07.28.06

Intellectuals and Democracy

Posted in Theory at 9:21 pm by diantus

            As I have said in previous writings, I believe there is a serious problem with the motion of democracy.  Far from being a grand experiment to liberate the masses from oppression and arbitrary rule, I believe that democracy is the single greatest method of political domination ever conceived.  Nothing else can explain the overwhelming willingness of populations to sacrifice not only their very lives, but their integrity, values, and ambition to the will of the “collective.”  But this is pretty high level theory stuff.  Given this, I am interested in the role of intellectuals in a democratic society, and would like to spend today’s article discussing it.

Regardless, given the assumption that under democratic regimes the power of elites is even more secure than in other types of government, what does this mean to the intellectual and the citizen in such a country.  Clearly we have seen examples throughout history where public pressure can change the policies of government.  One can reflect back on the great labor movements of the late 19th century, or the Civil Rights marches of the mid to late 20th century to realize that sometime public pressure can indeed change government policy.  However, what really isn’t grasped is that these protests were actually revolutionary overtures bearing similarities to peasant rebellion and agitation that can be tracked across most of recorded history.  That public protest still functions as a tool of the popular will is hardly a tribute to the success of democracy, especially when the powers that be are still able to crack down almost as hard as at any other point in history.  Does learning to not make martyrs of populist figures really make us any freer?

But I digress.  The only real influence that the masses have over the activities of government is limited to massive displays of public outrage, and the general understanding of the activities of government is filtered to the populace through media agents, who have their knowledge similarly filtered by elite cadres who actually provide the news.  In the end, knowledge is carefully controlled, as is public access to it.  Stack on top of this the potent control mechanisms of every modern state and you have a system in which you never really know what’s going on, but are almost completely unable to change it (even if you did).  The duty of an intellectual then, is to analyze and disseminate knowledge.  Any genuinely public intellect who is interested in truth must be willing to extract truths from the available facts and figures, even in the even that those truths fail to comply with the worldview of the nation or the individual that discovers it.  It is by the efforts of these individuals that we succeed in developing coherent policy.

But what do we do when the powers that be co opt our thinkers and bend them to their own devices?  All too often, good ideas and the people who craft them are marginalized by virtue of their ideas.  Maybe they are a threat to the status quo, or perhaps they would involve especially difficult reevaluation.  Most marginalized ideas are those that are unpopular with the present rulership.

The expediency of politics does not function like the market.  All to often, administrations will pass off problems to future administrations in order to look better in the eyes of historians, who are usually the only honest critics of any age.  Iraq is one such situation that will likely be shunted off to the next group to come into power.  Despite the volumes of powerful and persuasive options there (perhaps my favorite is the notion of splitting Iraq into three independent regions with a single capital – similar to the collapse of Yugoslavia which shared a similar set of ethnic and religious divisions).  However hard an intellectual might work, his work must be approved by the stabilizing forces of those elites that reign over the halls of power.

In order to have a positive impact then, any intellectual must enter the high debates with his colleagues with the aim of becoming something of a public intellectual.  In other words, he must find a way to get his word out to the public, since the only way to mark genuine shifts in society and government is by creating mass movements.  However, as serious scholars of revolution know, there must usually be a fairly significant perception of injustice before a population can be riled into outright rebellion.

This is the true brilliance of a democratic system.  By purporting to be responsible to the public, it ensures that such grievances are almost never aired beyond perhaps angry letters and expressions of displeasure at the office.  Democracy acts as a pressure valve for the riotous tendencies of the public.  The uncorrupted intellectual (if there is such a thing) must understand that this entire system will forever be geared to keep him silent – often by pointing to the noises he makes.  In the mean time, we will see only slow progress to our eventual liberation, which should be the final goal of any who make a study of politics.  With a pureness of purpose, perhaps we really can move towards that goal.  

07.25.06

The Alamo

Posted in Politics at 8:30 pm by diantus

            In a world in which politicians lie and distort the truth, we have come to expect, if not demand, a certain amount of amorality from our leaders.  That the greater part of government activity takes place behind closed doors and far from the scrutiny of public oversight is a natural consequence of any political system – especially a democracy.  It is in this sense that I would like to analyze the recent veto of the stem cell research bill and offer it up as a template for thinking about politicians in government today.  As understandably upset as many people are concerning George Bush’s recent veto of the stem cell research bill, I would like to share a fleeting moment of pity for our ailing imperial president.  He gets one, and only one.

