A Farce of Democracy
Want to know what “democracy” looks like in the United States?
You should have been in Memphis, Tennessee yesterday, because you could have had a good look. Then again, you could see the same thing in almost any city, but yesterday was special for Memphis because the National Idiot was in town.
Flanked by Karl Rove and his band of toadies, the boy that would be king visited the home of the King to raise money for Repug Senate candidate Bob Corker.
450 Tennessee power brokers, including FedEx Chairman and founder Fred Smith, wined and dined at the home of Autozone founder J.R. ‘Pitt’ Hyde III, enjoying sherry-poached breast of chicken with spiced estragon consomme at a private affair closed to the media. Down the road, safely tucked away by the police and Secret Service in a “protest zone” were 75 or so protesters, perhaps naively thinking their so-called “leader” gave a shit.
The whole fancy, prissy pants affair raised $1.1 million for Corkers Senate campaign.
“Representative government has broken down. Our politicians represent not the people who vote for them but the commercial interests who finance their election campaigns. We have the best politicians that money can buy.”-Edward Abbey
If you want to understand how this country works and what’s wrong with the country, all you have to do is look at what happened yesterday in Memphis. Powerful, wealthy, corporate moguls rubbing hands with their political puppets. Dissent is marginalized and made less effective by the enforcement arm of global capital, the police and the military. Large sums of cash are exchanged, money that could be used for improving schools, healthcare and the environment, and is used to fuel the propaganda system that keeps the right puppets in place and the machine rolling along.
And in fairness, it’s not just the Repugs. The Democrats are guilty of the same sort of activities, and the system wasn’t created by Bush. He’s just the latest, but clearly the worst, example we’ve seen in recent memory.
I say throw ‘em all out. Scrap the whole system. A Declaration of Independance from the national charade. Let’s start afresh with grass roots, Jeffersonian democracy in this country. Get back to a simpler, more agrarian way of life, balance the checkbook, educate our kids and promote a healthier way of life for all living things that inhabit the continent.
Like things the way they are?
Wake up people. We are not the “world leader” everyone thinks we are.
A recent report indicates that Switzerland is now the world’s leading economy, followed by Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore. Singapore is an overpopulated shit hole whose military expenditures (as percentage of GDP) and industrial growth rates exceed that of the U.S., but Finland, Sweden and Denmark all outrank the United States according to recent “quality of life” index. Ireland ranks number one overall.
When comparing these countries, I think it’s important to look closely at military spending (as a percentage of GDP), population and land mass, oil consumption, industrial growth rates and international issues. As a percentage of GDP, the United States spends nearly three times as much as Switzerland, Finland and Denmark. It dwarfs Ireland.
It seems clear that countries that are nice places to live don’t overspend on the military, they don’t muck around in the affairs of other nations, they support democracy, they aren’t overly dependent on oil and are not over industrialized.
Can the United States reverse these trends and discover a sustainable balance between industrialism and agrarianism? Can we get back to our roots and regain what’s been lost?
“If America could be, once again, a nation of self-reliant farmers, craftsmen, hunters, ranchers, and artists, then the rich would have little power to dominate others. Neither to serve nor to rule: That was the American dream.”-EA
I believe the answer is “no” as long as the current political system is in place. As we witnessed yesterday in Memphis, the current system is essentially a farce. It’s a centralized system in which the representatives are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote but have no responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office. Our elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political contributions for political favor.
It’s a corporate oligarchy designed to protect, support and expand industrialism and industrialism requires militarism, both of which are antithetical to human and non-human freedom.
What we need in this country is grass-roots democracy, grown from the community level outward. A bioregionally based federation comprised of immediately recallable representatives and an economic system that doesn’t ignore biological reality.
The age old question, of course, is how? How do we get there? Is this possible?
The unfortunate but truthful answer is that there is no way to get there right now. There’s no popular support for real democracy or sustainabilty in the United States. People are too comfortable. Fat cats enjoying the American lifestyle while all other life suffers. What’s probably needed is some sort of cascading series of events, possibly triggered by Peak Oil, that forces change. Forces people to relearn how to live locally and sufficiently within communities.
Then, after we’ve constructed a sustainable and sane society out of the ashes, we can stick our middle finger in the air to governments and politico-industrialists and say “fuck off.”
We don’t need you.
