A Farewell to
Politics 2016
(Or an elections pre-post
mortem?)
“What you DO, speaks so loud I cannot hear what you SAY.”
—Native
American saying
Dear friends, consider this letter my farewell to politics,
in the electoral sense.
About fifteen years ago I made the decision to abstain from
voting. So, right away, let me
address the fallacy that claims that if one doesn’t vote one forfeits one’s
right to freedom of speech, or the right to comment on politics or anything
else. This is false. Most rights, except perhaps inalienable
rights, do have an implied right of abstention. And in some cases, it may actually be a duty dictated by
conscience to abstain from the exercise of that right. Such is the case with the “right to
vote”. The so-called “civic duty”
to vote would be no more than a tyrannical imposition without the right of
conscience to abstain. Therefore, a right to vote is also a right to abstain
from voting.
In fact, as recognition of those facts, some countries offer
“none of the above” as an option in their ballots, for those compelled to vote.
For further disclosure, I will state that my political
sympathies for most of my life were on the side of the Democratic Party (having
worked in that party for a Democrat president and “liberal” causes). I am now a democrat, small “d”. So why have I abstained and will abstain
from voting? It is largely a professional decision. As an analyst of international politics (American foreign
policy to be exact) I’ve found that detachment from having to justify my
thinking in light of my voting, or vice versa, have given me greater analytical
freedom; as one of the greats of Greece believed, we humans are great “rationalizers”
and self-deceivers. Other reasons
may include the deterioration of our politics into an “either/or”, “black and
white” sense of politics that I find too shallow and actually “anti-politics”
in the real sense of the political.
Party politics requires of the average voter to
selectively deal with facts. I cannot do that because I deal in facts. There’s more to real politics
than just voting.
So even if I were to vote in these elections I would still
have matters of conscience selecting either of the two presidential candidates,
because moments like these demand more clarity and less passion, without
sacrificing principles. Hopefully,
we have learned from the last few years that there are differences between
slogans and reality. Whether they’d be “Hope and Change”, “Stronger Together” or
“Make America Great Again” slogans are not going to solve our problems.
Disappointments
I must also say that I am terribly disappointed and in some
cases even somewhat hurt at the low level of political discourse we have
descended to in the current elections. It is especially painful to see it more so among friends. It does not forebode well for the next
years, regardless of who wins.
But it is especially disappointing to see how people in
education, in the arts, in professional life, and because of that with a high
degree of social responsibility, have fallen into it also. So before I suffer any further disappointments, or even lose
respect for some, I will not comment today or henceforth on the results of the
elections.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing to see is the use of
memes by intelligent and educated people, even when most of memes are totally
illogical, incoherent falsehoods.
Memes have now replaced good manners and even basic logical
thinking. They have become the
virtual “in your face” shouting, a forced “foot in the door” to our
conversations. They are used not
only without serious paucity as for their accuracy, logic and truth but what is
worse without any consideration to the beliefs and sentiments held by others in
our circles of friends.
To see serious people, past and current academicians, fall
for and so uncritically accept one-sided narratives, memes, scurrilous websites
as if they were actual news sources and selectively ignore matters of hard
facts, has been most disappointing.
Somehow the cyber space of social media has broken down what we used to
think of as the basic functions of good manners, urbanity and conviviality.
Another disappointment is seeing how the
“anti-establishment” generation became the establishment. My generation once the anti-establishment generation has now
become THE establishment, perhaps, more emblematically obvious in Bob Dylan
awarded the Nobel in literature as the epitome, or should we call it as our
“apotheosis” of that realization. The hippies became yuppies and then became
the establishment, nationally and internationally, and as corrupt as the
generation it once criticized.
We have now come to accept a culture of lying, as long as
the lying is done for “the greater good”, without any conscience over the great
contradiction this entails. Lying for political purposes is now politically and
morally correct. If it was up to
me I would issue a national apology to younger generations, especially the
so-called “millenials” for what we are leaving behind for them.