            In light of a laundry list of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing public anger over corruption and abuses of executive authority, one would think that an initiative like the stem cell research bill would be a no brainer – you let it go through.  After all, it was supported by members of both parties, was popular amongst the bulk of the population, and was an investment in potentially the most groundbreaking and promising medical technologies to come along in some time.  Since Bush will already go down in history as the man who wrecked the delicate stability/status quo in the Middle East, gave rise to a Shiite insurgency that has gained ground across national borders, turned the political pendulum in the United States towards dictatorship, violated civil rights, alienated us from our allies, and so on, why would you go an add to all of that by vetoing this highly popular and potentially incredible research funding?

            George Bush is a ruined politician.  His policies have been based on erroneous assumptions about the current world order and a blind optimism about his country’s role in the world.  He is a true idealist (even if he only has one idea).  In effect, he is the extreme right’s answer to the bleeding heart liberal.  He has attempted and failed in almost every positive project that he has set out to accomplish and stem cells are his last desperate shot at a paternalistic legacy.  He is a man who believes, after everything else, that he still retains the moral high ground.  I guess this means that I understand his thinking on this issue.  A cruel and uncaring world has snatched every other great victory away from him; he will not let it steal this away too.  You almost want to admire his tenacity.  Almost.

            Otherwise he has, in a storm of fiery rhetoric worth of an Baptist sermon against homosexuality, destroyed a noble and worthwhile endeavor.  I don’t know how you feel about abortion, nor do I care.  But the simple truth is that these technologies could save thousands of lives, and with hundreds of thousands of human embryos on ice in laboratories across the country, the possibilities are simply incredible.  Nor would there ever be a black market in embryo farming as some pundits have suggested.  What exists here is a failure to actually understand the science behind stem cell research and the possibilities that it carries.  Contained in such studies could be cures for numerous types of cancer, neuro-degenerative diseases, and any host of even more far fetched and incredible discoveries.  Only rigorous research and applied studies can any of this become possible, but we must remember that this is the same administration that cut funding to AIDS funding in Africa until they made abstinence the key to their prevention programs.

            Of course the moral bent of the Bush administration is not at issue here.  Clearly this is the most outrageously fundamentalist president we have had in a very long time (if not ever, if only for his inability to separate his faith from his policy-making).  Moreover, he really does illuminate policy not through the political processes available to him, but instead off of obscure moral tickling; a sense of “that just ain’t right.”  But we will all suffer for his stubborn refusal to let the issue fall, admit his failure as a leader, and allow the democracy to emerge from the morass that he has delivered us into.  No one ever said that politics were fair.

            So I offer this lament to George Bush.  He had hoped that maybe he could do at least one thing right in his presidency, and he chose this.  It was the wrong thing to mark as his last stand because so many will have to suffer for it, but it was his Alamo.  By eliminating funding for this research, he has effectively squandered whatever political capital he had left, and the man who was on a mission from God, has demonstrated what a cruel joke such arrogant assumptions really are.  The shame in it is that I think he really believed it.  With some luck, congress will overturn the veto and crush the last of his spirit and his defiance in the face of the republic he has forgotten to defend.

            On the plus side, the Europeans and Asians have wasted no time in beginning wide ranging studies of what stem cells can offer us, so if we can get the corrupted and fundamentalist leadership out of the FDA, maybe we can all benefit from their ingenuity.

07.20.06

Thinking Gay Thoughts

Posted in Governance at 9:57 pm by diantus

As revolted as I am by the escalations of violence around the world right now, I feel that it is important to take a break from this discussion and turn inwards for a moment.  After all, in my seething, but pithy rage at the state of foreign policy, I have been sorely disregarding the numerous domestic issues that are making life increasingly more difficult and pointlessly argumentative in America today.  Let us discuss the issue of gay marriage and the conservative backlash against it.

            As a matter of professional courtesy, I took the time to actually do some research on the conservative position on this issue since I have never understood it.  My understanding was that they view homosexual marriage as a danger to the institution of marriage, and while this is the basic thrust of their argument, what may seem less clear is “why?”

