling in (our cash, because there is a finite amount of money in the economy, and our jobs--our futures--were all collateral) is to prevent us from holding them accountable at all costs. The damage to the political landscape doesn't matter, even the global economy doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that they stay on top.
Why hasn't the CFPB been in the news lately? In Elizabeth Warren's interview on The Daily Show, she said that if it isn't talked about in the open, it will die. I still don't know, after about a year, if that essential agency has any teeth. Why is that?
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/chris-christie-not-running-for-president/
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/nyregion/14christie.html
In my last article, I described how audience members cried "Let him die!", cheered Perry's record number of executions, and finally booed a gay service member, all without comment from the candidates themselves (Santorum claims that he couldn't hear the boos, but I think he's lying). Some doubt that the audiences at these debates constitutes the "base", that they are not representative of the larger GOP electorate, but I disagree. What one has to understand about the Republican party is that it consistently chases after the lowest common denominator: The least educated and the most vulnerable, the most terrified and the most xenophobic; the Republican party appeals to the very worst in all of us.
If you disagree with that, I present to you the current presidential lineup: Michele Bachmann, who, nearly everyone agrees, is categorically insane. Rick Perry, a demagogue who hates cancer, and, as Brit Hume remarked, "threw up all over himself." Perry's administration in Texas is so incompetent that it had to pray to solve problems because his state is on fire (the prayer session, as it turned out, did nothing). Rick Santorum is vociferously homophobic and has a "Google problem" because of it. Herman Cain, who absolutely hates Muslims, doesn't like to read. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife multiple times while claiming to be a "Christian", and trips over himself in debates. Mitt Romney is a Mormon (the evangelicals HATE Mormons), and appears inauthentic generally; nobody trusts anything he says. Romney is currently believed to be the frontrunner. Jon Huntsman had to put "Call me crazy, but..." before announcing that he listens to scientists on global warming, and believes evolution to be true. That alone is enough to cut him out of the race. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a shot at being the President in an effective capacity, but hardly anyone pays attention to anything he says but pot-smoking anarchists. The greater media establishment is so terrified of dealing with difficult questions that it is easier for them (as well as the greater American public) to simply pretend that Ron Paul does not exist.
Finally, I present the long period between 2008-2010 in which the Republican establishment was infatuated with Sarah Palin, whom everyone has since admitted is basically an idiot. She still possesses a small base of fans, and the media is still watching her like they watch the groundhog to know how long winter will last.
Given this environment, how could someone who is articulate, intelligent, bombastic, and tolerant (Christie nominated a Muslim to the State Supreme Court2!) have a chance? He doesn't, and he probably knew it. The fact that they came to him so desperately--that they hounded him--speaks either to their delusion regarding their own party, or to their desire to fix it, which a political candidate cannot do alone.
Moderate Republicans can only marvel at their party's descent into lunacy, but as Paul Krugman once pointed out, this was an evolution that occurred only because nobody realized it was happening. Glenn Beck was a clown, yes, but with no one on the right devoted to calling him a clown, to refuting the bizarre conspiracy theories fed continually to people who largely didn't know any better in a way that they could understand, he was allowed to thrive.
Doing nothing does not make extremism go away. I am often told that the Christian Right is "just a fringe", that it isn't representative of what "most people" believe, but with polls stating that belief in Creationism to hover around 50% for a decade, for gay marriage to be such a divisive issue, for Birtherism to become dogma for a major political party even for a time, can we really call it a fringe?
What is the reason for this insanity, anyway? Why stoke up baseless fears about a rival candidate? Well, who has the money? Look to Wisconsin, in which Scott Walker fabricated an economic crisis in his state to disenfranchise public unions. Look to Michigan, in which boundless power was given to Emergency Financial Managers. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests that are happening right now. Look at Congress, which hasn't done a single thing since 2010. Who has the money?
