Showing posts with label political theories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political theories. Show all posts

Friday, December 21, 2012

Moving Abe

An occasional one-off with a semi-celeb on Twitter is what passes for a brush with celebrity for me. So, Chicago-based rapper and political activist (as well as would-be alderman) Rhymefest has tended to have a contentious interaction with the Occupy Movement. Unlike another Chicago-based rapper who's worked with Kanye, Lupe Fiasco, he sees the Occupiers as wasting time and space better used for direct political action.


Image will appear as a link




Rhymefest disregards the overriding lessons of the Emancipators and the Civil Rights Era as being out of time. Fine. But then tell me that Occupy hasn't helped to shape the discourse of American politics - tell me that the Tea Party movement also hasn't done so. Tell me that right now this whole Fiscal Cliff nonsense isn't largely directed by the rhetoric of one sort of radical, non-pragmatic paradigm or another.

He's a hostage!
Well, actually...
Tell me that the post-Sandy Hook imagination of the American populace isn't directed by one form of radicalism (the No-Restrictions-Ever-on-Guns NRA and their stand-ins) and the rest of us aren't trying to feebly talk about sensible gun control measures.

Imagine if a large, national peace movement were actually put in place some twelve years ago - rather than a late-to-the-game anti-GOP posturing. How would the conversation about war and violence be engaged now?

Politicians, as historian Howard Zinn points out in his must-read work - including the Zinn Reader - do not lead - they follow. As much as Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery, he had to garner popular opinion in order to get to the office of president in the first place. And before that happened, the popular perception of slavery as being a largely harmless and beneficial financial institution had to be challenged.

So, the slave narratives. So, Douglass, and Garrison, and Sojourner Truth, and Beecher Stowe. These figures and their heroic, bristling words waged a war for the hearts and souls and minds of men and women.

The reformer is careless of numbers, disregards popularity, and deals only with ideas, conscience, and common sense... He neither expects nor is overanxious for immediate success. The politician dwells in an everlasting now... His office is not to instruct public opinion but to represent it.
- Wendell Phillips
The institution of slavery was peculiar to the South. It was an issue that, as a force of evil, was only understood to a small minority of the white population. Yet all were responsible for its continuation even as it was cloaked through being race-based and therefore imperceptible to the White mind as - as a deliberate matter of dividing and conquering - it was out of the sight and experience of the Whites of the North, and out of the personal physical and psychic reality of the majority of White Southerner. The South and the North needed the issue of slavery to be pushed in the open and come to a volatile head - otherwise it would have stayed hidden. Not that slavery itself wasn't a constant threat to the very Southern "way of life" that Southern elites were trying to maintain at all, unbelievable costs. But slavery may never have ended if its death knolls weren't forced through abolitionism (which, again, isn't the same as saying that abolitionists "caused" the secession. But, regardless, they had a hand in forcing the Southern elites to take a form of action, and they opened the way for Lincoln to sign both the Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment)

That possibility would not have been the case were it not for the rebellious acts of the slaves themselves opening up the remote possibility of a way out - opening up the imagination of White Americans in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries to the radical reality that Black slaves were not property but people. I contend that slavery would have been much more profitable and therefore more desirable to the entire US if the slaves hadn't acted out in various ways against the bitter institution of slavery

All true Reformers are incendiaries. But it is the hearts, brains and souls of their fellow-men which they set on fire, and in so doing they perform the function appropriated to them in the wise order of Providence.
- James Russel Lowell
It wasn't Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the actions of the slaves which energized the abolitionists who powered the imagination and moral compass of the United States which brought the conflict to a crucible. This crucible was important, for it meant that the slave-holding elite of the South believed that reparations with an abolitionist-leaning North were now impossible, ergo, they had to go on and make their own country and go so far as to start a war with their free neighbors to the North (Southern Apology Myths withstanding).

In all ages, it has been first the radical, and only later the moderate, who has held out a hand to [those] knocked to the ground by the social order.
The moderate, whose sensitive ears are offended by the wild language of the radical, needs to consider the necessary division of labor in a world full of evil, a division in which agitators for reform play an indispensable role.
- Howard Zinn

To use biblical imagery, when the reformer is the voice of the prophet, we have Moses confronting Pharaoh  "Let my people go." Or we have a newly liberated people, who are slightly more liberated, but then codified back into serfdom through Solomon. In the meantime, we have  Moses, Joshua, Saul, and David - each of whom represents the law, each tightening the screws on their people. Each inching just a bit closer, in their kingly duties, to the role of Pharaoh over Hebrew slaves - though this time, the Hebrew ruler was enslaving his own as well as neighbors - despite the warnings against doing such in the Mosaic law.