            Feeling like a traitor, I began a painful and heart wrenching journey through the agonized halls of conservative Christian thought.  The entire scope of this intellectual movement seems to be a harshly reactionary attack on modernism that has been washed over with a g-rated paint in order to look like something not exactly of this world.  I don’t know the emotion for it, but I felt as though I would imagine that I might if I were dipped in a vat or pastel colored baby entrails – disgusted, bothered, and deeply confused.  While I may have a zero tolerance policy towards the fundamentalist right, what I realized after a little bit of soul searching is that what they really represent is an entire class of Americans who are completely and absolutely terrified of the future.  The world moves so fast, and they just can’t keep up.  It is okay to pity them, and I believe that they should be put into reservations where they can keep the picket fences as white as the children.

            But I digress, what did I discover about gay marriage that makes it such a danger to the republic?  We need to start with two fundamental assumptions that are required to understand the line of reasoning that goes along with the arguments provided.  First off, god created the world and man as he is right now.  History only trails back about 5000 years, at least anything of it that matters.  The economic organization that was birthed with settled agriculture and has given rise to modern post-industrial capitalism has been ordained by god.  In this, it is a part of “nature,” and is as impervious to political challenge as an earthquake (this shit almost sounds clever if you word it just right… see? I’m being fair!)  Second, all of human behavior is learned.  Ergo, homosexuality is a personal choice.  Moreover, it is a choice which violates the natural order laid out by god, which is the only “programming” that humans are meant to allow.

            Good stuff.  It is always hard to argue with the faithful since they have a weapon that you will never possess – an unreasoning faith in the divine, which cannot be proven to exist, but is capable of excusing almost any type of unreasoning belief.  Once we take that away, they can be reasoned with.  Unfortunately, such a faith is inherently resistant to logic.  There are a huge number of arguments against gay marriage that stem from these basic principles, but they boil down to “that ain’t natural,” and “the boy just ain’t right.”  But basically, allowing gays to marry violates the natural laws laid out by God, and upon which the basic structure of society is based.  If they start marrying, all civilization will collapse.

            They do have one point worth discussing though, and it isn’t one often heard of outside of right wing intellectual circles (if they actually have those) – the slippery slope.  As a progressive, I am quite familiar with this concept, and it is often used as an argument against regressive policymaking.  You know how it goes; “if you do this, it is only a matter of time until this happens.”  Opponents of gay marriage (smart ones at least) are not worried about people marrying pets or farm animals.  They worry that if allowed to go forward, it is only a matter of time until any grouping of interdependent individuals could constitute a marriage.  They worry especially about two groups which they see as ideologically aligned: the polygamists and the polyamorists.  While I fail to grasp this alignment (polyamory always struck me as the feminist response to polygamy), the argument in and of itself doesn’t make much sense.  After all, if you define marriage as the union between two people, where does bigamy figure in?

            The trouble with slippery slopes and the way that they are used by the right in this context is one of political entropy.  The slippery slope is an apt metaphor, in that stuff goes downhill and gathers momentum.  Expanding the right to vote is a slippery slope – if you give it to the workers, soon the women will want it, and then the blacks, etc.  In this context, it is not really a bad thing.  If you extend marriage to a new grouping of couples all you do is allow new voters, it seems like a complete reconfiguration of the idea of partnership/union to extend it across whole populations.  It would be the equivalent of allowing certain voters multiple votes.  This is an entropic reversal which while possible, isn’t really part of your slippery slope – the slippery slope might be eliminating age limits on when you could consent to marriage.

            Anyways though, the collapse of the traditional family is due more to the burdens placed on the individual by an advanced capitalist economy.  The whole concept of marriage, and of legally protected partnerships has nothing to do with reproduction any more – it is about property.  Biology dictates that children will always have mothers and fathers (at least until we don’t have to touch any more… will the fundamentalists embrace such a change given the sinfulness of coupling, or reject it as a threat to family structures?), but partnerships that can be protected under law are economic unions that are increasing required as the division of wealth becomes more and more skewed in favor of fewer and fewer individuals.  Perhaps allowing individuals to corporatize into larger groups is the best idea.  From this perspective, a polyamorous model might be the best way to ensure cohesiveness across groups of mutually supporting individuals.  Call it a new tribalism that may become a social response to a grotesquely unequal economic system.  But personally, I like my privacy.

07.18.06

All come tumbling?

