[Written in 2004 during a particularly inspired moment of repulsion.]
Somewhere between the benign “what would
Jesus do?” (WWJD?) crowd and goose-stepping
fascists, are those who call themselves the “religious
Right”... as if there were anything “right”
about it, except its political orientation. These folks
seem to think that the laws of religion are as flexible
as the laws of gravity are to Jackie Chan movies or
“The Matrix”. They utilize all sorts of
religious passages, sayings, psalms, and teachings to
suit their own individualistic (and sick, in my opinion)
purposes.
For example, a former adviser to “President”
Bush was on the radio tonight speaking about her “faith”.
She responded to a question asking whether it was okay
for the “President” to constantly invoke “God”
and his faith in public speeches, even though many are
not religious, while others are not Christian (the radio
host didn't bother adding that even some Christians could
do without a clown like Bush mouthing off). She stated
that “our faith” (as in, her and the “President”)
helps to put the country at ease during these “hard
times”, and that it's good for Bush to talk about
being humble, forgiving, and turning the other cheek (I
know, I know!! I'm not making this up!!)
The religious Right selectively uses this rhetoric
when it's convenient. For instance, it's all fine and
dandy for Bush to preach forgiveness towards his errors,
but there's only fire-and-brimstone for the millions of
innocent Afghanis that he wrecked his flimsy will upon
during that country's bombardment. Turning the other
cheek? Hah, that's what Bush demanded of Afghanistan:
turn your head so we can smack the other side now, too!
Far be it from me to lecture Bush on Christ, someone
who (if the Bible is accurate) was undoubtedly a radical
who was murdered by the State for his charismatic ability
to lead a social movement against the Roman Empire (and
corrupt Jewish tribal leaders). Surely Bush is aware that
Christ would have resisted any aggressive despot that
invades other countries, and that “turning the cheek”
is not just convenient rhetoric to toss about to persuade
others of your humanity.
The furor caused by “The Passion of the Christ”,
the movie by Mel Gibson, only illustrates the rabidity of
the religious Right to latch onto whatever medium and
means it can to further pervert Christianity. Sure,
“the passion” is only the last day of Jesus's
life, a day allegedly filled with unspeakable brutality.
But, why must one stomach long minutes of such torture on
the silver screen? Aren't there more important messages
to draw from the legacy of Christ? It's almost as if
Gibson and the Right wants to martyr Jesus not in order
to obtain a higher plane of morality, but to justify
retribution for their savior's untimely demise.
In fact, the only “Jesus Freaks” who I can
bear, are the Catholic Workers, who may or may not take
offense to such characterization. But, I mean it in the
most loving way: here are people who have taken the
actual meaning of Jesus to heart, and live it day and day
out. They live in poverty, sharing their homes and lives
with the least fortunate of society. They speak out
against violence, injustice, poverty, apathy, and moral
self-righteousness. Nothing has infused me with a renewed
sense of hope for the future of Christianity than hearing
about Workers chastising their Bishop for not taking a
stronger stance against the US war on Iraq, who instead
hid behind the Church's “just war theory”.
Unlike Bush's adviser and Bush himself, the Workers do
not feel themselves above literal meanings. As the Bible
notes, the hypocrite is one who does not apply to
him/herself standards that they demand of others. Thus if
one act of violence against innocents is wrong, than all
other acts of violence against the innocent is also
wrong. Of course this makes perfect sense, but the Bush
Mob and the Right realizes that organized religion, like
all other tools of control, may be wielded over others
only if the rules don't apply to them. Otherwise they
couldn't justify even owning a military or police or
prisons, let alone use them to bomb, invade, arrest, or
incarcerate millions!
Whenever I hear Bush say “god bless you”
after a speech, my mind visualizes his nose growing like
Pinocchio. I imagine him crossing his fingers under the
podium. I think of his inner-dialogue saying: “haha,
suckers!!”. His language is a tool of control just
as his “faith” is a self-delusion. Anyone can
realize that playing favorites, especially with a jerk
like Bush, is not in any god's best interest.
Further, why would a god (at least a kind and just
one) advocate the assassination of doctors, the execution
of the poor on death row (when was the last time a rich
man was executed?), invasions and crusades, censorship,
patriarchy and sexism, slavery, compulsory and
officialized religion and prayer, or the consolidation of
political and economic power? Why does the Right demand
that “intelligent design” (code for “creationism”)
be taught in secular schools? Why does the Right root and
cheer for Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people,
while simultaneously adhering to grotesque antisemitism?
Why does the Right cry bloody murder when people protest
clearly religious symbols and endorsements like the Ten
Commandments in courthouses and “In God We Trust”
on our money and Pledge of Allegiance? Why does the Right
advocate “celibacy” while it is clear that such
teaching does not work? Why does the Right condemn women
for choosing to have children or not, but then say “too
bad for you” when children are born into poverty?
The same forked-tongue is everywhere-- Jesus told me
to do this: “He told me to bomb this or that
country! He told me to kill that abortion doctor! He told
me to molest those parishioners! He told me to keep my
wife in her place! Blah blah blah!”
Then, they turn around, as Mumia Abu-Jamal notes, in
the US's celebration of “MLK Day”: “Imagine
the most violent nation on earth, the heir of Indian and
African genocide, the only nation ever to drop an atomic
bomb on a civilian population, the world's biggest arms
dealer, the country that napaled over ten million people
in Vietnam (to “save” it from communism), the
world's biggest jailer, waving the corpse of King,
calling for nonviolence!” Talk is cheap, when it
dribbles out of the mouths of powerful elites.
Let's recognize this for what it is: hypocrisy.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The Anarchist DNA of Occupy
I was invited to contribute to the discussion on the #Occupy movement, from an anarchist perspective for the American Sociological Association journal, Contexts. The short essay appears in the Spring 2012 issue Other contributors to the #Occupy discussion include Ruth Milkman, Benjamin Barber, Mohammed Bamyeh, William Julius Wilson, and Deborah Gould.
Occupy has drawn inspiration from many of 2011’s insurrectionary episodes, including Egypt’s Tahrir Square, Spain’s indignatos, and Puerto Rico’s student strikes. Also important has been Latin America’s horizontalism and zapatismo. But, the most immediate inspiration for Occupy is anarchism. This should surprise only the oblivious: many activists have noticed that American youth are influenced by anarchism more than by Marxism. The first manifestation of this influence is the emphasis upon anti-authoritarianism. There are no leaders (or, more radically, everyone is a leader). Anti-authoritarianism gives Occupy a strength and resilience not enjoyed by most movements. Like a multi-headed hydra, when Occupy’s enemies attempt to chop-off one head — arrest a certain individual — others take their place. No one is in a position to order anyone else around — everyone must participate in all decisions. Corporate media simply can’t understand this paradigm and it’s frustrated by Occupy’s disavowal of spokespersons.
Occupy’s next debt to anarchism is a procedural structure and aesthetic. For OWS, direct, participatory democracy is the order of the day. Lacking official leaders, consensus-building is the only feasible option. Every General Assembly (GA) attendee must be able to accept a decision. The task is assisted by multiple working-groups that meet regularly to discuss nitty-gritty issues. Facilitation guarantees that everyone’s voice is heard, and hand-gestures visually involve everyone. These techniques have popped-up in countless post-1960s anarchist projects. The results of this process can be seen in leaflets circulated at Occupy Oakland, characterizing several of the GA decisions as anarchistic in character: rejection of government endorsements and political parties, equal treatment of GA speakers, preventing police from entering the encampment, and solidarity with striking workers and students.