Then there's the Samuels and the Nathans. The prophets who spoke to and against, who checked, who lacked fear in the face of the terrifying, who dared speak against the thieving, murderous ways of the kings against common sense.

We need more Samuels and fewer would-be Solomons. We don't need our Garrisons to turn into Lincolns. We need Occupiers to continue to Occupy the American imagination, not pragmatically bow to the whims of a fickle populace.

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

These Are My Pet Peeves

My pet peeves include:
  •  False dichotomies: The idea, for example, that everyone can be broken into one of two categories, liberal or conservative, and placed somewhere on the big stick of socio-political allegiances.
  •  False equivalencies: Usually an extension of the first idea. The most common and perplexing example being something like, "Fox News is no worse than Rachel Maddow."
  •  False assumptions and groupings: In my circles, it most often sounds like, "All conservatives/tea------rs/Republicans say/believe/think the same about /minorities." Experience proves, again and again, that this isn't true - even if it's true in that person's experience.
  •  Other forms of Broderism: Such as using a rare example to show that "the other side" is likewise guilty

Of course, the reality is that I need to get over the peeved part of that, as well as the pet part. There isn't enough time or energy in the universe and there are other, more grave injustices to struggle against. Otoh, though, I realize that ours is not a fight of flesh and blood, but of powers, principalities, and psycho-socio captivity as well. The battle of freedom is not to be waged, as I constantly note here and on Facebook, on just one level - just as we cannot rely solely on private charity or on governmental action to fight poverty. And I also realize that not everybody thinks deeply about what divides and unites us (did I just hint that I think deeply? Do I? You'll never know...) So I want to at least have something to point to next time someone picks on my nerves over the intertubes.

And this is the message:
We're all a lot more complex than that. We truly are. Maybe we should ask more questions and surround ourselves with more people we can disagree with intelligently, capably, and agreeably.*

As you can tell, I'm mad as a hatter!

Now on to the reasons I wrote that qualifying intro. The current crop of specific pet peeves.

I'm tired of the Occupy Movement being confused for partisan politics. As in, I'm tired of it being confused as an arm of the Democratic Party by jealous-sounding conservatives. Likewise, I'm tired of the Democratic Party trying to co-opt the movement. I'm tired of their lame Occupy the Vote campaign. The DP is part of the two party system that has been corrupted and corrupts completely through its oligarchal/corporatocracy factions. They are not listening to the American people and will not listen to us until they loosen the bonds of the Military/Prison/Educational Industrial Complexes as well as Big Oil/Coal/Pharma/Banks. And they will not do that as long as the DNC is complicit in taking their donations, nqa. Chase Bank wants to make sure its investment pays off and Boeing and Caterpillar want to make sure that they stay in good business. The OWS is about the process of consensus-building democracy. As in, everybody gets involved, every person has a voice. Human people, that is.

I'm tired of baseless allegations being leveled at every forward-thinking person or organization. Worse, I'm tired of Americans buying into the discreditations as if those should stop the message. And while we're speaking of the message, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with white paleo-conservatives ability to take a five second clip of one of Dr. King's many fine speeches to try to prove their ignorant, backwards, and regressive point. If minorities WERE to be chosen based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then jails would be empty of them and universities would be full of them! Besides, the same thugs who try to praise King now, removed by amnesia as they are, were defaming him for sleeping with white women and for being a Marxist when it suited their purposes. Another pretty blatant lie that suits the paleoconservatives is to plant allegations of rape on progressive and subversive leaders. All allegations should, of course, be taken seriously. But these same dittoheaded d---hebags only care about the accusation when it's tossed at men behind the Black Panthers, WikiLeaks, or now Occupy Wall Street. Men who were very likely set up by the powers they are trying to challenge. These Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, Michael Savages, and J Edgar Hoovers don't care about women protection when it's the military or military contractors being accused of sexual assault or rape and then locking up the victim for days on end in a janitor's closet...

I'm tired of being told by my good friends that voting for a third party is not just throwing my vote away and giving it to the GOP. That's foolish and worse, bad math. Of course, I'm also tired of those who say that voting for ANYONE is preferable to voting for Obama. Seriously?? There is a distinction between the two evils. I will not waste my time campaigning for the Dems, but I sure won't stand idly by if someone compares Obama to any neo-con. Seriously, I love my country too much to hand it over to another John McCain or George W Bush (fortunately, I live in a state where Obama's vote is all but guaranteed).