Posted in Current Events at 3:54 pm by diantus

There is a famous story that emerged from the ashes of the first gulf war.  As the US closed the noose on Iraqi forces in Kuwait, driving them back towards their home country, policy makers began considering the idea of launching an attack against Iraq itself.  This would be an effort to drive Saddam from power and supposedly create in 1991 the sort of security nightmare that we have today.  One can only assume that the policy of inciting the Kurdish population to revolt against the central Iraqi authority was part of a larger plan to invade the country.  When the decision came through to drop all pretenses of support for the now excited Kurdish minority and allow Saddam Hussein’s security forces to reassert control over the area (we all know what that really means), the United States was conspicuously absent, and the promised support never materialized.

            While it is remarkable that cooler heads prevailed on an issue of American foreign policy and there was no invasion of Iraq, the abandonment of the Kurds provides an interesting litmus test of what Muslims can expect from Americans in the future – and it does not bode well.  This is doubly true when you consider that the American war is also one being waged over hearts and minds in the Middle East.

Take for example the current situation in Lebanon.  With a powerful and angry Israeli military hard at work in the predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in Beirut, the United States has been strangely complicit in their commentary and condemnation.  Now this is a tricky question.  In all fairness, Israel has a pretty distinct need to protect itself from the more radical elements that surround it, and the reclamation of its soldiers should be a priority.  As I pointed out in my previous post though, the response has not been a carefully measured tactical engagement, but a rather pointed and vicious attack on the Lebanese infrastructure and has so far resulted in the confirmed deaths of over 176 Lebanese citizens.  The Lebanese government is not strong enough to try and fight back, and is barely hanging on to power as is.  This may destroy the county, and plunge it into civil war (which is a shame, because I really wanted to visit Beirut).

Now from a long range perspective, Israel is trying to end a consistent and active threat to their security.  Hezbollah is a group that is actively supported by Iran and Syria, two aggressively anti-Zionist states, and has positioned itself in staunch opposition to the nation of Israel.  This is going to make life uncomfortable for anyone living under the Israeli flag, and understandably so.  However, Hezbollah is also a sizable populist movement among Lebanon’s Shiite population.  They have provided much of the social infrastructure in the Shiite parts of the country, and have started (like Hamas) to take a more active role in the political system.  Disarming and de-radicalizing Hezbollah is obviously a priority, but waging an unlimited war on them is a speedy route to making them angrier and more desperate.  Populist movements have to settle down.  They need time and positive reinforcement to end.  The fastest way to slay a radical is to make him happy, if you hurt him, you’ll only vindicate his sense of victimization.

Here’s my prediction: as a result of this activity, I’ve no doubt that Israel will succeed in destroying Hezbollah’s leadership.  Once they’ve cut the head off of the organization, the remaining members will suddenly become uncoordinated and unpredictable.  This will lead to even more border raids, since no one will be telling them not to.  At least until a new, more radical leadership steps up and recreates the organization in oder to try and destroy whatever once and for all.

What does this mean to the US and its “War on Terror?”  As you might have sorted out by now, Muslims view Israel as something of a sore spot in the Middle East.  By their reckoning, the nation should not be there.  In fact, if you ask a Muslim extremist why he doesn’t like America, I’d bet that at least one answer would be America’s support for Israel.  So when Israel goes overboard and starts beating up on a smaller, weaker neighbor, its going to have an impact on the thoughts of the Muslim population in the region.  By failing to condemn Israel’s actions in Lebanon, the United States demonstrates to the Muslim popular imagination that we are everything that the extremists claim.  Our policies are self-serving and vain, and there is no number of civilian casualties that we will not accept as acceptable in our ongoing crusade to remake the region in our image.  Now maybe this is true, maybe this really is the overarching goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East.  I don’t personally think so, but if starts to look a little funny if you suspect something already, like you would if you, say, were deciding whether or not to support your local terrorist cell.

I do not see a little public criticism of Israel as tantamount to our selling out our ally.  Nor has holding out one’s standards of behavior as a model for others to follow ever been a major priority in foreign policy (especially in the United States).  It can be safely assumed that Israel would not stop their activities just because the US went on record as saying that we did not approve of their methods.  However, it might be helpful as part of a public relations campaign in the wider Middle East, especially when the current conflict will likely topple the Lebanese government and create another zone of instability in the region, even if it doesn’t spill over to Syria, Iran, and likely the rest of the world.  After all, the United States really cannot afford to see Israel collapse, and they could certainly be made to understand and condemning statements as simply being ruses.  We also cannot afford too much more bad press, and failing to attempt and restrain wayward ally in the eyes of those we are seeking to liberate is a dangerous and ill-advised game.  Because, as of right now, it looks as though the United States is encouraging the Israeli action in Lebanon in whatever form the Israelis see fit.