The movement’s militancy derives from its name. In contrast to other movements, Occupy attempts to reclaim public space, to confront others with its presence, and to stay in the news. Its impatience with polite lobbying or voting has an anarchist flair. Historically, anarchists have encouraged citizens to seize (and decentralize) political power, peasants to occupy private estates and collectivize them, and workers to take over the means of production. Occupy plays with anarchist notions of expropriation and seizing ill-gotten property for individual and collective needs.
How does Occupy aim to accomplish such goals? Anarchists participating in the movement seek to keep it radical, pragmatic, and uncontrollable by authorities. Occupy Wall Street’s active militancy ensures this: daily protest marches and actions attempt to create constant disruption of business-as-usual, while remaining unpredictable. The movement’s prefiguration attempts to (as advocated by the Industrial Workers of the World) create a new world in the shell of the old. Occupiers provide for all their own needs. Instead of entrusting one’s life and daily requirements to corporations or the state, people do it themselves: creating sleeping arrangements, free meals, classes and workshops, a multi-thousand volume library, sanitation, first aid, and security. In this respect, the Occupy movement is utopian and practical — a better world can be created, not in the distant future, but right now.
Occupy has already enjoyed many victories, convincing countless people of the potential for radical social change. The mass media is now running stories on capitalism, social inequality, and direct democracy. Someone ought to thank Occupy for accomplishing in a few short months what sociologists have been unable to achieve over decades.
Occupy has drawn inspiration from many of 2011’s insurrectionary episodes, including Egypt’s Tahrir Square, Spain’s indignatos, and Puerto Rico’s student strikes. Also important has been Latin America’s horizontalism and zapatismo. But, the most immediate inspiration for Occupy is anarchism. This should surprise only the oblivious: many activists have noticed that American youth are influenced by anarchism more than by Marxism. The first manifestation of this influence is the emphasis upon anti-authoritarianism. There are no leaders (or, more radically, everyone is a leader). Anti-authoritarianism gives Occupy a strength and resilience not enjoyed by most movements. Like a multi-headed hydra, when Occupy’s enemies attempt to chop-off one head — arrest a certain individual — others take their place. No one is in a position to order anyone else around — everyone must participate in all decisions. Corporate media simply can’t understand this paradigm and it’s frustrated by Occupy’s disavowal of spokespersons.
Occupy’s next debt to anarchism is a procedural structure and aesthetic. For OWS, direct, participatory democracy is the order of the day. Lacking official leaders, consensus-building is the only feasible option. Every General Assembly (GA) attendee must be able to accept a decision. The task is assisted by multiple working-groups that meet regularly to discuss nitty-gritty issues. Facilitation guarantees that everyone’s voice is heard, and hand-gestures visually involve everyone. These techniques have popped-up in countless post-1960s anarchist projects. The results of this process can be seen in leaflets circulated at Occupy Oakland, characterizing several of the GA decisions as anarchistic in character: rejection of government endorsements and political parties, equal treatment of GA speakers, preventing police from entering the encampment, and solidarity with striking workers and students.
The movement’s militancy derives from its name. In contrast to other movements, Occupy attempts to reclaim public space, to confront others with its presence, and to stay in the news. Its impatience with polite lobbying or voting has an anarchist flair. Historically, anarchists have encouraged citizens to seize (and decentralize) political power, peasants to occupy private estates and collectivize them, and workers to take over the means of production. Occupy plays with anarchist notions of expropriation and seizing ill-gotten property for individual and collective needs.
How does Occupy aim to accomplish such goals? Anarchists participating in the movement seek to keep it radical, pragmatic, and uncontrollable by authorities. Occupy Wall Street’s active militancy ensures this: daily protest marches and actions attempt to create constant disruption of business-as-usual, while remaining unpredictable. The movement’s prefiguration attempts to (as advocated by the Industrial Workers of the World) create a new world in the shell of the old. Occupiers provide for all their own needs. Instead of entrusting one’s life and daily requirements to corporations or the state, people do it themselves: creating sleeping arrangements, free meals, classes and workshops, a multi-thousand volume library, sanitation, first aid, and security. In this respect, the Occupy movement is utopian and practical — a better world can be created, not in the distant future, but right now.
Occupy has already enjoyed many victories, convincing countless people of the potential for radical social change. The mass media is now running stories on capitalism, social inequality, and direct democracy. Someone ought to thank Occupy for accomplishing in a few short months what sociologists have been unable to achieve over decades.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Activist Burn-Out
(an essay from about eight years ago)
The question of counteracting activist burnout is always on my mind and I've struggled with it for many years and assume I'll continue to struggle with it. Here are a few thoughts about what we can do about it.
If you view (as I do) activism as organizing outside of the institutional system of politics, the cards are already stacked against us, because we are challenging that system. Therefore there is more resistance within the system and by other citizens who are socialized to not see problems.
We sometimes get so focused on the need for political change that we neglect other important things (both to social movements and ourselves), such as the social aspect. Having more potlucks, picnics, bowling and dancing parties, movie nights, bar-hopping, etc. can help solidify relationships between activists and help let-off steam. It's much better to fight for a better future with friends you like, admire, and respect than with strangers.
Middle-class privilege (which I grew up with) seems to suggest to us (especially for those of us who are also White men) that if we just try hard enough we can accomplish anything. Thus, we misunderstand the reality that change is VERY HARD and a lifetime struggle sometimes. If you talk to African-American organizers they have a very long-term vision, because they know the going isn't always easy. Having the patience to do things right and to realize that the world ain't gonna change just because we try real hard can help us to pace our expectations.
We go through basic life changes. This is especially true for college activists, who have the “free time” (I use this term with much reluctance) to be active, yet once they graduate, a full-time job and other obligations gets in the way. For those who get married and/or start families, obligations and commitments grow even more. We can try to make our events family/child friendly in order to encourage participation from those in their 30s and 40s.
Mass media makes every effort it can to denigrate political activism that doesn't fit with the ideology of its editors, producers, and owners. Don't believe me? Read anything by Ben Bagdikian, Norman Solomon, Robert McChesney, or Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's “Manufacturing Consent”. Mass media makes protesters look stupid, ill-informed, childish, worthless, ineffective, and counterproductive. Whenever there is a clash between demonstrators and police, media focuses (90% of the time) upon that clash instead of the reasons that caused the protest, and almost always slants the story to provoke sympathy for the police instead of the demonstrators (which invariably is almost always backwards). One possible solution: Become the media!
Sad as it is to admit it, some activists are megalomaniacs, and, although they feign to be egalitarian, they are dictators at heart. This is a very small minority, of course, but these attention-grabbers ruin it for everyone else. These people have to get put in check. If that can't be democratic, get lots of people together to call them on their crap.