The entire Republican party is focused on preserving the status quo in the face of the hardships of those who were wronged by the actions of the few in 2008. This is the reason for the distractions and the apparent stupidity: They got their money (our money via TARP, which, to be fair, is largely paid back), and all they need to do to keep the cash rolling in (our cash, because there is a finite amount of money in the economy, and our jobs--our futures--were all collateral) is to prevent us from holding them accountable at all costs. The damage to the political landscape doesn't matter, even the global economy doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that they stay on top.
Why hasn't the CFPB been in the news lately? In Elizabeth Warren's interview on The Daily Show, she said that if it isn't talked about in the open, it will die. I still don't know, after about a year, if that essential agency has any teeth. Why is that?
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/chris-christie-not-running-for-president/
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/nyregion/14christie.html
Sunday, September 18, 2011
What I'm Really Afraid Of
There are two major phenomena that I am really worried about in this election cycle: The first is the readily apparent bloodthirst or barbarism of the Republican base, evident in the previous two debates, when the audience applauded Rick Perry's record number of executions (234), despite the fact that a few of them--one definite--may have been innocent, a fact that they--and Perry himself--are perfectly willing to ignore. In the second debate, the audience cheered, "Let him die!!" when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul what should be done with a young man who falls into a coma without health insurance. Regardless of what one believes about the size or role of government, throwing a man's life away is not something about which we should be so nonchalant. Suffice to say, on this point, I am more terrified of our electorate than the people we may be electing.
It is true that Obama has not been a very effective President; there are two main things that he is not doing: 1) He is not fighting hard enough for what he wants, and 2) He attempts to accommodate a political party that is not interested in anything less than his own ruin and their ascension to absolute power. But these two points presuppose that we cannot afford to replace him with anything other than a possible Third-Party progressive or another Democrat; these points presuppose that the incapacity and potential tyranny of a Republican candidate is a given. It isn't "Anyone but Obama!"; rather it is "Please someone who can fight harder against the Tea Party than Obama is!"
Today, my parents were watching Fox News (just to see what they were saying), and they were misinterpreting liberals' dissatisfaction with Obama in order to support the notion that the Republicans should win, that Obama wasn't doing the country any good, etc. But this is not at all the case, as I have demonstrated concretely above; no Obama supporter in his or her right mind could possibly want any of the Republican candidates to replace him.
A few weeks ago, I came across an article about a recently-retired Republican staffer who brought up an incredibly terrifying potential reality, that extends in part from everything I said during the 2010 campaigns about Fox News and media saturation: "If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power"1. Imagine the kind of apparatuses that would be required to convince voters that the disappearance of their Social Security checks and health insurance is beneficial. Logic would tell us that the 2010 election strategy should have been a one-shot deal: Get them just crazy enough to put the Tea Party into office, but those freshmen could expect to be voted out again when the voters see the reality of their agenda. But what if it were possible to fool them not once, but repeatedly, even as the more catastrophic, possibly permanent damage starts to manifest itself?
And if it doesn't succeed immediately, it does not take long for the Republican party to recover its abused legion of voters: The many scandals of the 80s and 90s should have been the death knell for the Christian conservative bloc, but during the 2000s, in which many more scandals occurred (such as that of Ted Haggard, Scott Roeder, and George Rekers), that bloc only reemerged in an even more radicalized form called the Tea Party2. The truth is that what that article claimed has already come to pass: The GOP is so successful that it can absorb a near-constant stream of scandals directly caused by its ideology, unleash the most irresponsible policies, and still manage to get elected, merely by changing its facade. It is the Hydra.
1) http://truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html
It is true that Obama has not been a very effective President; there are two main things that he is not doing: 1) He is not fighting hard enough for what he wants, and 2) He attempts to accommodate a political party that is not interested in anything less than his own ruin and their ascension to absolute power. But these two points presuppose that we cannot afford to replace him with anything other than a possible Third-Party progressive or another Democrat; these points presuppose that the incapacity and potential tyranny of a Republican candidate is a given. It isn't "Anyone but Obama!"; rather it is "Please someone who can fight harder against the Tea Party than Obama is!"