I think climate change more than peak oil will be the real catalyst for what you’re looking for. That and a global economic collapse, which is likely since everything is so interconnected what affects one affects all others. Our future looks bleak in the short term, but we’re a resilient species and remarkably smart – we’ll figure it out eventually. Yes, I am an optimist!
Or more than likely, some large economic / political collapse would accelerate the tendency that humanity has to reach for a theocracy. This is what happened in Iran.
So, besides the great loss of life and productivity (and achievement) that would occur, those of us (few) moderates left would probably be put to the stake and burned.
There’s a reason society is the way it is. If people didn’t want it to be this way, it wouldn’t be this way (implictly, by participation in it — you too, by the way, since resistance is a form of participation — people choose to perpetuate it).
Life is too short (and gets shorter by the second) to waste on petty political issues.
There are days when I say “What difference does it make?” “Why waste my time on this stuff?”
But then I wonder how bad it might be if the Powers That Be had no opposition. No one to stand up and call them on their bullshit.
Eventually, hopefully, the obloquy will be severe enough to force some positive change. Maybe not.
While I’m burning at the stake, I’d at least like to know I tried. That I stood up and said something.
It’s therapeutic at least.
Forgive me, but the “Powers That Be” don’t have any opposition (I don’t mean to insult anyone, but while we are all important, etc, etc, there’s really not much you or me or any other “regular citizen” can do to stop the train).
Standing up and saying something because you feel like it is different from saying something because you think it’s going to change the world, and doing that (saying something because that’s how you feel) is a lot more authentic and honest.
Decisions about what is and is not done are largely arbitrary… Someone decided that things would be a certain way and they were.
Ultimately, all societies are cooperative — even those like North Korea and Iran — because people make a decision, rational or not, to stay there and participate (in some form or another). If everyone around the world who didn’t like what they were doing suddenly decided to just stop doing it, this would highlight my point. Of course, the net effect would be pretty bad — no lights at your house, no network management, no police to keep the order, etc, etc.
My point is this (and is a repeat): The world is set up the way it is because that’s how people want it, so resisting it (or trying to change it for the sake of changing it) is pointless. (Saying what you want to say, because you want to say it, is a different matter.)
We can’t go back to tribal times. We can’t (at this point in history) run a modern nation state (or any sort of society composed of individuals who don’t self-select) without the sort of organization you see in every state entity on the planet today. And even if we did find a way to run a more cooperative society, what happens to people who don’t fit into it? People without social skills, people that others really don’t want to deal with? Or people who just don’t want to relate or contribute to others? (There are many more than you would think.) Are those people just left to die? Is that a just society? And regardless of the answer you or anyone else might propose, you’ll simply be substituting one set of problems for another.
There are *always* non-negotiables in any political or societial system. The Russians have the Gulag, the US has homelessness. What I mean to say is that *any* government or society (and yes, even anarchy) becomes coercive once its lines are crossed. Anarchy may work for you, theoracy may work for someone else…But if I cross the lines either one imposes, the result is the same — some sort of punishment inflicted to coerce others (and me, if I survive it) to obey (or to reinforce their views, if they already agree with it).
You (along with my libertarian and democractic and theocratic friends) will insist that your system doesn’t impose such limits, but I can guarantee that I will find them.
(For instance, would this agraian society you outline above provide resources to those who were able to work but refused to do so, “just because”? And to outline the situation further, I’m describing someone who would assert that they should be cared for their entire lives because they exist — after all, they didn’t choose to be born.)
Whatever, this is too long anyway. My larger point is:
Why does a system (or a society) have to die in order for these problems to be worked out? (And no, I don’t believe systems make people bad… People are what they are and they will take advantage of any situation they can.)
I can’t “change the world.” All I can do is control my own life and make suggestions about how we might construct a better society.
No human society will ever be perfect, but I think we can certainly improve on the current variation.
You say “the world is set up the way it is because that’s how people want it, so resisting it (or trying to change it for the sake of changing it) is pointless.”
Well, I don’t agree. I don’t like how the world is set up. I live in the world. I’m not going to just sit here and say it is what it is, and I just have to take it. Fuck that. I’ll be damned before I sit here and just bury my head and say I’m helpless.
When I see injustice, I speak out. I’ve been doing it since I was a kid, and now that I’m 44, I guess it’s safe to say I’m not changing.
And no one is talking about primitivism. I’d just like to see some common sense in the world. Some reasonable blend of industrialism and agrarianism. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other.