This problem is compounded by how some organizations operate in very undemocratic ways, that are disempowering to those who wish to be involved. Instead of using consensus decision making, the group votes between two marginal options that most members had little role in formulating or discussing. This reason alone causes many people to drop out entirely because they don't think their opinions are valued by the group. If we're activists who are serious about the causes we struggle for, we should also be serious about the means we use towards that struggle. This also means fighting sexual and racial marginalization in groups. White men (like me) need to shut the fuck up, and listen to women and people of color more often....
.... just like I'm going to do now.
The question of counteracting activist burnout is always on my mind and I've struggled with it for many years and assume I'll continue to struggle with it. Here are a few thoughts about what we can do about it.
If you view (as I do) activism as organizing outside of the institutional system of politics, the cards are already stacked against us, because we are challenging that system. Therefore there is more resistance within the system and by other citizens who are socialized to not see problems.
We sometimes get so focused on the need for political change that we neglect other important things (both to social movements and ourselves), such as the social aspect. Having more potlucks, picnics, bowling and dancing parties, movie nights, bar-hopping, etc. can help solidify relationships between activists and help let-off steam. It's much better to fight for a better future with friends you like, admire, and respect than with strangers.
Middle-class privilege (which I grew up with) seems to suggest to us (especially for those of us who are also White men) that if we just try hard enough we can accomplish anything. Thus, we misunderstand the reality that change is VERY HARD and a lifetime struggle sometimes. If you talk to African-American organizers they have a very long-term vision, because they know the going isn't always easy. Having the patience to do things right and to realize that the world ain't gonna change just because we try real hard can help us to pace our expectations.
We go through basic life changes. This is especially true for college activists, who have the “free time” (I use this term with much reluctance) to be active, yet once they graduate, a full-time job and other obligations gets in the way. For those who get married and/or start families, obligations and commitments grow even more. We can try to make our events family/child friendly in order to encourage participation from those in their 30s and 40s.
Mass media makes every effort it can to denigrate political activism that doesn't fit with the ideology of its editors, producers, and owners. Don't believe me? Read anything by Ben Bagdikian, Norman Solomon, Robert McChesney, or Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's “Manufacturing Consent”. Mass media makes protesters look stupid, ill-informed, childish, worthless, ineffective, and counterproductive. Whenever there is a clash between demonstrators and police, media focuses (90% of the time) upon that clash instead of the reasons that caused the protest, and almost always slants the story to provoke sympathy for the police instead of the demonstrators (which invariably is almost always backwards). One possible solution: Become the media!
Sad as it is to admit it, some activists are megalomaniacs, and, although they feign to be egalitarian, they are dictators at heart. This is a very small minority, of course, but these attention-grabbers ruin it for everyone else. These people have to get put in check. If that can't be democratic, get lots of people together to call them on their crap.
This problem is compounded by how some organizations operate in very undemocratic ways, that are disempowering to those who wish to be involved. Instead of using consensus decision making, the group votes between two marginal options that most members had little role in formulating or discussing. This reason alone causes many people to drop out entirely because they don't think their opinions are valued by the group. If we're activists who are serious about the causes we struggle for, we should also be serious about the means we use towards that struggle. This also means fighting sexual and racial marginalization in groups. White men (like me) need to shut the fuck up, and listen to women and people of color more often....
.... just like I'm going to do now.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Electoral Action Ain't Democracy
[Another oldie-but-goody from 2003 that I like to re-read every American election year (or as Chaz Bufe called it, "hell").]
It should be a given that voting isn't the be-all and end-all of democracy. If people think that walking into a little booth once every year (or every four years) and poking a few holes in some pieces of paper is the pinnacle of modern democracy, they are selling themselves-- and the idea of democracy-- short.
There are many avenues for people to act politically, many of which can be conducive to the practice of democracy. People can join block clubs, PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), social and economic justice organizations. They can contribute financially to organizations that encourage public participation-- League of Women Voters, NAACP, American Friends Service Committee, United Way, etc.-- or they can volunteer their time toward that end. They can directly lobby politicians, protest against or for policy, do petition campaigns, conduct public referendums, organize town hall meetings, and so on.
But, for most, voting is enough. That's sad, too, because it's just so EASY. Democracy, by it's very nature is very un-easy. It's tough, difficult, grueling, challenging, contentious, conflictory, and very engaging. Anyone who shows you a simple solution to a complex problem like democracy or public governance of a complex society should immediately be distrusted. Whether a society's decision making process is formed through majority rule, proportional representation, utter dictatorship, or consensus, democracy is always a messy affair.
Voting often hinges upon the selection of the better of two evils-- two mediocre (or bad) candidates who are relatively indistinguishable, both rolling in tons of money and dull rhetoric. Traditionally the “good guys”, the Democrats have been aping the Republicans (traditionally the “bad guys”), and have succeeded in proving that they can be just as reactionary and draconian and Right-wing-friendly as the Republicans. They cozy upto corporate power, offer false promises to unions and working people, approve of any “free trade” deal that crosses their desks, fall obediently into line and worship the flag whenever “the President” of the time pushes the country into war.
Helen Keller once mused, “We vote, what does that mean?” In the end, probably not much. Especially on the scale of national elections, there is very little possibility of any person or even bloc influencing a presidential candidate. And, of course, since Presidents are kings that are voted for, it's probably not even desirable to influence them.
On the other hand, though, voting at local elections can really make a differences, especially with citizen-run campaigns to reform corrupt city governments or to throw reactionaries and fat-cats out of office. Also, although I cringe to think of the ramifications: voting is the easiest act of political activity and can in a small way play a role. It also can be an in-road to talking to others about more important matters.
For instance, talking about issues instead of candidates is vital. We have a serious hero worship fetish in this country, and seem to prop all our hopes upon one individual or a small group of individuals. In the process, we forget that we are empowered people! We can make a difference beyond voting for candidates. Speaking about issues is the best way to avoid personality politics. Who gives a shit whose hair is better (or more real) or who can give the best sound bite-- where do they stand on the death penalty? Better yet, where does America really stand on the death penalty? What can citizens do to remove it from the face of society?
Thus, although it's important not to fetishize voting, registering to vote can be important: it places people in jury pools. Presently, pools tend to be composed of middle- and upper-class voters, who tend to be White. Since the vast majority of people arrested for crimes in this country are NOT, it is important that poorer people and people of color are registered so they can truly be “peers” and try those arrested. Otherwise, we'll likely continue in a shameful (and classist and racist) trajectory that will resemble slave lynchings more than criminal trials.
Enfranchising non-Whites and the poor is important. But, it's equally important to re-enfranchise ex-felons who are trying to reintegrate themselves into society. They need a voice, and-- as pitiful a voice as voting offers-- it can be an affirmation for a sizable sector of the country. Also, a large voting block of cons would cause politicians to (hopefully) stop all their “law and order” grandstanding crap.
I believe in a "diversity of tactics" to challenge and change the current political system. That means the whole spectrum of easy/less-meaningful (voting) to the harder/more-meaningful (movement building) are important and should be supported. I'm not goin g to criticize anyone who does either of these things or anything in the middle. It takes all kinds of resistance to bring powerful institutions to their knees and we have to appreciate this reality.