Today, my parents were watching Fox News (just to see what they were saying), and they were misinterpreting liberals' dissatisfaction with Obama in order to support the notion that the Republicans should win, that Obama wasn't doing the country any good, etc. But this is not at all the case, as I have demonstrated concretely above; no Obama supporter in his or her right mind could possibly want any of the Republican candidates to replace him.
A few weeks ago, I came across an article about a recently-retired Republican staffer who brought up an incredibly terrifying potential reality, that extends in part from everything I said during the 2010 campaigns about Fox News and media saturation: "If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power"1. Imagine the kind of apparatuses that would be required to convince voters that the disappearance of their Social Security checks and health insurance is beneficial. Logic would tell us that the 2010 election strategy should have been a one-shot deal: Get them just crazy enough to put the Tea Party into office, but those freshmen could expect to be voted out again when the voters see the reality of their agenda. But what if it were possible to fool them not once, but repeatedly, even as the more catastrophic, possibly permanent damage starts to manifest itself?
And if it doesn't succeed immediately, it does not take long for the Republican party to recover its abused legion of voters: The many scandals of the 80s and 90s should have been the death knell for the Christian conservative bloc, but during the 2000s, in which many more scandals occurred (such as that of Ted Haggard, Scott Roeder, and George Rekers), that bloc only reemerged in an even more radicalized form called the Tea Party2. The truth is that what that article claimed has already come to pass: The GOP is so successful that it can absorb a near-constant stream of scandals directly caused by its ideology, unleash the most irresponsible policies, and still manage to get elected, merely by changing its facade. It is the Hydra.
1) http://truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Rudy Giuliani's Favorite Day of the Year
Between this year and last year, the way I see 9/11 has changed forever with the failure of our legislature to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, the act of Congress that would provide healthcare to 9/11 first responders, who have been exposed to immeasurable toxins in the wasteland of the WTC in the course of duty.
The Zadroga Act and its failure exemplifies what America generally and especially the Republican party really thinks about 9/11. It is ironic to me that for a decade the GOP has used 9/11 to justify nearly everything it has done, and then when the time came to pay for its use, they turned around and filibustered what would be a demonstration of sincerity toward 9/11.
I find this particularly abhorrent because of the wanton frequency with which they used 9/11 as a cattle prod to goad the American people into accepting unpopular and dangerous legislation (Shock Doctrine): Rudy Giuliani himself used 9/11 as the entire substance of his presidential campaign in 2008, and the GOP has used it to justify everything from the two military quagmires in which we are currently ensnared to this day to the PATRIOT Act. Mind you, the seats in the legislature have not changed much between 2001 and 2011, so those same people who goaded us into Iraq and Afghanistan and who heaped upon us the PATRIOT Act in the name of September 11th are the very same people who blocked the Zadroga Act.
Look at the failure of the Zadroga Act: This is what we really think of 9/11. In fact, 9/11 is as existentially important to us as Jesus: We talk a lot about them, we make big shows and speeches about them, and then we pursue our everyday lives come Monday morning. But when it comes time to pay up, to demonstrate truly what we believe, we shrink away and ultimately fail to do the right thing.
The Zadroga Act did eventually pass, but only after Jon Stewart made a huge deal about it. It should have passed without question or debate.
There is one other nagging question I have about 9/11: Why do they care so much? Why do the GOP and the Tea Party care so much about 9/11? On the morning after 9/11, Jerry Falwell remarked to Pat Robertson that America itself is responsible for the WTC attacks. This is the same attitude that these kinds of people (like Michele Bachmann) always take when something bad happens. But what changed? The people working in the WTC on that day were probably more liberal, college educated, less religious, and more affluent than they are (not to mention, some were possibly homosexual!); shouldn't they have maintained Jerry Falwell's initial attitude given these possibilities? What changed and why?
