+YES+
+Obama backing the need to address environmental concerns. Yep, it's called science.
+The idea of using an auto bailout to force the big three to make the cars we need, and have needed, for the past 40 years.
-NO-
-Newt Gingrich, the healer. The guy who institutionalized run-you-over-with-a-Hummer, Contract On (sic) America politics now tells us the politics of the past few years can't work.
-Minnesota Nice Elections. Wow. Just, WOW. Hot dish, anyone?
-Bad Karma Award to Ted Stevens International Airport-Anchorage. This is your crash-landing alert...
?What?
?Treasury Secretary Paulson--"Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts." (NYT) It's called bait and switch, but a nice view into the what is seen as the root of the problem--not helping those who suffered from the Ponzi scheme, but helping out the people who made the mess.
?Nebraska, home of family values. Like dogs getting suspicious about trips to the vet, "Mommy and Daddy want to take the family out for a drive" has new meaning in the Mid-West...
19 November 2008
13 November 2008
Neo Can't Save Us
For nearly three decades liberalism has had a bad name, beginning with Reagan and ending with Bush II. Even during the Clinton years, Liberalism was a word rarely uttered. As we come to the end of the Bush administration and the transition to the Obama administration, the belief now is that conservatism is dead or misguided or at fault for the problems we currently have. The blame lies not with liberalism or conservatism, but with neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.
Liberalism, with its roots in the Enlightenment, suggests that through civil society more can be done for the citizen. It is a voice, however narrowly defined and constrained and biased toward Western-European notions of progress; the focus is one that is pro-active and aspires to assessing what is best for its citizens and then delivering upon that assessment. In one of its worst versions it has been associated with the civilization-barbarism dichotomy, in much of Latin America leading to the “second conquest” of the 1800s where the remaining indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their remaining lands. In its finer sense, however, it is forward-looking, it’s sponsors suggest that there is a way forward that is better than what we have in front of us.
On the other hand Conservatism, while having roots in elitism and royalist tendencies, also has its relative merits. Although there are deep concerns with keeping power structures as they are, which was a critique of early liberals, post-modernists suggest that the effects of liberalism (and later modernism) are not all that different if the voices advocating change are from the some basic food groups of people. Conservatism does have its upsides, in that he urges for thoughtful consideration of change, and asks questions of rampant change that is produced culturally and technologically. There is a pragmatic assessment that is part of conservatism that suggests that not all change is necessarily good.
In short, despite concerns with both liberalism and conservatism, their failures are actually better indicators of what I would call, “the human capability to screw up a good theory.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the successor movements of the neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Each strip the vestiges of reason (amazing, for liberalism!) and humanity out of their respective theoretical frameworks and applies a steamroller approach to their opponents. Neo-liberalism suggests that modernization must be supported at all costs, and in effect institutionalizes what was previously a by-product of liberalism; anyone who does not want to be a part of the system is seen as opting out of progress and citizenship as defined by the elites.
Neo-conservatives on the other hand, as one looks at the work of the neo-cons in Washington, institutionalizes a globalized approach to the creation of international royalty. It strips out the careful consideration of change in favor of maintaining political power and it sacrifices deliberation for justifying the neo-con ends by using any means required. Begun during the Reagan administration with Libya, then Bush I in the Persian Gulf, then Clinton in Kosovo, then Bush II in Iraq, and so on, the United States has pursued a policy of justifying it’s what is convenient to maintaining its power, as opposed to working in consultation with otheres. Thus, combined with the skewed world view that suggests one model of development (neo-liberalism), we find ourselves in a decision-making (neo-conservative) mode of making it happen regardless of justification.
At the end of the day, this is why the United States has become a United States which has favored guarding its personal sandbox of power, as opposed to leading from a democratic and ethical moral high ground. We can, and should be, greater than that. What we should learn from our history is that any theory or system, stripped of a process that questions itself, can be twisted into a mirror image assault on its original form. The process is what counts in determining what is democracy, liberalism, and conservatism, not a system, which as Eisenhower warned, becomes consumed with its own perpetuation…
Liberalism, with its roots in the Enlightenment, suggests that through civil society more can be done for the citizen. It is a voice, however narrowly defined and constrained and biased toward Western-European notions of progress; the focus is one that is pro-active and aspires to assessing what is best for its citizens and then delivering upon that assessment. In one of its worst versions it has been associated with the civilization-barbarism dichotomy, in much of Latin America leading to the “second conquest” of the 1800s where the remaining indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their remaining lands. In its finer sense, however, it is forward-looking, it’s sponsors suggest that there is a way forward that is better than what we have in front of us.