Even though I will continue to vote in elections, I believe the whole thing to be a massive racket of distraction. I see the energy being sapped by the anti-war movement into the campaigns for Democratic “hopefuls” Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinch. Do these individuals really stand a chance of winning? Even if they were to be nominated and win the presidency, they would still face the overpowering institutions of the Pentagon, Defense Department, Armed Forces, defense contractors, and capitalism itself. They'd be lucky if they weren't assassinated within their first month in office. But, a strong anti-war movement could change the tenor of the country, force the power-elite into war-mongering retreat.
The rivers of money that flow, unseen through polling places and the halls of Washington, D.C. lead me to one sure-fire long-term goal. Direct action and non-electoral organizing. I won't discard voting, but I won't trust it as my savior-- because it isn't. Using the tactics of subversion, civil disobedience, intervention, economic action, and insurrection are more useful and fulfilling. So many opportunities to make a difference and become empowered depend on people believing that democracy is a hard game to play... and no one should play it for you. We need to divorce ourselves from the notion of easy, quick-fix solutions and realize that change has to start with ourselves.
It should be a given that voting isn't the be-all and end-all of democracy. If people think that walking into a little booth once every year (or every four years) and poking a few holes in some pieces of paper is the pinnacle of modern democracy, they are selling themselves-- and the idea of democracy-- short.
There are many avenues for people to act politically, many of which can be conducive to the practice of democracy. People can join block clubs, PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), social and economic justice organizations. They can contribute financially to organizations that encourage public participation-- League of Women Voters, NAACP, American Friends Service Committee, United Way, etc.-- or they can volunteer their time toward that end. They can directly lobby politicians, protest against or for policy, do petition campaigns, conduct public referendums, organize town hall meetings, and so on.
But, for most, voting is enough. That's sad, too, because it's just so EASY. Democracy, by it's very nature is very un-easy. It's tough, difficult, grueling, challenging, contentious, conflictory, and very engaging. Anyone who shows you a simple solution to a complex problem like democracy or public governance of a complex society should immediately be distrusted. Whether a society's decision making process is formed through majority rule, proportional representation, utter dictatorship, or consensus, democracy is always a messy affair.
Voting often hinges upon the selection of the better of two evils-- two mediocre (or bad) candidates who are relatively indistinguishable, both rolling in tons of money and dull rhetoric. Traditionally the “good guys”, the Democrats have been aping the Republicans (traditionally the “bad guys”), and have succeeded in proving that they can be just as reactionary and draconian and Right-wing-friendly as the Republicans. They cozy upto corporate power, offer false promises to unions and working people, approve of any “free trade” deal that crosses their desks, fall obediently into line and worship the flag whenever “the President” of the time pushes the country into war.
Helen Keller once mused, “We vote, what does that mean?” In the end, probably not much. Especially on the scale of national elections, there is very little possibility of any person or even bloc influencing a presidential candidate. And, of course, since Presidents are kings that are voted for, it's probably not even desirable to influence them.
On the other hand, though, voting at local elections can really make a differences, especially with citizen-run campaigns to reform corrupt city governments or to throw reactionaries and fat-cats out of office. Also, although I cringe to think of the ramifications: voting is the easiest act of political activity and can in a small way play a role. It also can be an in-road to talking to others about more important matters.
For instance, talking about issues instead of candidates is vital. We have a serious hero worship fetish in this country, and seem to prop all our hopes upon one individual or a small group of individuals. In the process, we forget that we are empowered people! We can make a difference beyond voting for candidates. Speaking about issues is the best way to avoid personality politics. Who gives a shit whose hair is better (or more real) or who can give the best sound bite-- where do they stand on the death penalty? Better yet, where does America really stand on the death penalty? What can citizens do to remove it from the face of society?
Thus, although it's important not to fetishize voting, registering to vote can be important: it places people in jury pools. Presently, pools tend to be composed of middle- and upper-class voters, who tend to be White. Since the vast majority of people arrested for crimes in this country are NOT, it is important that poorer people and people of color are registered so they can truly be “peers” and try those arrested. Otherwise, we'll likely continue in a shameful (and classist and racist) trajectory that will resemble slave lynchings more than criminal trials.
Enfranchising non-Whites and the poor is important. But, it's equally important to re-enfranchise ex-felons who are trying to reintegrate themselves into society. They need a voice, and-- as pitiful a voice as voting offers-- it can be an affirmation for a sizable sector of the country. Also, a large voting block of cons would cause politicians to (hopefully) stop all their “law and order” grandstanding crap.
I believe in a "diversity of tactics" to challenge and change the current political system. That means the whole spectrum of easy/less-meaningful (voting) to the harder/more-meaningful (movement building) are important and should be supported. I'm not goin g to criticize anyone who does either of these things or anything in the middle. It takes all kinds of resistance to bring powerful institutions to their knees and we have to appreciate this reality.
Even though I will continue to vote in elections, I believe the whole thing to be a massive racket of distraction. I see the energy being sapped by the anti-war movement into the campaigns for Democratic “hopefuls” Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinch. Do these individuals really stand a chance of winning? Even if they were to be nominated and win the presidency, they would still face the overpowering institutions of the Pentagon, Defense Department, Armed Forces, defense contractors, and capitalism itself. They'd be lucky if they weren't assassinated within their first month in office. But, a strong anti-war movement could change the tenor of the country, force the power-elite into war-mongering retreat.
The rivers of money that flow, unseen through polling places and the halls of Washington, D.C. lead me to one sure-fire long-term goal. Direct action and non-electoral organizing. I won't discard voting, but I won't trust it as my savior-- because it isn't. Using the tactics of subversion, civil disobedience, intervention, economic action, and insurrection are more useful and fulfilling. So many opportunities to make a difference and become empowered depend on people believing that democracy is a hard game to play... and no one should play it for you. We need to divorce ourselves from the notion of easy, quick-fix solutions and realize that change has to start with ourselves.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Review of Mohammed Bamyeh's "Anarchy as Order"
[My book review of Mohammed Bamyeh's recent Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity (Rowman & Littlefield), in the online journal from Sociologists Without Borders (SSF), called Societies Without Borders.]
Unlike the many activist and activist-scholar written books about anarchism in recent years, Anarchy as Order is written by a solidly professorial author. Consequently, the book under review here originates from a different source than works like Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon or Gramsci is Dead by Richard Day. These latter books are informed by the immediate, highly potent anarchist movements that have proliferated around the world in recent decades, and that have spread multi-faceted views and critiques of the societies in which they are embedded (as well as the globalizing spaces in-between cultural groupings). Still, Anarchy as Order is likely the best and most serious of the non-activist written books on anarchism, perhaps since established works by folks like James Joll or Peter Marshall. Yet, even that sort of praise does not do justice to the fascinating and highly-sociological interpretation Bamyeh gives of anarchism (or, more appropriately, anarchy). Unlike many bookish academics who have a perverse view of anarchism—more informed by the paranoid lies and misconceptions of mass media spokespersons, delusional free-marketeers, and government spies than by anarchists themselves—Bamyeh's account is sympathetic, learned, and true to the intent of classic anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin (and even, later in the book, with a nod to Stirner!).