So where are we?
We are in unusual elections where most voters, according to
most polls and social media, are voting not “for” their candidate as much as
voting “against” the other. And
they proudly proclaim so.
The leadership of both parties have parted ways with the bases
of their parties and have demonstrated that they are one and the same party at
the top of the elite of the country: members of the elite of the GOP supporting
the Democrat candidate and opposing the choice of their party base, and on the
other side, the Democratic DNC colluding with the campaign of one candidate
against a candidate of their base.
What now passes for critical thinking is actual lack of critical
thinking. The use of the term “fascism”, defined in old paradigms and symbolisms,
while failing to see its true new form in the form of state capitalism through
crony capitalism, and the marriage of a professional career class of
politicians supported by trans-national interests and capital that includes
influence over our press and other means of social communication, all in
one-package, is but one result of
that lack of serious critical thinking.
Perhaps the true greatest scandal on these elections is
not the salacious charges and counter charges between candidates, but the
scandal of a free press not doing its job. Who polices the police?
So we have set aside critical politics, radical politics, for identity
politics. We now vote “not for”
but “against”. And we are told we
need to vote for X candidate because he/she is a member from Y identity group
running for office for the first time as representative of that group. The next
time we will have to vote for the first Hispanic because he/she is the first
Hispanic to run for office; after that for the first Asian because he/she is
the first Asian; after that for the first one-eyed pirate because…and on and
on, until all identities are taken care of and satisfied.
Our political issues and candidates are now marketed to us
like so many other products in a consumer society. Issues? What
issues? So now we have the candidates we have.
How did we get here?
We got here by way of partisan complacency coming to a head. “Old” and “new” moralities met in the
partisan political field where each side attempted to legislate morality and
control the social behavior and ethics of the other by recurring to the state
as the arbiter of morality, and we called that “culture wars”.
We have the politicians we have because WE have made them. WE have tolerated
them. WE have enabled them. WE have chosen partisanship over truth.
What we may end up with is state-capitalism not only at the
expense of a shrinking middle class but at the expense of democracy
itself. We will have a government
not of the people, by the people and for the people, but government at the
service of a new class of rulers who will give us the appearance of democracy
by the appropriation of populist language and political goodies.
At the beginning of the campaign we had two competing views: national capitalism (Trump and
Sanders; Sanders' socialism depends on national capitalism) vs. globalist,
trans-borders crony-capitalism (Hillary). The better political debate in these elections,
politically and sociologically speaking, would have been between Bernie Sanders
(national socialism) vs. Trump (national capitalism). What we have now is Hillary (crony
capitalism in populist rhetoric) vs. Trump (national capitalism in popular
resentment).
Bernie and Trump represented the
"outsider" politics that the bi-partisan elite is so afraid of
because they cannot control it, and they didn't want to have that debate, while
with Hillary they could control the narrative better. Both Bernie and Trump are
anti-globalists (they both, from their respective views are against big
trans-national, trans-governance schemes). Hillary is tied to the
Davos/globalist axis. It
should be no surprise why the globalist Wall Street/political elite is de facto
one political party to stop Trump. They stopped and
derailed Bernie already. So now
they have their shallow ping-pong partisan political game to entertain us with,
where they have control.
I really feel sorry for all those
people who work so hard and sent their money to Bernie Sanders; all those young
people, like my students, who were going to vote for the first time!! (It is
hard to analyze how anybody who supported Bernie's anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, also
Trump’s position, could now vote for the globalist, banking industry, Wall
Street, anti-American worker, open borders candidate who colluded with the DNC
to derail his candidacy).
And of all things, now ironically, the left,
especially the academic left, is on the side of international capitalism
because gender trumps class and economics? So excuse me for the mumbled cheap “pun”, but when a
critique of the left cannot be made from the left, there is nothing left. All is left is suds, self-popping,
political rhetorical suds. The
lack of serious depth, analysis and real criticism from this sector is
stunning. Only applying class
analysis to their own comfortable middle class interests can come close to
beginning to understand their political transactions.
