Signal Wave
Good morning, everybody!
A Delayed Reckoning
Politics, at this point, consists largely of obfuscation, misdirection, and distraction, so when there’s a great deal of hullabaloo about any particular conflict, it’s a good idea to glance around and see what else might be going on. The frenzied conflict between right and left during the Trump era is a case in point. Try a thought experiment, and imagine that that conflict is a smokescreen. What do you think it hides?
Of course, the answer could be many things: climate change, endemic war, an endless greed that destroys all it touches. A plague of poverty. A blitzkrieg on the political imagination. But something else has disappeared behind the smokescreen that you might not expect: any critique of the right that actually amounts to anything.
The Right is Wrong
But CSTMS, you might say, the Resistance is always saying the Right is Wrong! But, in a tactical move reminiscent of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the anti-Trump resistance has actually eradicated the old meaning of those words and replaced it with a set of meanings much more comfortable both for the rich and the Right. If you’re a powerful right-wing person who doesn’t work directly for Donald Trump, this new set of meanings is great for you.
Let’s look at the changes.
What They Took Out
This remodeled critique of the right has had certain concepts extracted from it, including the following:
Capitalism is untrustworthy.
If you’re a social democrat, capitalism requires a leash. If you’re a socialist, it needs to be put down. Left-wing anarchists have varying opinions, but if you’re on the left at all, you believe that capitalism, like a fire, should under no circumstances be left to direct itself.
Authoritarianism is unacceptable.
Of course, the anti-Trump Resistance claims that it does oppose authoritarianism. But the only authoritarianism they oppose comes from Donald Trump. You can tell that by looking at who else they support. They embrace George W. Bush. They like the CIA. They like Fauci even though he was Reagan’s HIV Czar, and they like Mueller even though he was a fixer the Reagan administration brought in to help them handle the Iran/Contra scandal (he was in charge of the Noriega part of the investigation).
I guess we’re supposed to think that Trump has established a monopoly on authoritarianism. That’s a handy idea, because it enables us to exonerate all previous authoritarians from charges of authoritarianism, at the low, low price of them publicly stating that they don’t like Trump. Even better, the authoritarianism of Donald Trump can be used to justify instituting a great deal of authoritarianism in response, from censorship, to the suppression of political protest, to increased surveillance of the populace—up to and including suggesting that people inform on their own families. I would be remiss, in this context, not to mention turning the press and the largest social media platforms into a Joe McCarthy funfest. And speaking of that:
Character assassinations are anti-rational discursive objects that almost always serve the powerful.
Before 2010, leftists believed that attacks should be made primarily on behavior rather than character. In the case of politicians and other public officials, it was also permissible to attack policy positions and other spoken statements because the beliefs of those in government have the power to alter material reality for the rest of us. I say “primarily” rather than “absolutely” because, in extreme cases, the patterns of behavior or policy were so odious that they could not help but imply a failure of character. But the focus remained inexorably on behavior and policy, not personality, because behavior and policy were the occasions where harm could be done to other people. Also, attending to failures of character is the job of psychology and religion, and, before 2010, neither leftism nor liberalism was a religion.
The needs and desires of ordinary people matter.
The system is made for the people, not the other way around. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Politicians have a sacred charge to serve the public; the public has a sacred charge to provide informed scrutiny and honest, rational judgments of politicians that hold both them and the system itself accountable, in pursuance of the general welfare. The spectacle of politicians and media blaming voters for not being loyal enough to politicians would have been considered an absurdity before the advent of George W. Bush; after the ascent of Bush, it was considered, by the left at least, as one of the greatest threats to our democracy. Rightfully so, since if the people’s non-compliance with the wishes of the powerful is what’s wrong, then democracy itself is wrong.
Do no harm. When that is impossible, do as little harm as you can.
When you’re proposing a policy, consider as broadly as possible the impacts of that policy, and minimize the bad. When you’re running a political campaign, do likewise when considering campaign strategy. When you’re engaging in political discussion on Twitter, in addition to having a cache of antiemetics on hand, remain honest, rational, and civil. You’ll note this has little in common with finding a target on which to loose your venom and pursuing that target inexorably until you believe you’ve caused the most pain possible. This is not a way of saying that politics should be “nice.” If a particular person in power has caused genuine damage—not hurt feelings, but damage, as in theft, rape, corrupt betrayals of constituents, torture, wars of choice, indefinite detention, the abuse of police power—that person should be removed from power. The “harm,” if it is harm, of taking that person’s power away is outweighed by the imperative to end the harm they’re inflicting on the populace.
A person saying something that contradicts or offends you does not constitute harm unless that person has the power to force their speech upon you—or unless that person is a politician about to turn their speech into a law that governs your life.
Human rights exist. They should be the foundation of our politics.