Reading Anarchy as Order is like digesting a more philosophical and academic version of Colin Ward's modern classic Anarchy in Action, the English-speaking world's best work of anarchist-sociology (the major distinction between Bamyeh and Ward is the latter's emphasis on anarchy as an already-existing tendency in present society: sometimes obscured, but still there). As such, Bamyeh's work is a thoughtful indictment of modern societies—in particular the state (of which he provides a unique, digested analysis of the anarchist critique of the state)—and thus has much in common with an assorted collection of other critical and Marxist sociologists. However, like all anarchist writing, there is a clear, practical Utopian strand that prefigures the future. As with Ward (and most comparable anarchist thinkers, especially Kropotkin), Bamyeh's view of anarchical society is not one devoid of order, but rather a highly just, civil, and organic order. Due to this focus, Bamyeh inadvertently, but instantly, will draw comparison between his argument of a civil society consumed by the state and the Habermasian claim of “the system” colonizing the life-world.
Bamyeh argues—correctly and creatively—that anarchism emphasizes freedom, indeterminate outcomes, and fluid solidarity, and an anarchical society would contain these elements, as opposed to other social qualities many societies are now tainted with (such as hero-worship, obedience, war-making, control, and inequality). Thus, one of Anarchy as Order's clearest successes is framing anarchist ideas as potential (and maybe even latent) conditions in a future society—thus “anarchy”. To rescue the word “anarchy” from the semantic slaughterhouse it has historically been subjected to, Bamyeh instinctively adopts Proudhon's claim that “anarchy is order”, while contemporary society (as dominated by the nation-state, capitalist ravish, and religious oppression) is a society wracked by disorder, chaos. Bamyeh also smartly makes a distinction comparable to that of Alexander Berkman who once wrote that although some people were ready and willing to adopt the philosophy and tenets advocated by anarchism the ideology, few were able to successful practice and live in a world of unimposed and non-hierarchical anarchy (yet, anyway).
Anarchist Studies scholars may be surprised by the credit extended to the “individualist” American faction in the United States (an attribution that seems to include modern Libertarianism, itself highly allergic to anti-capitalist anarchist movements). But, given the sympathies that “individualists” like Benjamin Tucker had for collectivists like Bakunin, it is unclear if such simple distinctions can be drawn. Anarchy as Order's otherwise appropriately culled reading of anarchist philosophy and movement history excels beyond most scholarly works on anarchism, and can be seen to occupy a middle-ground between purely philosophical scholarly works (so abstract in character as they do not even acknowledge the existence of a movement) and the descriptive anarchist movement histories usually authored by activists (for use by their own movements). One weakness of this compromise is that nearly no attention is given to modern anarchist theory and movements, except abstractly. The explosion in new anarchist strains (or ideological subvariants) in recent decades—such as anarcha-feminism, Black anarchism, queer anarchism, post-leftism, especifismo, primitivism, and so on—have (even though sometimes controversially) changed anarchism's focus to a systematic critique of domination. Whereas Bamyeh's work is sympathetic to this contemporary consensus, most of his analysis focuses on the state—and far less so on patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, Western civilization, and so on. In doing so, Anarchy as Order is a solid work on the state/civil society dichotomy, but is less mature in its analysis of other institutions of domination. This is not, I believe, a fatal deficit, since Bamyeh's highly nuanced and provocative analysis of the state furthers anarchist-sociology more than anything in the academic discipline has up to the present moment. Hopefully, future anarchist-sociology works will take up Bamyeh's agenda and extend it with the same seriousness, compassion, and commitment shown in Anarchy as Order.
Readers looking for an empirical analysis from an anarchist perspective (and I was, at times, one of these readers) may feel slightly let down by this very abstract and philosophical work. There is no “research design” to follow, as so far as I can tell, and no dialogue with existing anarchist movements whose actions and ideas could inform Bamyeh's independent analysis. Thus, in contrast to some of the best recent case studies of modern anarchism, like Jeff Shantz's Constructive Anarchy (which follows labor struggles, anarchist tech geeks, anti-poverty and anti-border organizing, political squatters, and alternative educators) based on participant observation (a.k.a. “militant ethnography), Bamyeh seeks to construct a theoretical argument built by his own substantial intellectual force.
Post-colonialist readers (and sociologists who lack the desire to respect the confines of nation-states, such as Sociologists Without Borders) will enjoy Anarchy as Order. The book will be of interest not merely because such an orientation is crucial to modern anarchism, but also due to Bamyeh's vast knowledge of non-Western (particularly Islamic) thought and history, world-systems theory, and radical civil society claims. Still, as alluded to above, these parts of the book tend to avoid both classic anarchism's advocacy for internationalism (“one big union”, cross-national worker solidarity, etc.) as well as modern global justice and anti-border activism.
Ultimately, the principal audiences for Anarchy as Order are sociologists who want to know more about anarchism and anarchists who seek a sociological interpretation of their philosophy. A good example of this is the intriguing discussions of subjects of interest to both sociologists and anarchists, including: trust, alliance, personality, alienation, and the common good. Bamyeh has the ability make the superficially-mundane fascinating and unpredictable. One of the best examples of this talent is Table 6.1, where he contrasts democracy, types of society, and the state, thereby illustrating an anarchist view of potential social forms. The emerging typology here is provocative and intellectually stimulating.
Personally, my own preference for “anarchist-sociology” (at least as an academic project) would be conceived of as a “big tent” under which sympathetic authors can bring together their varied collection of works, based on many theoretical perspectives, strategies, empirical data, methodological approaches, and such. These works could all inform each other, with a cacophony of different voices engaged in a diverse conversation of understanding. If this is a sensible strategy to an incipient anarchist-sociology, then Anarchy as Order is an amazing contribution to that project.
Unlike the many activist and activist-scholar written books about anarchism in recent years, Anarchy as Order is written by a solidly professorial author. Consequently, the book under review here originates from a different source than works like Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon or Gramsci is Dead by Richard Day. These latter books are informed by the immediate, highly potent anarchist movements that have proliferated around the world in recent decades, and that have spread multi-faceted views and critiques of the societies in which they are embedded (as well as the globalizing spaces in-between cultural groupings). Still, Anarchy as Order is likely the best and most serious of the non-activist written books on anarchism, perhaps since established works by folks like James Joll or Peter Marshall. Yet, even that sort of praise does not do justice to the fascinating and highly-sociological interpretation Bamyeh gives of anarchism (or, more appropriately, anarchy). Unlike many bookish academics who have a perverse view of anarchism—more informed by the paranoid lies and misconceptions of mass media spokespersons, delusional free-marketeers, and government spies than by anarchists themselves—Bamyeh's account is sympathetic, learned, and true to the intent of classic anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin (and even, later in the book, with a nod to Stirner!).
Reading Anarchy as Order is like digesting a more philosophical and academic version of Colin Ward's modern classic Anarchy in Action, the English-speaking world's best work of anarchist-sociology (the major distinction between Bamyeh and Ward is the latter's emphasis on anarchy as an already-existing tendency in present society: sometimes obscured, but still there). As such, Bamyeh's work is a thoughtful indictment of modern societies—in particular the state (of which he provides a unique, digested analysis of the anarchist critique of the state)—and thus has much in common with an assorted collection of other critical and Marxist sociologists. However, like all anarchist writing, there is a clear, practical Utopian strand that prefigures the future. As with Ward (and most comparable anarchist thinkers, especially Kropotkin), Bamyeh's view of anarchical society is not one devoid of order, but rather a highly just, civil, and organic order. Due to this focus, Bamyeh inadvertently, but instantly, will draw comparison between his argument of a civil society consumed by the state and the Habermasian claim of “the system” colonizing the life-world.