The only limits imposed by anarchism are the limits the people choose to impose. Anarchism doesn’t mean “no rules.” It means no rulers. But that’s not what we have today. A system where the people, via grass roots democracy, impose their own limits and rules. The organizing principles and rules of the current society are imposed by a select few, in a top down manner that is antithetical to freedom and democracy. It’s an oligarchy quickly moving toward’s theocracy.
And society doesn’t have to “die.” It does need to change, however.
You also stated: “And even if we did find a way to run a more cooperative society, what happens to people who don’t fit into it? People without social skills, people that others really don’t want to deal with? Or people who just don’t want to relate or contribute to others? (There are many more than you would think.) Are those people just left to die? Is that a just society?”
That’s a fair question. One I’ve thought about quiet often, since I live near a major city with a high population of people that fit into this category.
Anarchism doesn’t mean that the society doesn’t have controls or ways of dealing with such problems. All anarchism says is that the people will decide how they want to handle these issues, possibly via consensus process, including what to do with the people that refuse to live according to the rules of the community.
The important thing is that the people of a community have a voice. They are heard.
Maybe a good step would be for us to have immediately recallable representatives, term limits and a better way to eliminate corporate influence.
“[...] I don’t like how the world is set up. I live in the world. I’m not going to just sit here and say it is what it is, and I just have to take it. Fuck that. I’ll be damned before I sit here and just bury my head and say I’m helpless.”
And that’s your decision and if it works for you, that’s great. But clearly, given the way the world is, you’ve set yourself up to be in the minority and to be ignored. This is a self-inflicted prescription for unhappiness and anger.
I don’t suggest that you declare you are helpless. But I do suggest that you consider the millions of people you’re making plans for and what they would have to face if everything they built their lives around fell apart. (The last I heard, the Russians were still dealing with these issues, and they weren’t happy about them).
“When I see injustice, I speak out. I’ve been doing it since I was a kid, and now that I’m 44, I guess it’s safe to say I’m not changing.”
Nor am I suggesting that you should change (since these activities are more about the authentic expression of how you feel rather than some sort of political cause) but I am attempting to make you see that the problem isn’t really, ultimately, political or economic in nature.
“The only limits imposed by anarchism are the limits the people choose to impose. Anarchism doesn’t mean ‘no rules.’ It means no rulers.”
Hi, yes, thank you. I’m well acquainted with the political philosophy of anarchism. In fact, I take it very seriously and my point is that there are always non-negotiables — that there are always rules.
“A system where the people, via grass roots democracy, impose their own limits and rules. The organizing principles and rules of the current society are imposed by a select few, in a top down manner that is antithetical to freedom and democracy. It’s an oligarchy quickly moving toward’s theocracy.”
Well, again, I would point out that you have a lot in common with my NRA, GOA (that’s the more shrill “Gun Owners of America”) and “Pat Buchanan for President” friends. Even if we “go back” to the original society of “the Founders” (and why are we so reverent about those guys, anyway?) eventually, since the international scene is what it is and “certain restrictions of physics may apply” we would be right back where we are now within a few generations. (Ah, yes, but none of those GOA and NRA folks would have to live through it.)
“That’s a fair question. One I’ve thought about quiet often, since I live near a major city with a high population of people that fit into this category.”
Nice dig at the rest of the world. And apparently, you think there are more people who hate humanity than I do… If you think imposing your judgement on the value of someone else’s contribution is going to motivate them to listen to you, you will never be heard.
“Anarchism doesn’t mean that the society doesn’t have controls or ways of dealing with such problems. All anarchism says is that the people will decide how they want to handle these issues, possibly via consensus process, including what to do with the people that refuse to live according to the rules of the community.”
Uh, hi, yes, I do understand anacharism. (But then, I do look pretty slow to everyone else.) This is precisely my point. There are rules and sooner or later, at some point, authority will be established and an “elite” will follow. It’s what happened in the United States. It even happens in non-political communities. There are those who are “in” and “out”.
“The important thing is that the people of a community have a voice. They are heard.”
Oh, I think the folks in Washington, DC are listening…Indeed, they are so interested to hear the mundane details of our lives, they are tapping our telephones. I don’t think they really care about what we’re saying. My other point (wow, I sure have been pointy, recently) is that if they did care, things would change.
From my perspective, then, the real issue that you (and I, and everyone else, *together*) are confronting is, how do we motivate our leadership (or authority, or dictators, or whatever you want to call them) to care about what we want?
