As horizontally organized social structures continue to replace the vertical structures of the past as models for the interaction of mankind within his society, the need for legalized force will continue to be obviated. I would like to hear more on this theme as, at first blush, I do not see this occurring here at home or in the world. Perhaps I need more input.
I am confuzzled at the moment about whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. Cartainly, our country appears to be running off the rails. BUT....we still have the power of the voting booth. That too is now under attack as electronic voting machines threaten to disenfranchise us all. After all, Josef Stalin said it best: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything." As I recall, that sentiment was NOT good news for Mother Russia.
The people who put our country together were damned smart when it came to understanding human nature. They KNEW that men tend to seek power more than money, or sex, or fame or position. From where I sit, it seems that the transfer of power from "the people" to the faceless few is just about complete. Conspiracy theorists are usually dismissed as nut jobs and sent somewhere for "treatment." Once again, Stalin was a leader in this concept, having consigned hundreds of thousands to "psychiatric facilities" - usually located in Siberia.
In my mind, what we need is not a violent revolution but a re-ordering of procedures. Across the hal;, Meteorite has just posted an excellent compare and contrast piece on the American and Canadian political process. Not to say that Canada is some sort of Nirvana, politically, but many of their practices make far more common sense than ours. Allow me to share his thoughts with you:
Move to Canada.
Anywhere in the country that you live you get at least three major national parties to vote for, or independents, or Green if you want to waste your vote "significantly". In Quebec you are offered another extra choice which significant number of electors favour.
This tends to resut in a "pizza Parliament" where no one party has a secure majority, so the wild ideas mostly get voted down and out - if the minority governing party dares risk an upset by introducing them in the first place. If the government loses a confidence vote, it is autoatically dismissed.
Elections can't be bought. Fundamentally, individuals can contribute to campaigns, but organizations, businesses, or unions may not. Spending is capped nationally and in each constituency.
Pressure groups - PACs or under other names (think tanks, etc.) risk their tax deductability if they indulge in partisan advertising of any sort in the election period.
The media can be as biased as anywhere, but with a very non-partisan fully national public radio and television network holding them up to comparison and account, their misbehaviours get embarrassingly documented and very widely exposed very quickly.
The national temperament, for whatever reason, responds very negatively to attack ads.
Paradise? Yeah, about as nice and orderly and functional as the governments of Britain, France, Italy, even Israel for that matter.
The same collections of con artists, glamour boys, con men, bitches and sons of bitches get elected. But, because they and their government can be tossed out of office at any time, and because they actually have to deal with real people to get elected (they can spend only restricted money from restricted sources, see above) they tend to be and stay rather more responsive to the electors.
Won't say it works, but it does work better than the setup you're all bitching about. Our "first past the post, winner take all" election process is a major component in promoting this dysfunctional government process we have. So is our "two sides of the same coin" alleged two party system.
But probably the MOST dangerous trend in American politics today is the toxic, scorched earth tactics introduced by Lee Atwater and brought to the fore by Newt Gingrich. We simply cannot continue to lambast each other and tune out anyone who doesn't agree with us. There USED to be a tradition of giving the opposition a respectful hearing. No more. Now, anyone who dares to object is hammered into submission by a VERY sophisticated assemblage of spin doctors.
I cannot stress how strongly I believe that Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves To Death - Public Discourse In The Age of Television" is a primer on just how much the political tectonic plates shifted in 1960 during the Nixon Kennedy debates. Absent television, Nixon probably would have won. And I do NOT argue that there was anything wrong with the fact that Kennedy won. I merely offer the suggestion that from that point forward, the trend in this country has been AWAY from reason and rationality - the province of the printed word - and TOWARD emotion and shoot from the lip thinking. Television may well have caused the death of the "philosopher kings" way of thinking. And after all, weren't those who gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention as close to our own collection of philosopher kings as the young country could muster at that time?
The Age of Reason is dead. The Age of Passion is upon us. The framers of the Constitution were deathly afraid of the mob rule that comes with pure democracy. It appears, from current events, that mob rule is the wave of the future and that those wise men had every reason to fear the passionate tides of "the people".
Red States? Blue States? Who the fuck woulda thunk that we would be dumb enough to fall for that trick? But we have, lock, stock and barrel. Anti-intellectualism is rampant across the land. People who think are considered dangerous. Better we should just talk to God and follow his advice rather than resort to history or critical thinking.
Okay, I am REALLY depressed now. Think I'll go check the water level in my hookah.