Bamyeh argues—correctly and creatively—that anarchism emphasizes freedom, indeterminate outcomes, and fluid solidarity, and an anarchical society would contain these elements, as opposed to other social qualities many societies are now tainted with (such as hero-worship, obedience, war-making, control, and inequality). Thus, one of Anarchy as Order's clearest successes is framing anarchist ideas as potential (and maybe even latent) conditions in a future society—thus “anarchy”. To rescue the word “anarchy” from the semantic slaughterhouse it has historically been subjected to, Bamyeh instinctively adopts Proudhon's claim that “anarchy is order”, while contemporary society (as dominated by the nation-state, capitalist ravish, and religious oppression) is a society wracked by disorder, chaos. Bamyeh also smartly makes a distinction comparable to that of Alexander Berkman who once wrote that although some people were ready and willing to adopt the philosophy and tenets advocated by anarchism the ideology, few were able to successful practice and live in a world of unimposed and non-hierarchical anarchy (yet, anyway).
Anarchist Studies scholars may be surprised by the credit extended to the “individualist” American faction in the United States (an attribution that seems to include modern Libertarianism, itself highly allergic to anti-capitalist anarchist movements). But, given the sympathies that “individualists” like Benjamin Tucker had for collectivists like Bakunin, it is unclear if such simple distinctions can be drawn. Anarchy as Order's otherwise appropriately culled reading of anarchist philosophy and movement history excels beyond most scholarly works on anarchism, and can be seen to occupy a middle-ground between purely philosophical scholarly works (so abstract in character as they do not even acknowledge the existence of a movement) and the descriptive anarchist movement histories usually authored by activists (for use by their own movements). One weakness of this compromise is that nearly no attention is given to modern anarchist theory and movements, except abstractly. The explosion in new anarchist strains (or ideological subvariants) in recent decades—such as anarcha-feminism, Black anarchism, queer anarchism, post-leftism, especifismo, primitivism, and so on—have (even though sometimes controversially) changed anarchism's focus to a systematic critique of domination. Whereas Bamyeh's work is sympathetic to this contemporary consensus, most of his analysis focuses on the state—and far less so on patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, Western civilization, and so on. In doing so, Anarchy as Order is a solid work on the state/civil society dichotomy, but is less mature in its analysis of other institutions of domination. This is not, I believe, a fatal deficit, since Bamyeh's highly nuanced and provocative analysis of the state furthers anarchist-sociology more than anything in the academic discipline has up to the present moment. Hopefully, future anarchist-sociology works will take up Bamyeh's agenda and extend it with the same seriousness, compassion, and commitment shown in Anarchy as Order.
Readers looking for an empirical analysis from an anarchist perspective (and I was, at times, one of these readers) may feel slightly let down by this very abstract and philosophical work. There is no “research design” to follow, as so far as I can tell, and no dialogue with existing anarchist movements whose actions and ideas could inform Bamyeh's independent analysis. Thus, in contrast to some of the best recent case studies of modern anarchism, like Jeff Shantz's Constructive Anarchy (which follows labor struggles, anarchist tech geeks, anti-poverty and anti-border organizing, political squatters, and alternative educators) based on participant observation (a.k.a. “militant ethnography), Bamyeh seeks to construct a theoretical argument built by his own substantial intellectual force.
Post-colonialist readers (and sociologists who lack the desire to respect the confines of nation-states, such as Sociologists Without Borders) will enjoy Anarchy as Order. The book will be of interest not merely because such an orientation is crucial to modern anarchism, but also due to Bamyeh's vast knowledge of non-Western (particularly Islamic) thought and history, world-systems theory, and radical civil society claims. Still, as alluded to above, these parts of the book tend to avoid both classic anarchism's advocacy for internationalism (“one big union”, cross-national worker solidarity, etc.) as well as modern global justice and anti-border activism.
Ultimately, the principal audiences for Anarchy as Order are sociologists who want to know more about anarchism and anarchists who seek a sociological interpretation of their philosophy. A good example of this is the intriguing discussions of subjects of interest to both sociologists and anarchists, including: trust, alliance, personality, alienation, and the common good. Bamyeh has the ability make the superficially-mundane fascinating and unpredictable. One of the best examples of this talent is Table 6.1, where he contrasts democracy, types of society, and the state, thereby illustrating an anarchist view of potential social forms. The emerging typology here is provocative and intellectually stimulating.
Personally, my own preference for “anarchist-sociology” (at least as an academic project) would be conceived of as a “big tent” under which sympathetic authors can bring together their varied collection of works, based on many theoretical perspectives, strategies, empirical data, methodological approaches, and such. These works could all inform each other, with a cacophony of different voices engaged in a diverse conversation of understanding. If this is a sensible strategy to an incipient anarchist-sociology, then Anarchy as Order is an amazing contribution to that project.
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Democraps
[From February 2004]
I come from a Democrat-voting household. I've got no reason to suspect that either of my parents have ever voted anything other than Democrat. They likely have a few [unfortunate] disagreements in general ideology, such as on the issue of a woman's right to choose, but otherwise are what I'd call strong Democrats.
That said, the Democratic Party is the most worthless excuse for a political organization this country has today. I don't just mean in its lack of a cohesive ideology or vibrant vision; I mean in it's ability to do anything, to stand up to adversity, or to even speak out against the Republicans. Not that I'm all broken up inside because of this -- I'm an anarchist and thus opposed fundamentally to the idea of party politics (at least as its constructed in its current configuration).
Outside of this strong disdain for electoral and party politics, there's still more to criticize. The Democrat Party tends to select the most moderate candidates possible. Sure, their traditional support may be liberal or even Left, but they always pick the most soda pop candidates (would you like Coke or Pepsi?) Thus, the Party was stuck with the horrendously lame Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. Can you think of a more boring candidate? Even in this example, however, Gore was more of a conservative than even his moderate (yet Republican-leaning) pal Bill Clinton.
Election in and election out, the Democrats focus on little more than complaining about their Republican counterparts. Sure, there's a lot to complain about, but frankly it's really easy to do so. And many liberal-leaning constituencies of the Democrats take up this Republican-bitch-fest, too. It's like Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's criticism of Anti-Racist Action for focusing only on the obvious racists like the Klan or Nazis, when the real problem with racism in this country has other names: the police, the courts, the prison system, the "War on Drugs", capitalism...
Thus, when Democrats open their mouths to make “strong statements”, it's usually against the Republicans (who often act much like the Democrats). Around election time it's the same story. Complain about either the Republican candidates or the incumbent Republicans. Heaven forbid they should actually bring up “daring” issues (outside of the usual “law and order” and tinkering with Medicaid) like universal health care, dismantling America's war machine, stopping the drug war and the prison industry, attacking corporate rule, and so forth. Instead, they are much more content to complain about Republicans and then argue amongst themselves over “safe” issues. How lame!