I'm tired of cynicism, often from my closer friends, my irl friends. This is the affliction of knowing something must change, that something needs to change, of maybe even agreeing about a course of action but then... Phfeweeeewww... Their sickness lets out all of the air. They are generally smart enough to know that nothing worth changing will changith ease and overnight. They understand that the future isn't full of non-allergenic puppies and rainbow-riding unicorns. But they lack long-term prophetic vision.

And without vision, the people perish.

----------------------------------------

*Like much else in my blog nowadays, this is as much directed at myself as at anybody else, if not more so.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Confessions of a Political Junkie

"I believe we need to start a grassroots solidarity movement for true revolution that builds healthy systems in opposition to the current cystem we live under. If you believe that salvation lies through one man, then I would like you to remove yourself from my friends list so I can add revolutionaries. It's as simple as that. It's a class war and there's no time to collaborate with the Robber Class and Robber Class cystems, like federal elections."

I agree with Cindy Sheehan here (taken from her Facebook page this morning). And yes, I believe that "systems" was spelled that way intentionally; though I'm not in any hurry to remove people from my life.

I've been beating this drum that politics is just a frakkin' dirty game. It's ugly and it draws out the worst in people. Case in point from last night's Tea Party debate among GOP candidates, when presented with the scenario of leaving a young man who got sick, fell into a coma and did not have insurance (though he had the option earlier) to die:

Ron Paul: That is what freedom is all about and taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everyone…

(Crowd cheers)

Moderator: But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

(Crowd screams YES!)
The crowd goes wild!!!!

The same type of crowd that was cheering Texas Gov Rick Perry for the death of over 200 inmate prisoners.

At this rate, I worry about the propulsion of any true democracy. Are our people mutating into the extras from "Gladiator"?

Not that our dear Republic is working so well.

In response to some controversy about the so-called Safe Communities Act (which is working out to be anti-community, anti-family, and not-very-safe), a fair representative for his people's welfare, Massachusetts State Rep Ryan Fattman argued that undocumented victims of rape should have not flaunted their illegal bodies anyway, or something to that effect:

When asked whether or not he would be concerned about an undocumented woman, beaten and raped, the rep. said that he was not worried about those implications.

“My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward,” Mr. Fattman said. “If you do it the right way, you don’t have to be concerned about these things,” he said referring to obtaining legal immigration status.
Which isn't to say that the Republicans or conservatives (whatever that title may mean these days) are the only ones that we should worry about. Despite constant soft threats made against big business, President Obama is clearly on their side when push comes to shove (notice even the dropping of Elizabeth Warren for the delegation that she is clearly gifted for). And then there's the constant drum-beat bat bat of war. And the fact that, with the notable exception of "enhanced interrogation", there is little differentiating the way that Obama's administration and Bush's administration handle the War on Terror - aka, War Plaguing Fear (TM).

So what is the point, then? As I started writing this piece, a friend asked me if I thought one could be a conservative and a Christian. Or, to put it another way, that since I believe my Christianity has led me to be a liberal, then shouldn't it fall that all other Christians should, if they're to be truly Christian, move to the same place I'm at. A slightly edited version of my response:

Growing up, I was very conservative. I thought it was the Christian thing to do. Anti-abortion. Business and choice help poor people. Welfare, not so much (I know from my own experience and my community. Didn't have a clue how to help people get off welfare in areas that have no jobs, let alone living wage jobs). I voted for George W Bush because he told me he was a compassionate conservative. With the onset of war, and little appreciable care for the victims of Katrina, I understood that to be a lie. I got really behind Obama because he promised to be a smart diplomat who would pull out of war and not sell our bodies to the corporatocracy. Obviously, neither of those have panned out so well. Now, I'm starting to pull away from political labels together (I'm kind of writing right now about that) because I don't see them to be honest.

What does it mean to be right, or left, or moderate? Seriously, what do those titles mean? Obviously, it's not some grading scale, though we keep pretending it is. How can one person honestly say to another that he is more liberal than she is. I've been thinking we need a different model for a long time.

But I believe that overall I'm influenced by my eschatology. The idea of the coming and present Kingdom of God. This Kingdom, I am convinced, is not one of power, or manipulation, or sermons. But one of healing, inclusion, spiritual wholeness. One of feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick, freeing the captives... You know the things.