Regardless, we would do well to play diplomacy carefully and manage public opinion with skill and caution.  Remember what I said in my last post about communities and nations.  Hezbollah and what they stand for will not end with Lebanon or Syria, but might get stronger without the state checking their activity.

07.14.06

This is War

Posted in Current Events at 9:18 pm by diantus

In light of the recent events in the Middle East, I suppose it is only proper to address the issue of war, vengeance and all those places in between.  Like it not, most of the world is constantly preparing for war, usually in order to avenge some past injury or slight.  This is what makes history so interesting.  It never ceases to amaze me how many conflicts ongoing today are literally based of precedents that can easily stretch back a millennia or more.  What makes it better is that every year, some damn fool decides to throw more fuel on old fires and reignite something that should have been dead long ago.

            Israel/Palestine is obviously one of these.  Now, the decision to allow the Israelis to settle in Palestine never quite sat right with me.  This is not to question the political acumen that made this transfer possible, nor the heavy weight placed on the world’s leading nations following Hitler’s massacre of the Jews, but it just never seemed quite right to allow this transfer to take place.  I guess the Americans did the Indians right – if you’re going to take their land, kill them before you settle.

            Fortunately, there are some levels of realpolitick that are still off limits, and genocide is fortunately one of those.  However, with everything else that is happening in that part of the world, is it so difficult that maybe there as been a little bit of overstep on the part of Israel?  They have started a bombing campaign against Lebanon and driven a military spear point into Gaza over the issue of three soldiers.  Millions of dollars in damages, hundreds of ruined lives, scores of casualties, and a completely destroyed peace process apparently is less than the value of three men.  I am always amazed at this idea.  The value of one’s people seems to rise with the destructive capabilities of one’s armies.

            In Iraq, one American’s life is worth approximately twenty Iraqi lives, and now Israel is taking our example and launching devastating attacks against the peoples of Gaza and Lebanon.  The recent UN resolution to condemn Israel and demand and end to these attacks was vetoed by the U.   This is good though, because we could not get upset with Israel and remain morally consistent in our pursuit of unilateral war in Iraq and eventually Iran.  But all this ties back to that old wound question from before.  It is understood that Israel is in a sensitive position in the Middle East.  They remain highly unpopular amongst their neighbors, and actions like the one they are now undertaking will remain in the popular conscience for generations.

            The Middle East has a social structure that defies nationalism as we understand it.  Citizens are not just part of nations, but are part of wider family circles, tribal groups, ethnic groups, and religious movements.  Battles against people there do not stop at the borders of Syria or Iran, they stop along the farmlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan – anywhere that you might have a member of your community; any place that might be home to a distantly connected “brother.”  This is why we can’t understand fundamentalism or the anger of the fundamentalist.  We extend our sympathies to the British when a subway is destroyed, an Arab extends his hand.  A fundamentalist is one who has been so overwhelmed by the memories of suffering, that they are willing to do anything in vengeance, and tries to find justification in his culture, and all cultures make exceptions for violence.  This deep supra-national connection means that diplomacy must be carried out with incredible delicacy, because they will talk about the injuries, and carry them for generations, reminding you of the hurt when you least expect it.  In the West, we invent national mythology that overrides truth.  The Middle East takes its mythology from something broader, and it does not forget when it becomes politically helpful to do so.

            So what will come of Israel’s decision to wield a heavy stick?  Hopefully nothing.  We can pray that cooler heads prevail, and that Iran and Syria decide not to strike against Israel while the United States is to weak to stop them with conventional arms, we can hope that North Korea doesn’t decide to launch an attack against South Korea while the United States is busy trying to rescue Israel from its aggressive neighbors, and we can hope that this doesn’t force China and Russia (or even Europe) to step in against an American military that is spread thin, exhausted, and lashing out desperately.  We will hope that cooler heads prevail.  Because let me assure you, we may not die or even be attacked, but a conflict on the scale of the one which could emerge from all of this would erase the world as we know it and shatter our increasingly delicate order.

« Previous entries