We talk a lot more about privilege than rights these days. Privilege exists, and sometimes the anti-Trump resistance accurately identifies it (as with Harvey Weinstein). Sometimes they identify privilege where it doesn’t exist, or is not in operation. The key here is that it is quite easy to accuse someone of acting out of privilege, just as it is quite easy to accuse someone of bigotry, with no evidence required. For that reason, it’s easy for the concept of privilege to become part of the character assassin’s arsenal. More importantly, beyond that, the frame of privilege is far less likely to produce actual justice or a real increase in the public weal than the frame of human rights.
The Trayvon Martin murder is a good example. While it’s true that white people are free to move about neighborhoods and buy Snapples at local minimarts without getting shot to death, calling that “white privilege” implies extremely disquieting, even authoritarian things. Is it really a privilege to be able to walk down to the mini-mart and buy a Snapple? Should it be? If you want a higher standard of justice than we currently receive, wouldn’t it make sense to say instead that Trayvon Martin’s fundamental human rights were violated, implying that everybody has the right to freedom of movement, rather than saying that people who can go to the store have “white privilege,” implying that freedom of movement is an unwarranted luxury that people shouldn’t have?
Finally,
We should use the methods of rationalism to discover the largest amount of truth possible, and apply the truths we discover in a way best guaranteed to promote the general welfare.
That aim is not congruent with rapid-response coordinated media campaigns designed to take down specific targets. Nor is it congruent with playing online whack-a-mole with dissident opinion. Nor is it congruent with designating a visible and prominent sin-eater to symbolize ultimate evil to the populace. Nor is it congruent with allowing evil and blame to seep out of the surrounding political landscape and get soaked up in the figure of the sin-eater as if he were a large political sponge.
These used to be among the reasons that we said “the right is wrong.” But since these ideas have been taken off the table, and arguably are no longer part of American politics, little remains of an actual critique of the right. The only thing that’s left is a somewhat truncated form of anti-bigotry that’s always tripping over its own hypocrisy.
Not being able to hold the right accountable is a problem, because the right has been in power for the past forty years--and the reckoning for those forty years has been delayed far too long.
Comments
Good morning
Contrary to 'public opinion' (read as polls) the government, military, CIA et.al are out of control.
By the people who were given the responsibility to hold their 'elected' representatives accountable, this quaint notion has all but disappeared. And altered, as you eloquently state.
Somehow rights and privilege have morphed into right thinking (as opposed to leftish ideals).
Thanks for the OT CSTMS.
question everything
I agree the corporate/ deep state capture is complete
Politics are a charade to make people THINK they have a voice. The Princeton study concluded the US is an oligarchy years ago.
Now the deep state war machine has no restraint. Add in the control ushered in by lockdowns, mandates, and mass surveillance and you find the dystopian state we've become. Promoting global war from Nicaragua (using the same failed technique which we tried in Venezuela) to the idiocy of challenging Russia and China at the same time. Collapse of the US empire can't come soon enough!
I understand some peoples need to frame the argument as left right, after all that framing had merit for our early lives. But from my view both so called camps have been purchased. There is no left, just one corporate party dividing us along social issues, but both supporting war, more for the wealthy, and suppressing workers. Rhetoric may speak other wise, but not actions.
Everyone is entitled to their own views. Mine are not more valid than others, but I continue to find the left right paradigm a false narrative. We have corporate side one and corporate side two both of which promote the oligarchy. My 2 cents.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Adding my 2 cents
to yours.
Now we have 4 cents.
How many cents will it take to change the conversation from analysis to action oriented?
NYCVG
I wish I had a plan of action...
Sadly my plan is withdrawing from system rather than reforming our society. Our militarized enforcers quite frankly frighten me, and I no longer think mass protests are an answer.
I am still willing to try if anyone did develop some sort of reasonable strategy to overcome the evil empire. I'm waiting for a general strike...
All the best!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Withdrawing and surviving
are good starts.
A General Strike is what I am looking for also. As others have noted, there are more strikes going on around this country now than there have been in as long as I can remember.
Not that we know about them.
One, for example, which was going on at Colombia University last week and for all I know may be ongoing, was called the second biggest strike in the USA after the John Deere strike we have heard of.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/columbia-university-student-work... NY Times and other NY newspapers did NOT cover this.
Another is calling for a 10 day Black Friday Consumer strike. I have no details.
They own the media. It will not be easy to coordinate anything big.
But, not impossible.
NYCVG
I could do that, but I thought that
there was little appetite for talking about, well, about survivalism and all the things we might do to make our lives more sustainable, resilient--including building strong communities.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Here? What?
We do talk about surviving and preparation here.
Quite a lot.
I must be misunderstanding....
NYCVG
That wasn't meant to be snarky--
I'd be delighted to talk about the sorts of things Lookout has mentioned more than once--the things we *can* do.