Can we expect most voters to
understand these dynamics? NO. Not while the debate is about sex, whether from
the double-standards of the left or the moral snobbery of the right.
In the last analysis, we (the
rebels of the 60s and 70s) became the establishment. This gave us room and
social stability as middle class to take on social causes (gender, environment,
etc.) as radical politics over the radical basics of "bread and
butter" issues that were once the political staple of the Democratic
Party. But it also left the field
wide open for eventual working class discontent; fodder for populist, demagogic
or people’s politics. The
intelligentsia on the left has nothing left to offer. Our leadership in that party went from internationalists to
globalists. They became not only the new establishment but also a new social
class.
When the political process, of electing the highest officers
of the land, is corrupted by the collusion between a complex web of corporate
media/political party machine/foreign donors and one particular campaign to
derail a candidate not of their preference, we no longer have a democracy but
the makings of a totally corrupt almost totalitarian system.
But what seems acceptable to some of us at the moment
because it benefits the candidate of our choice will, eventually, come to bite
us all.
Democracy
We need new paradigms.
The new paradigms must be the “there are no easy paradigms”. One thing we can, and must begin to do
is to be aware of “operative identity narratives”, that is, efforts to co-opt
and intertwine out of distinctive events or legitimate issues a created single
fabric, for the purpose of political manipulation and political identity
homogenization.
The politics of political
homogenization goes against the politics of pluralism and real diversity. Therefore, I believe that we won’t be
able to recover a true sense of politics, of nationhood, unless we start with recovering
politics at the community level.
In that sense, I believe in “communitarianism". And in that sense, “I am” also a
democratic republican (small “d” and small “r”). A healthy democracy needs both a left wing and a
right wing. The absence of either one in the dynamic process of “the polis” goes against the harnessing
of all creative forces necessary for a truly progressive society.
If we agree to start conversations on issues from the basis
of the principles we agree on we can overcome slogans, memes and other tools of
those who wish to divide us or manipulate us, or both. The building of the “polis” (the
“city”, the community) is what real politics, in its most humanist sense, is
all about.
Yet the greatest problem to our life in community is the
current trend to isolate ourselves even within our community from those we
don’t agree with on political or other matters that affect our community life
at large. This trend stems from
the fact that we have come to equate character and virtue with political
opinions. This is dangerous. When
this happens we label, classify, tag and discard people. In the process we
become self-righteous and eventually zealots. The step from there to becoming Madame Defarge, in Dicken’s “A Tale Of Two Cities” is
not a long one.
The dangers of identity politics as partisan
identities should be already clear for all to see. There are differences between believing “I am a Democrat” or
“I am Republican” and “I am a democrat” or “I am a republican”. In the first, we make a party sympathy,
party affiliation, a question of self-identity, an existential matter: “I am”. In the second, we practice politics in
the best sense, politics as virtue. In the first, we risk exclusion of others
and isolation into political parcels; in the second, we practice inclusion and
openness to the dynamics of true democratic politics. In the first, different political
opinions are a personal threat to our egos. In the second, different political opinions are welcomed
questions and challenges to our creativity.
The work of democracy is hard. It is the work of talking
with each other, not the practice of shouting each other out.
Tolerance
We need to recover and value the
American tradition of civic tolerance.
It is perhaps the one single asset and reason why millions of people
from all over the world, or all kinds of races, gender and religion have
crossed oceans at great peril to become American citizens.
We need to practice politics at a more local community
level. The cyber communities in
which we participate are after all are just fictitious communities. In either case we need to make
tolerance, conviviality and neighborliness the coins of our realm. We need to visit with each other more.
Spend more time living in your real community than in
virtual “communities”. Support
each other, uphold each other, listen to each other. Work for everything that
builds your community. Watch against everything that destroys community. Nobody said democracy would be easy.
Peace!