Before I unleash my boundless cynicism, it could be that the United States was attacked not only by foreigners, but by a religion viewed by the GOP as alien and satanic. This may have something to do with their bizarre solidarity with a city almost as liberal as New Orleans. But the other reason (cynicism in five...four...three...two...one...) is that it had provided a miraculous justification for everything at that time the GOP wanted to accomplish, which would otherwise be incredibly unpopular. This is easy! All we have to say when people disagree with us is that they are Unamerican and that they support terrorism! Of course, this happened before (McCarthy and the HUAC in the 50s), so it wasn't a game that anyone had forgotten how to play.
The tragedy is that that is all 9/11 ever really is: We really don't honor it, not in any way that really matters, we just like using it to expediently justify reckless actions. Most Americans, it seems, are simply satisfied with this insincerity. We get an idea, whether it is a religion, or a political ideology, or some maxim, and while we like it, we don't do anything with it. Ideas require work and dedication. If you really believe something, you had better do the work. I wonder whether anyone in this country believes anything at all...
The Zadroga Act and its failure exemplifies what America generally and especially the Republican party really thinks about 9/11. It is ironic to me that for a decade the GOP has used 9/11 to justify nearly everything it has done, and then when the time came to pay for its use, they turned around and filibustered what would be a demonstration of sincerity toward 9/11.
I find this particularly abhorrent because of the wanton frequency with which they used 9/11 as a cattle prod to goad the American people into accepting unpopular and dangerous legislation (Shock Doctrine): Rudy Giuliani himself used 9/11 as the entire substance of his presidential campaign in 2008, and the GOP has used it to justify everything from the two military quagmires in which we are currently ensnared to this day to the PATRIOT Act. Mind you, the seats in the legislature have not changed much between 2001 and 2011, so those same people who goaded us into Iraq and Afghanistan and who heaped upon us the PATRIOT Act in the name of September 11th are the very same people who blocked the Zadroga Act.
Look at the failure of the Zadroga Act: This is what we really think of 9/11. In fact, 9/11 is as existentially important to us as Jesus: We talk a lot about them, we make big shows and speeches about them, and then we pursue our everyday lives come Monday morning. But when it comes time to pay up, to demonstrate truly what we believe, we shrink away and ultimately fail to do the right thing.
The Zadroga Act did eventually pass, but only after Jon Stewart made a huge deal about it. It should have passed without question or debate.
There is one other nagging question I have about 9/11: Why do they care so much? Why do the GOP and the Tea Party care so much about 9/11? On the morning after 9/11, Jerry Falwell remarked to Pat Robertson that America itself is responsible for the WTC attacks. This is the same attitude that these kinds of people (like Michele Bachmann) always take when something bad happens. But what changed? The people working in the WTC on that day were probably more liberal, college educated, less religious, and more affluent than they are (not to mention, some were possibly homosexual!); shouldn't they have maintained Jerry Falwell's initial attitude given these possibilities? What changed and why?
Before I unleash my boundless cynicism, it could be that the United States was attacked not only by foreigners, but by a religion viewed by the GOP as alien and satanic. This may have something to do with their bizarre solidarity with a city almost as liberal as New Orleans. But the other reason (cynicism in five...four...three...two...one...) is that it had provided a miraculous justification for everything at that time the GOP wanted to accomplish, which would otherwise be incredibly unpopular. This is easy! All we have to say when people disagree with us is that they are Unamerican and that they support terrorism! Of course, this happened before (McCarthy and the HUAC in the 50s), so it wasn't a game that anyone had forgotten how to play.
The tragedy is that that is all 9/11 ever really is: We really don't honor it, not in any way that really matters, we just like using it to expediently justify reckless actions. Most Americans, it seems, are simply satisfied with this insincerity. We get an idea, whether it is a religion, or a political ideology, or some maxim, and while we like it, we don't do anything with it. Ideas require work and dedication. If you really believe something, you had better do the work. I wonder whether anyone in this country believes anything at all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)