Even more cowardly is the tendency of the party to rally-round-the-flag during war. Sure, the Democrats may feel confident to challenge the Bush regime for its WMD claims nearly 11 months after invading Iraq, but do they ever bother bringing up the fact that the war was highly illegal, unpopular, unethical, etc.? Or, more fundamentally, did they even open their mouths before the war started to criticize it? Well, some did. But, the war resolutions in Congress couldn't have been won without strong Democrat support. And then as soon as the war started even these Democrats tucked their tails between their legs and mumbled platitudes about “supporting the troops” and the “Commander-in-Chief”. It apparently takes a lot of effort to resist the urge to lick boot leather.
The Democrats are equally shameless in their pursuit of Big Money. Sure, they can't seem to out-raise the Republicans, but it's not for a lack of trying. Enron was paying off lots of Democrats, too. Of course, if they ever pumped their efforts into actually speaking to real people as opposed to stalking every potential millionaire donor, they might actually find their message resonates more. And, they might not be perceived as the utter hypocrites they are. These politicians snap to attention when their corporate overlords come calling. Take a look at how happily the Clinton-Gore machine gave away the National Forests to mining and logging interests.
The sad thing is how uncritically the traditional Democratic Party base continues to support these characters, particularly unions and minorities. These politicians have sold down the river the rights of working people to corporations along with the dream of racial equality and economic justice. Being in neither demographic, I am not in a position to say why this support continues, nor should I say that they are necessarily wrong to do so. But, I fantasize about a day when the people can utilize their collective strength to push this party (kicking and screaming, if need be) out of the right-wing that controls it, back into the Left. Either that or start supporting other alternatives, like the Green Party.
All these criticisms stem from a strong cynicism of electoral and party politics. I'm not one to denigrate someone for wanting to vote, even if for a Democrat candidate, but I believe that true societal transformation -- an r/evolution that can achieve social and economic justice -- must be arrived at through a revitalization of democracy, not electoral/party politics, and definitely not through this whack Democrat Party.
I come from a Democrat-voting household. I've got no reason to suspect that either of my parents have ever voted anything other than Democrat. They likely have a few [unfortunate] disagreements in general ideology, such as on the issue of a woman's right to choose, but otherwise are what I'd call strong Democrats.
That said, the Democratic Party is the most worthless excuse for a political organization this country has today. I don't just mean in its lack of a cohesive ideology or vibrant vision; I mean in it's ability to do anything, to stand up to adversity, or to even speak out against the Republicans. Not that I'm all broken up inside because of this -- I'm an anarchist and thus opposed fundamentally to the idea of party politics (at least as its constructed in its current configuration).
Outside of this strong disdain for electoral and party politics, there's still more to criticize. The Democrat Party tends to select the most moderate candidates possible. Sure, their traditional support may be liberal or even Left, but they always pick the most soda pop candidates (would you like Coke or Pepsi?) Thus, the Party was stuck with the horrendously lame Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. Can you think of a more boring candidate? Even in this example, however, Gore was more of a conservative than even his moderate (yet Republican-leaning) pal Bill Clinton.
Election in and election out, the Democrats focus on little more than complaining about their Republican counterparts. Sure, there's a lot to complain about, but frankly it's really easy to do so. And many liberal-leaning constituencies of the Democrats take up this Republican-bitch-fest, too. It's like Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's criticism of Anti-Racist Action for focusing only on the obvious racists like the Klan or Nazis, when the real problem with racism in this country has other names: the police, the courts, the prison system, the "War on Drugs", capitalism...
Thus, when Democrats open their mouths to make “strong statements”, it's usually against the Republicans (who often act much like the Democrats). Around election time it's the same story. Complain about either the Republican candidates or the incumbent Republicans. Heaven forbid they should actually bring up “daring” issues (outside of the usual “law and order” and tinkering with Medicaid) like universal health care, dismantling America's war machine, stopping the drug war and the prison industry, attacking corporate rule, and so forth. Instead, they are much more content to complain about Republicans and then argue amongst themselves over “safe” issues. How lame!
Even more cowardly is the tendency of the party to rally-round-the-flag during war. Sure, the Democrats may feel confident to challenge the Bush regime for its WMD claims nearly 11 months after invading Iraq, but do they ever bother bringing up the fact that the war was highly illegal, unpopular, unethical, etc.? Or, more fundamentally, did they even open their mouths before the war started to criticize it? Well, some did. But, the war resolutions in Congress couldn't have been won without strong Democrat support. And then as soon as the war started even these Democrats tucked their tails between their legs and mumbled platitudes about “supporting the troops” and the “Commander-in-Chief”. It apparently takes a lot of effort to resist the urge to lick boot leather.
The Democrats are equally shameless in their pursuit of Big Money. Sure, they can't seem to out-raise the Republicans, but it's not for a lack of trying. Enron was paying off lots of Democrats, too. Of course, if they ever pumped their efforts into actually speaking to real people as opposed to stalking every potential millionaire donor, they might actually find their message resonates more. And, they might not be perceived as the utter hypocrites they are. These politicians snap to attention when their corporate overlords come calling. Take a look at how happily the Clinton-Gore machine gave away the National Forests to mining and logging interests.
The sad thing is how uncritically the traditional Democratic Party base continues to support these characters, particularly unions and minorities. These politicians have sold down the river the rights of working people to corporations along with the dream of racial equality and economic justice. Being in neither demographic, I am not in a position to say why this support continues, nor should I say that they are necessarily wrong to do so. But, I fantasize about a day when the people can utilize their collective strength to push this party (kicking and screaming, if need be) out of the right-wing that controls it, back into the Left. Either that or start supporting other alternatives, like the Green Party.
All these criticisms stem from a strong cynicism of electoral and party politics. I'm not one to denigrate someone for wanting to vote, even if for a Democrat candidate, but I believe that true societal transformation -- an r/evolution that can achieve social and economic justice -- must be arrived at through a revitalization of democracy, not electoral/party politics, and definitely not through this whack Democrat Party.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Presidents are Kings are Shit
[Written in early-2003, but just as appropriate in 2012. Appeared once in a friend's 'zine, named Misadventure.]
For a long time I've wondered why the U.S. has presidents. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why? Because I've been under the impression that the U.S. attempts to be a democracy. So what, right? Lots of democracies have presidents or prime ministers. Maybe that's the problem: everyone thinks it's normal that a free, democratic society should be entrusted to one individual.
Well, of course, there's the crap we learn in high school-- there's “checks and balances”!! Isn't it genius?!? Every branch of the government checks everyone else? Perfecto! Well, call me skeptical, but I fail to see how giving one individual 1/3 of the decision making for a country of 285 million people is democratic, let alone fair.
Does the Judicial system really “check” the Executive branch? Does the Legislative branch really bother checking the Executive or the Judicial? When was the last executive nominated Supreme Court justice turned down by Congress? When does the Judicial care at all about the Executive? Even in the days of Richard Nixon, it could barely wrestle public property (Presidential tapes) from Nixon's corrupt fingers.
Isn't a “president” really nothing more than a glorified Monarch? It's a King you vote for. Sure, the president can't just wave his arms and get anything done, but damn close. Why in the world would people be foolish enough to give anybody that much power? Here's someone who is only supposed to make treaties and command the military, but now does pretty much anything, including run roughshod over Congress, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the world.