On the other hand Conservatism, while having roots in elitism and royalist tendencies, also has its relative merits. Although there are deep concerns with keeping power structures as they are, which was a critique of early liberals, post-modernists suggest that the effects of liberalism (and later modernism) are not all that different if the voices advocating change are from the some basic food groups of people. Conservatism does have its upsides, in that he urges for thoughtful consideration of change, and asks questions of rampant change that is produced culturally and technologically. There is a pragmatic assessment that is part of conservatism that suggests that not all change is necessarily good.
In short, despite concerns with both liberalism and conservatism, their failures are actually better indicators of what I would call, “the human capability to screw up a good theory.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the successor movements of the neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Each strip the vestiges of reason (amazing, for liberalism!) and humanity out of their respective theoretical frameworks and applies a steamroller approach to their opponents. Neo-liberalism suggests that modernization must be supported at all costs, and in effect institutionalizes what was previously a by-product of liberalism; anyone who does not want to be a part of the system is seen as opting out of progress and citizenship as defined by the elites.
Neo-conservatives on the other hand, as one looks at the work of the neo-cons in Washington, institutionalizes a globalized approach to the creation of international royalty. It strips out the careful consideration of change in favor of maintaining political power and it sacrifices deliberation for justifying the neo-con ends by using any means required. Begun during the Reagan administration with Libya, then Bush I in the Persian Gulf, then Clinton in Kosovo, then Bush II in Iraq, and so on, the United States has pursued a policy of justifying it’s what is convenient to maintaining its power, as opposed to working in consultation with otheres. Thus, combined with the skewed world view that suggests one model of development (neo-liberalism), we find ourselves in a decision-making (neo-conservative) mode of making it happen regardless of justification.
At the end of the day, this is why the United States has become a United States which has favored guarding its personal sandbox of power, as opposed to leading from a democratic and ethical moral high ground. We can, and should be, greater than that. What we should learn from our history is that any theory or system, stripped of a process that questions itself, can be twisted into a mirror image assault on its original form. The process is what counts in determining what is democracy, liberalism, and conservatism, not a system, which as Eisenhower warned, becomes consumed with its own perpetuation…
05 November 2008
Fear Itself
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" -Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt spoke these words to reassure a nation that was sliding into a prolonged economic depression, but these words are also relevant today, although perhaps for different reasons. An undercurrent of the past election campaign, and part of the post-election buzz, is quite literally that of fear. There is fear that Obama will discriminate against Whites, and there is fear and uncertainty over "what" his election means. My own daughters experience this, since they go to school in a place that is quite conservative. There is fear and uncertainty the range from discrimination to the idea that he is a Muslim. It is easy to dismiss these fears, since on the face of it, Obama has neither shown a disposition toward such behavior, nor is he a Muslim (nor should it matter). That being said, it is important to understand where these fears come from.
This is where we need to think of ourselves as a nation, and our trajectory over the past 30 years. Following Carter, who upset people by asking the people of the United States of America to look closely at themselves, the choice was made to look at others. Through our popular and political culture we have created two enemies-the other and each other. The former came in the shape of the fear of the soviets, then Arabs, then extremist Muslims; all seen as a common enemy against we could easily discriminate.
At the same time, we also saw a creation of another enemy--the American who disagrees with us. Beginning with the Reagan administration, but following a thread through every subsequent president, Democrat or Republican, has been a willingness to alienate and run over those with whom we disagree. This was accentuated in the mid-90s, and then came together in one big patriotic bash following 9-11.
So what is the consequence of this? The consequence is that when we discriminate against a whole people, or when we are willing to run each other out of political parties in internecine conflicts, we eventually come to fear that very thing being done to us. It is not that people see actual evidence of an Obama administration doing this to them nor are they imagining it being done to them. No, it is that they have lived it, done, carried it out, and can only imagine what it would feel to be on the end of those same actions. They themselves have provided the concrete model for that which they fear the most.