Obviously, some (a very small minority of) people are just angry and just argue for the sake of rage. But I think most people, if approached in a civil manner, can be spoken with. And I think that the amount of rage running through our politics (so clearly illustrated by the finger in the air and the foul language) has pushed us to the point where people aren’t bothering to talk. (And also, incidently, why those in authority don’t care about what their opposition believe.) I don’t know if you believe that this situation is productive or not. But I don’t think it’s productive even if a collapse comes — since those neighbors we insulted at one point will remember what we said and there won’t (for a little while, at least) be any authority to protect our right to freedom of speech.
If rage is your thing, then that’s cool and I respect it as your call. But I do sincerely doubt that the core of your message (and what you really want) is just anger and inflicting loss on people who really just want to spend their lives looking after the important people in their lives (like their relatives).
“And that’s your decision and if it works for you, that’s great. But clearly, given the way the world is, you’ve set yourself up to be in the minority and to be ignored. This is a self-inflicted prescription for unhappiness and anger.”
I think you’re being a bit presumptuous here. Minority? Sure, but what difference does that make? If I think the majority is wrong, why would I want to be counted with them?
Ignored? The minority isn’t necessarily ignored. I’m not ignored, I’m not unhappy, and I’m not angry. In fact, I probably live the sort of life many people dream of.
“I don’t suggest that you declare you are helpless. But I do suggest that you consider the millions of people you’re making plans for and what they would have to face if everything they built their lives around fell apart.”
Again, I’m not making plans for anyone. Where I have I ever said I was making plans for anyone?
“Nor am I suggesting that you should change (since these activities are more about the authentic expression of how you feel rather than some sort of political cause) but I am attempting to make you see that the problem isn’t really, ultimately, political or economic in nature.”
So, you believe the problem is caused by what, “human nature?” Please tell me you’re not saying that!
“Hi, yes, thank you. I’m well acquainted with the political philosophy of anarchism. In fact, I take it very seriously and my point is that there are always non-negotiables — that there are always rules.”
And what’s wrong with that?
“Well, again, I would point out that you have a lot in common with my NRA, GOA (that’s the more shrill “Gun Owners of America”) and “Pat Buchanan for President” friends.”
What, exactly, do we have in common? Other than the right to own a firearm?
“Even if we “go back” to the original society of “the Founders” (and why are we so reverent about those guys, anyway?) eventually, since the international scene is what it is and “certain restrictions of physics may apply” we would be right back where we are now within a few generations. (Ah, yes, but none of those GOA and NRA folks would have to live through it.)”
I’m not very reverent of the founders. Most were self absorbed assholes primarily concerned with protecting private property, but they did get a few things right.
“Nice dig at the rest of the world. And apparently, you think there are more people who hate humanity than I do… If you think imposing your judgement on the value of someone else’s contribution is going to motivate them to listen to you, you will never be heard.”
No, just a statement about the reality of my immediate community. We have a large, economically depressed, angry, violent population in these parts.
Where have I made any judgments about “contributions?” What contributions are you referring to?
“Uh, hi, yes, I do understand anacharism. (But then, I do look pretty slow to everyone else.) This is precisely my point. There are rules and sooner or later, at some point, authority will be established and an “elite” will follow.”
How do you know this? So we shouldn’t try to build an egalitarian society because it will eventually be overtaken by the “elite?”
“From my perspective, then, the real issue that you (and I, and everyone else, *together*) are confronting is, how do we motivate our leadership (or authority, or dictators, or whatever you want to call them) to care about what we want?”
You can’t make people care about what you want when their desires and motivates are the antithesis of yours.
“If rage is your thing, then that’s cool and I respect it as your call. But I do sincerely doubt that the core of your message (and what you really want) is just anger and inflicting loss on people who really just want to spend their lives looking after the important people in their lives (like their relatives).”
No, it’s not rage. My only desire is to create a meaningful public dialog about what the alternatives MAY be. I have no ego in the deal. If someone presents a better idea, so be it. I’m just throwing ideas out on the table, and sometimes I say things specifically to spark debate.
My ultimate goal is to prepare my offspring for the future and find a nice, sufficient and comfortable place to live out my remaining days in peace. Nice surroundings, good food, wine, friends and enough intellectual banter to keep the pistons firing in my tequila soaked brain.