COVID has made doing those things harder, of course.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not snarky at all
We are all groping for answers and maybe actions we can take.
Go local seems to be the consensus.
NYCVG
The past is important.
If we simply dispense with the left-right paradigm, we will not accurately record or understand how we got here. And, ironically, dispensing with that paradigm right off the bat will probably mean that we make the decision to abandon that paradigm without fully understanding or considering what that choice means. But above all, I feel it's a bad idea to simply dispense with left/right without having a reckoning first. I hope the reason I feel that way will become clear by next week.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good morning, everbody!
I am on the way to the beach with my honey, for the first time in more than 2 years!
Have an awesome week! I will be back next week with the third installment (this is getting longer; now it's gonna be a total of four).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Have a great time!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good morning CSTMS, thanks for the essay and for
the points you make, points often overlooked. Have a great time at the beach.
Some memory of the L-R framework, and how it has been applied (what it denoted and connoted over time) needs to be retained for historical framing and analysis. Already, all of the lines are blurred, both by simplification and by distortion. If the idea of conservatism or right is important to one's thinking, one needs to constantly remember that there is no middle, no center, and no such thing as centrism. The "centrist" lust for preserving the status quo is pure conservatism, it is right-wing.
Skipping over most of the essay brings us to a critical point:
Sadly, those methods are largely ignored, forgotten and very seldom taught. They are also seldom examined. Certain methodological protocols that are accepted as the gospel signature of rationalism really aren't except in certain specific circumstances and contexts. Perhaps we need to indulge in some reductionist tear downs and try to get the populace at large to use them in responding to the maelstrom of printed and electronic chatter we face. For example, "THIS (thing, design, idea, etc.) is bad because " can be a useful informational format. "THIS is bad, therefore some other thing is likewise bad" is much riskier and error prone. "THIS person is bad" is the doorway to a great amount of erroneous thinking and not only is an ad hominem that is almost always over general, but it is the foundation for an endless pile of per se ad hominems of the form "THIS person is bad, therefore ... ".
Perhaps we all need to call out all instances of all fallacies including non-falsifiable allegations with a consistent message that conclusions based on fallacious reasoning will/should always be rejected regardless of the possibility/likelihood that they could, all the same, be true.
All of that, of course, is an entirely different subject, but part of the supporting framework for the ideology known as "democracy" is an informed populace. To the "right" lies fear and rejection of change, leading ever backward to oligarchy, authoritarianism, repression, suppression and oppression. To the left lies change and "progress" (heh) which will not necessarily be good or beneficial in every instance, but there is only one way to find out.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Once upon the time they did that !
i have so many sarcastic words on my tongue, I self-consor and shut up
Great esssay. Thanks you so much.
Now I can't get the sounds of rattling guillotines blades over my head.
Going with your honey to the beach, what a great tool of resistance.. NO snark, I mean that honestly. Imagine a world where nobody would listen snd go swimming.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Outstanding Essay
I want to add a few points to the story of evolving ideology.
I agree that The Right is Wrong. But there isn't any more of a coherent "Right" than a coherent "Left" to be found in either the main stream of American political culture or within the online/social media culture of echo chamber opinionating. There used to be an actual Conservative Movement that attracted followers out of sincere ideological principle. I never bought into it, but I remember debating conservatives in high school and college without rancor or contempt -- another lost memory of a completely different era.
Franklin Roosevelt said, "I am a liberal because I am a conservative." I do not see how any socialist of any stripe could seriously challenge that configuration. The New Deal saved capitalism and it is beyond the scope of this thread to evaluate whether that was a long term positive or negative development. I bring up FDR's conservatism only to show that the word does not necessarily apply to the corporate world order being established before our eyes today. Nor does it even apply to the goofy Military Keynesian Republicanism of Reagan and the Bushes.
Bill Buckley Era conservatism suffered from a fatal flaw -- an obsession with the "threat" of Communism. This led a generation of right wing ideologues to buy into policies that crapped all over the core conservative value of liberty. It also opened the door to the "neo-conservative intellectuals" who brought with them dreams of global domination, ultimately supplanting traditional Republican small government philosophy as GOP doctrine.
There were two common sense ideas animating the old style of The Right:
.
1. If you start handing out money, a long line is going to form.
2. If you want to make a change, it is not enough to point out that something is not good. You must also show that what you want to do will actually be an improvement. What's the catch?
.
As someone who has been trying to change a lot of things as a labor organizer, a lawyer, a voter, a citizen and a message board addict for more years than I care to remember, I have no beef with the burden being on my side to answer those objections before even trying to persuade people to support any progressive change, from the most trivial to the most earth shaking.