Whichever candidate wins, I hope you have survival and coping plans. Don't let the "megachine" eat you. I will make no comments on any posting on the elections
results regardless of who wins.
(For further reading, as if this
has not being enough, I leave you with excerpts from “The Revolution of Hope”
by Erich Fromm, where n 1968 he presciently prognosticated where we are now):
We are we now?
It is difficult to locate our
exact position on the historical trajectory leading from the eighteenth- and
nineteenth century industrialism to the future. It is easier to say where we
are not. We are not on the way to free enterprise, but we are moving away from
it. We are not on the way to greater individualism, but we are becoming an
increasingly manipulated mass civilization. We are not on the way to the places
toward which our ideological maps tell us we are moving. We are marching in an
entirely different direction.
It is characterized by the
fact not only that living energy has been replaced by mechanical energy, but
that human thought is being replaced by the thinking of machines, Cybernetics
and automation ('cybernation') make it possible to build machines that function
much more precisely and much more quickly than the human brain… Cybernation is creating
the possibility of a new kind of economic and social organization.
A relatively small number
mammoth enterprises has become the center of the economic machine and will rule
it completely in the not-too-distant future. The enterprise, although legally
the property of hundreds of thousands of stockholders, is managed (and for all
practical purposes managed independently of the legal owners) by a
self-perpetuating bureaucracy. The alliance between private business and
government is becoming so close that the two components of this alliance become
ever less distinguishable.
If society could stand still — which it can do as little as an
individual — things might not be as ominous as they are. But we are headed in
the direction of a new kind of society and a new kind of human life, of which
we now see only the beginning and which is rapidly accelerating.What is the kind of society
and the kind of man we might find in the year 2000, provided nuclear war has
not yet destroyed the human race before then?
If people knew the likely course which American society will take, many if not
most of them would be so horrified that they might take adequate measures to
permit changing course. If people are not aware of the direction in which they
are going, they will awaken when it is too late and when their fate has been
irrevocably sealed. Unfortunately,
the vast majority are not aware that the new society toward which they are
moving is as radically different from Greek and Roman, medieval and traditional
industrial societies as the agricultural society was from that of the food
gatherers and hunters. Most people still think in the concepts of the society
of the first Industrial Revolution.
They see that we have more
and better machines than man had fifty years ago and mark this down as
progress. They believe that lack of direct oppression is a manifestation of the
achievement of personal freedom.
Their vision of the year 2000 is that it will be the full realization of
the aspirations of man since the end of the Middle Ages, and they do not see
that the year 2000 may be not the fulfillment and happy culmination of a period
in which man struggled for freedom and happiness, but the beginning of a period
in which man ceases to be human and becomes transformed into an unthinking and
unfeeling machine.
It seems that great minds a hundred years ago saw what would happen today or
tomorrow, while we to whom it is happening blind ourselves in order not to be
disturbed in our daily routine. It
seems that liberals and conservatives are equally blind in this respect. There are only few writers of vision
who have cleary seen the monster to which we are giving birth. It’s not Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, but a
Moloch, the all-destructive idol, to which human life is to be sacrificed. This Moloch has been described most
imaginatively by Orwell and Aldous Huxley, by a number of science-fiction
writers who show more perspicacity than most professional sociologists and
psychologists.
A profound and brilliant
picture of the new society has been given recently by one of the most
outstanding humanists of our age, Lewis Mumford. Future historians, if there are any, will consider his work
to be one of the prophetic warnings of our time. Mumford gives new depth and perspective to the future by
analyzing its roots in the past. The central phenomenon which connects past and
future, as he sees it, he calls the “megamachine”.
The “megamachine” is the
totally organized and homogenized social system in which a society functions
like a machine and men like its parts. This kind of organization by total
coordination, by “the constant increase of order, or power, predictability and
above all control,” achieved almost miraculously technical results in early
megamachines like the Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies, and it will find its
fullest expression, with the help of modern technology, in the future of the
technological society.