The fear itself becomes the spark for more fear, and the only a strong counter-dialogue of action may counter it. Words and ideas will not be sufficient, because they are not powerful enough to contradict the reality which has been constructed which has inscribed on our daily lives, on our daily relationships with one another. What we fear is each other at the moment, and it will take time to work out "dies diu".
Roosevelt spoke these words to reassure a nation that was sliding into a prolonged economic depression, but these words are also relevant today, although perhaps for different reasons. An undercurrent of the past election campaign, and part of the post-election buzz, is quite literally that of fear. There is fear that Obama will discriminate against Whites, and there is fear and uncertainty over "what" his election means. My own daughters experience this, since they go to school in a place that is quite conservative. There is fear and uncertainty the range from discrimination to the idea that he is a Muslim. It is easy to dismiss these fears, since on the face of it, Obama has neither shown a disposition toward such behavior, nor is he a Muslim (nor should it matter). That being said, it is important to understand where these fears come from.
This is where we need to think of ourselves as a nation, and our trajectory over the past 30 years. Following Carter, who upset people by asking the people of the United States of America to look closely at themselves, the choice was made to look at others. Through our popular and political culture we have created two enemies-the other and each other. The former came in the shape of the fear of the soviets, then Arabs, then extremist Muslims; all seen as a common enemy against we could easily discriminate.
At the same time, we also saw a creation of another enemy--the American who disagrees with us. Beginning with the Reagan administration, but following a thread through every subsequent president, Democrat or Republican, has been a willingness to alienate and run over those with whom we disagree. This was accentuated in the mid-90s, and then came together in one big patriotic bash following 9-11.
So what is the consequence of this? The consequence is that when we discriminate against a whole people, or when we are willing to run each other out of political parties in internecine conflicts, we eventually come to fear that very thing being done to us. It is not that people see actual evidence of an Obama administration doing this to them nor are they imagining it being done to them. No, it is that they have lived it, done, carried it out, and can only imagine what it would feel to be on the end of those same actions. They themselves have provided the concrete model for that which they fear the most.
The fear itself becomes the spark for more fear, and the only a strong counter-dialogue of action may counter it. Words and ideas will not be sufficient, because they are not powerful enough to contradict the reality which has been constructed which has inscribed on our daily lives, on our daily relationships with one another. What we fear is each other at the moment, and it will take time to work out "dies diu".
Post-Election Republicrats
It will be interesting to see what the shape of the Republican "re-tooling" takes over the coming months. Neo-con Bill Kristol made the argument last week that a McCain victory would help "liberalism," among other things, and be a cause for both Democrats and Republicans to rejoice (Hey Liberals...), but now the discussion turns to where they go from here. Undoubtedly, Kristol and others will be making the case that the mistake was going with McCain in the first place, and that Palin will help recapture the true essence of conservative thought, and therefore the vote. The case will be an interesting one to watch. Poll after poll seemed to suggest that the choice of Palin was a drag on McCain, and yet the argument will have to be made on how she is now the most qualified to lead, following a long period of cultivation--longer than most people think, according to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer (Palin: Insider).
We will have to wait and see which pig gets the lipstick, since moderate Republicans like Colin Powell will be making the case that the opposite is the problem; the Republican party has been too divisive. Ever since the Newt Gingrich era in the mid-90s, the Republican party had specifically suggested that it had the high ground and was willing to not only use it against democrats, but it chased moderates out who did not toe the line. Even moderates like Gordon Smith, now locked in a battle at the moment in Oregon, have voted consistently with the party line. The price has been too high to do otherwise on any significant issues.
The Democratic victory is an historic one, but the reaction and debate among the Republicans will be almost as fascinating to watch from now on.
We will have to wait and see which pig gets the lipstick, since moderate Republicans like Colin Powell will be making the case that the opposite is the problem; the Republican party has been too divisive. Ever since the Newt Gingrich era in the mid-90s, the Republican party had specifically suggested that it had the high ground and was willing to not only use it against democrats, but it chased moderates out who did not toe the line. Even moderates like Gordon Smith, now locked in a battle at the moment in Oregon, have voted consistently with the party line. The price has been too high to do otherwise on any significant issues.
The Democratic victory is an historic one, but the reaction and debate among the Republicans will be almost as fascinating to watch from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