I went to law school in Austin, Texas from 1974-77. I met a couple of guys there who had taken a semester off in the spring of 76 to travel with the Ronald Reagan campaign to depose Jerry Ford as the GOP nominee for President. I never understood their enthusiasm for Reagan, but I liked both of them and they both liked to drink and smoke pot. Libertarians, see?
They made no bones about their trying to recruit me into the Right Wing Faction. They could see from my comments in class that I was not a doctrinaire liberal and from their point of view that meant I was a "possible." They never got anywhere in turning me away from my FDR/Unionist perspective, but we had a great time laughing about the lameness of Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford.
As students often did, at least in those days, we would talk philosophy until closing time. Their "free market" ideology was a lot more honest that what you hear from wingnuts today. Both were adamant that the benefits of capitalism could ONLY be realized with strong anti-trust enforcement. Like their guru, Adam Smith, they saw competition as being the saving grace of capitalist greed -- if you try to gouge the public, your competitors will undercut you.
Antitrust laws may or may not be a feasible way to regulate the insane tendency of capitalism to morph into monopoly, but my wingnut drinking buddies of half a century ago were honest enough and sincere enough to acknowledge it and to support state action to address it. They wanted anti-trust to apply to the unions, too. An interesting notion that I had to concede had some logic to it.
These were privileged young men who came from monied families. I disagreed with them, but they were my friends in a very real sense. Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater were personal friends who would have a drink together, or so legend has it.
.
Another interesting development took place as the new century began. The GOP and "conservatism" had dominated American elections since 1966. But demographic change was relentlessly eating away at the white "majority" -- and Angry White Males could not dominate our politics any longer. Funky vote counts in 2000 and 2004 gave Shrub the chance to institutionalized the Military Keynesianism of War Forever.
Barack Obama appeared on the scene to save Corporate America's bacon. Instead of pandering to white racists, Obama and the Democrats nurtured a new faction of Anti-Racists and Corporate America jumped on the bandwagon. This abandoned all those angry white males whose tummy had been rubbed with tales of Welfare Queens and Willie Hortons and Super Predators. Now corporate American literally sponsors Black Lives Matter.
This switcheroo has most of the country disoriented.
During the Obama years, the "left" found itself in the same place as my law school drinking chums -- their core philosophy was NOT to serve the corporate interest. But it was the core mission of the Republican Party to serve the corporate interest and the Reagan government eventually shut down anti trust enforcement. Similarly, "progressives" now are confronted by the Democrats now ALSO serving nothing but the corporate interest.
.
Donald Trump played to the abandoned GOP base and routed the field. He somehow became President and accomplished none of the Angry White Male pipe dreams and looked progressively more absurd as his term played out. Playing the role of Goldstein from Orwell's 1984, Donald Trump scared the bejesus out of the confused Democratic Base, disguising the complete takeover of the Party by Corporate American.
My new nick name for Donald Trump:
The Orange Herring
.
Regarding the main point of the Essay:
How do we make common cause with people whose opinions are wrong?
I suggest two parallel ways of dealing with this question. First, we should recognize the traditional conservative skepticism about solving social problems by handing out money or edicts as a valid and necessary part of The Social Contract.
Second, we should focus on short term excesses -- and if we are the ones attacking the Dems, it will not be so hard to find common cause to stop wars and overreach like mandatory injections.
So long as our natural allies of the erstwhile "left" remain loyal to the Democratic Party and its Corporate Owners, they are useless to us. There are tens of millions of people who are mad, willing and able to push back against corporate control of everything. But loyal 2021 Democrats ain't among them.
.
Final note. Speaking as a professional organizer who has dealt with Republican union members throughout my entire career -- most of them are not sophisticated and do not follow the details of the "news." The key to communication with them is do not talk down and do not assume anything about what is "known."
It really does not matter how hard it is to build a new coalition. We have to do it.
.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
find common cause to stop wars and overreach
a good start, nevertheless
question everything
It is difficult to find the appropriate caption to this.
Disgusting seems to be TOO weak.
Bet they aren't rich!
India is obsessed with wealth and money. All that toxic foam isn't going into the rich people's incredible walled palaces. The Club of Rome in The Limits to Growth predicted cancers will cut lifespan making the average human lifespan on Earth around 30-35. Like it was in Jesus's time.
Around now.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are doing it. Breast cancer, prostate cancer, and so on. Plastics are responsible. Plastics in everything. The health cost to society in our lives is astronomical.
Put all the burden on the poor, is the strategy.
Like they did with Bhopal.
The Director General of the
The Director General of the WTO sits on Twitter's board now.
That doesnt mean she is any kind of progressive lady. She may be better than the previous DG. But I wouldnt count on it. If she tried to make any of the changes they need, she'd soon be dead. Its all greenwashing.
Fake "anti-racists"
They want to bring back slavery. (Or something much like it)
Communications get deleted and people dont get them..
As somebody who has some experience in this.
See above