The political question for Christians, I can't see it as being "Are we a part of this or are we not a part of this", because we have no choice. It's in our scripture, it's commanded of Jesus." The question, how I see it, is "How?"

I'm exploring the "how" right now through localism. Others through variations of capitalism, or democratic socialism, or through incarnational living (including the CCDA approach), or through this candidate or that candidate.

But I can't see a Christianity that doesn't ask, "How do we get involved in Christ's Kingdom on Earth now in a way that all men and women can see and glorify God through our good works? (not through trying to enforce our standards of righteousness, which the bible would call 'being busy-bodies.')" Some of what we call Right Wing Christianity (I'm thinking particularly of the Fox News crowd) impresses me that they're NOT interested in that vision. And I guess those guys frustrate me more than I should let on.

I was explaining basic politics to a family friend last night as our kids played and our Cuban dinners were getting ready. And eventually, I answered, "I'm becoming more and more frustrated by it. It's all rigged to play like a game. It's not a democracy in any true sense of the word. It a game. Just a silly game."

And yet, I am addicted to this game!

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Polar Beers pt. 1

Krugman on the political polar chasm in the US:
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

There’s no middle ground between these views.

cock fight (aka election 2008)photo © 2008 Derek Baird | more info (via: Wylio)
Experience tells me otherwise, though. Maybe not with the cynics in Washington. Because of the peculiarity of running for office in these days, they're less in tune with their electorate than they should be (though I'm not so sure they have been. Lobbyists have had extraordinary power in legislative circles long before the Supreme Court decided that corporations should have freer speech than other citizens) and are more beholden to corporate interests. Which means they're less willing or able to listen to the struggles of their constituents than they should be. But that's only one part of the problem. A big part of the problem. But only one facet.

But I think we're divided and politicians have the ability to side-step and ignore us because the rest of us are so willing to listen to the myths that we hear about The Other Side.

Conservatives don't care for or about poor people. They're racist.

Liberals think that government is the solution for everything. They're not realistic and want lazy people to take over the world.

And the arguments just keep spinning until you can't have a decent conversation with your neighbor anymore because a trigger buzz word ("accountability"', "freedom", "equity") sets one or both of you off. As long as we continue to frame the debate in simplistic polar terms we're not going to find common ground. If I look at everything based on that rubric, what common ground could I possibly share with anybody else? That we're both on the same stick? Of course we won't find solutions. We can't even agree on a common language.

But complex problems call for complex problem-solving. And we can't get that if all of our energies are spent finding and making enemies and then cock-fighting them. Especially if many of those enemies are really going for the same thing you are.

It doesn't help to look at myriad, multi-dimensional, sociological views as if they were just points on a simple, one-dimensional line. And to equate one person with all the views that their supposed leaders supposedly hold* is shutting down before we start. Sometimes we need to shut down, but it doesn't help us to find solutions.

I am, and this may be obvious to many of my Facebook friends, speaking from a lot of experience. I tend to be the first to rush to judgment. But I've learned that Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for any of my conservative friends (and I thank God). I've learned that many of my 'conservative' friends may have solutions, may have ideas, just may care more than we on the left have given them credit for.

Just need to listen... and maybe grab some beers together and hammer stuff out.

And stop worrying about who's drinking who's Kool-Aid.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Weekly Links We Like to Link to: OK, you can call this a comeback.

And yes, these articles are at least a month old! Got a lot of catching up to, kids.


I want me some bookshelves like these! And then maybe I can get me some readin'!

Tips on why Obama is not a socialist. "Obama properly belongs in a specific anti-socialist movement on the left, Social Democracy, which accepts a capitalist economy but demands a state strong enough to moderate its failures and excesses."

"Why newspapers can't be saved but the news can."
When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to. There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.

Christianity had taken root in some non-European locales that we don't tend to associate with Christianity at all. Philip Jenkins (not the Left Behind guy, but an author who studies the movement of Christianity in non-Western world - lastly looking at the astronomic rise of conservative churches in the Global South) is interviewed about why these ancient churches died out. The answer may surprise you (well, maybe not. But it did take me under):

PJ: Churches die by force. They are killed.

CT: But what about the old saying, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church"?

PJ: That was said by Tertullian, who came from the church in North Africa, where the church vanished. If you were to look at the healthiest part of Christianity right around the year 400 or 500, you might well look at North Africa... It was the land of Augustine. Then the Arabs, the Muslims, arrive. They conquer Carthage in a.d. 698, and 100 years later—I don't say there were no Christians there, but there certainly was only a tiny, tiny number. That church dies.