If we believe in democracy-- really believe in democracy-- why are we stupid enough to fall for the “Great Man” philosophy? If only we had the right president, then the country would be better! Heck, even leftists think this way: if only we elected Ralph Nader, then everything would be all better! How ridiculous it is to assume that a country as diverse as our's is could ever be properly represented by any person (man or woman, Ralph Nader or not)?
Where are all the political scientists writing about how hierarchical this all is? How in the hell can anyone claim that this is democratic? My understanding of democracy is that the people run society. No, George W. Bush runs society (mainly, of course, because we let him). When was the last time you were consulted about what the U.S. should do regarding Iraq? Do you actually think Bush cares about your opinion? He only cares about what he can get away with!
Perhaps it's a fault of human nature that most humans look for one powerful, charismatic person (usually a White male) to lead them out of darkness. But, I think it's because that's what society tells us to do. That's what the media tells us, our high school “civics” classes tell us, and everyone else tells us.
We spend so much time worshipping the memory of former leaders: JFK, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and so on. Well, who worships Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King George the First (of Great Britain, not the U.S.)? None, but they too got their people mired into the same wars, poverty, and decadence that the aforementioned presidents did. What's the difference?
During the Roman Empire (a predecessor to the American Empire), there formed a triumvirate of power. Three men would control ultimate power in Rome. Not exactly a great idea (although that's 2 more heads of state than the U.S. has). But, of course, two of them turned on one, until he was gone, then the two remaining turned on each other, consolidating power along the way.
When the U.S. was formed, it was intended as a weak union with local authority taking precedence over federal control. Not a bad idea at all, but then the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in favor of a more centralized constitution, with a stronger President (much more like the King of England that they had fought to escape from). Over time, the President compiled more and more power, establishing executive powers far and wide.
Now, we put so much stock in what the president says. We tremble at every word, watch every action, discuss every policy that trickles out of his administration. His decree becomes the direction of the country. His emotions are channeled through the press and felt by the American people (those who still believe presidents, at least). When the president decides to goto war, the country goose steps behind him-- especially the congress, who is supposed to declare war in the first place. When in the hell was the last time a president asked people at the grassroots level of decision making in this country what they think? When was the last time any of them relinquished their own power to local governments and decision making bodies?
The president isn't my father-- I don't trust his advice. The president isn't my god-- I will never worship him or plead for my life. The president isn't my favorite philosopher-- none of his actions mesh with his words. The president isn't (and never will be) my friend-- how could I be “buddies” with anyone who has so much power over so many?
If we believe in democracy-- and I hope the American people and the world does-- we would radically redistribute power. And not just to a higher number of “elected officials”. Democracy does not necessarily mean voting. Voting is only one mechanism of decision making, it isn't democracy itself. We need councils, boards, collectives, cooperatives, affinity groups, spokescouncils, and more councils. None of this hero-worship bullshit, but actual practiced democracy, where no one is more powerful than anyone else.
A president is a King with a good P.R. agent. Only a fool would vote for a King and think they are free.
For a long time I've wondered why the U.S. has presidents. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why? Because I've been under the impression that the U.S. attempts to be a democracy. So what, right? Lots of democracies have presidents or prime ministers. Maybe that's the problem: everyone thinks it's normal that a free, democratic society should be entrusted to one individual.
Well, of course, there's the crap we learn in high school-- there's “checks and balances”!! Isn't it genius?!? Every branch of the government checks everyone else? Perfecto! Well, call me skeptical, but I fail to see how giving one individual 1/3 of the decision making for a country of 285 million people is democratic, let alone fair.
Does the Judicial system really “check” the Executive branch? Does the Legislative branch really bother checking the Executive or the Judicial? When was the last executive nominated Supreme Court justice turned down by Congress? When does the Judicial care at all about the Executive? Even in the days of Richard Nixon, it could barely wrestle public property (Presidential tapes) from Nixon's corrupt fingers.
Isn't a “president” really nothing more than a glorified Monarch? It's a King you vote for. Sure, the president can't just wave his arms and get anything done, but damn close. Why in the world would people be foolish enough to give anybody that much power? Here's someone who is only supposed to make treaties and command the military, but now does pretty much anything, including run roughshod over Congress, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the world.
If we believe in democracy-- really believe in democracy-- why are we stupid enough to fall for the “Great Man” philosophy? If only we had the right president, then the country would be better! Heck, even leftists think this way: if only we elected Ralph Nader, then everything would be all better! How ridiculous it is to assume that a country as diverse as our's is could ever be properly represented by any person (man or woman, Ralph Nader or not)?
Where are all the political scientists writing about how hierarchical this all is? How in the hell can anyone claim that this is democratic? My understanding of democracy is that the people run society. No, George W. Bush runs society (mainly, of course, because we let him). When was the last time you were consulted about what the U.S. should do regarding Iraq? Do you actually think Bush cares about your opinion? He only cares about what he can get away with!
Perhaps it's a fault of human nature that most humans look for one powerful, charismatic person (usually a White male) to lead them out of darkness. But, I think it's because that's what society tells us to do. That's what the media tells us, our high school “civics” classes tell us, and everyone else tells us.
We spend so much time worshipping the memory of former leaders: JFK, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and so on. Well, who worships Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King George the First (of Great Britain, not the U.S.)? None, but they too got their people mired into the same wars, poverty, and decadence that the aforementioned presidents did. What's the difference?
During the Roman Empire (a predecessor to the American Empire), there formed a triumvirate of power. Three men would control ultimate power in Rome. Not exactly a great idea (although that's 2 more heads of state than the U.S. has). But, of course, two of them turned on one, until he was gone, then the two remaining turned on each other, consolidating power along the way.
When the U.S. was formed, it was intended as a weak union with local authority taking precedence over federal control. Not a bad idea at all, but then the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in favor of a more centralized constitution, with a stronger President (much more like the King of England that they had fought to escape from). Over time, the President compiled more and more power, establishing executive powers far and wide.
Now, we put so much stock in what the president says. We tremble at every word, watch every action, discuss every policy that trickles out of his administration. His decree becomes the direction of the country. His emotions are channeled through the press and felt by the American people (those who still believe presidents, at least). When the president decides to goto war, the country goose steps behind him-- especially the congress, who is supposed to declare war in the first place. When in the hell was the last time a president asked people at the grassroots level of decision making in this country what they think? When was the last time any of them relinquished their own power to local governments and decision making bodies?
The president isn't my father-- I don't trust his advice. The president isn't my god-- I will never worship him or plead for my life. The president isn't my favorite philosopher-- none of his actions mesh with his words. The president isn't (and never will be) my friend-- how could I be “buddies” with anyone who has so much power over so many?
If we believe in democracy-- and I hope the American people and the world does-- we would radically redistribute power. And not just to a higher number of “elected officials”. Democracy does not necessarily mean voting. Voting is only one mechanism of decision making, it isn't democracy itself. We need councils, boards, collectives, cooperatives, affinity groups, spokescouncils, and more councils. None of this hero-worship bullshit, but actual practiced democracy, where no one is more powerful than anyone else.
A president is a King with a good P.R. agent. Only a fool would vote for a King and think they are free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)