May 16, 2005
Tumblers in the Lock of Time, Part Seven
Politics
The end has come. The point is here!
After six entries, people must be wondering when they will see a normal article from me. Have no fear, this will be the last!
In the end, they were all about the way politics collides with the complexities of the real world, and the foolishness of ignoring the consequences of that.
Power tells us that if we only concentrate our will and our efforts, we can make the world do what we want it to do. These past entries have been about the distance between a what we want and expect of the world, and what actually works to our benefit.
Politics has a way of seducing us to process, having us throw aside the moral and practical decisions in favor of the expedient ones.
With the economy, we rationalize that if we let folks get away with looser accounting and establish relationships fraught with conflicts of interest, that our economy will prosper better. But if we let the information the market depends upon to work efficiently become muddled and compromise, aren't we just buying future economic havoc for apparent prosperity here and now?
With our infrastructure, we make similar lazy excuses on behalf of those who make their profit and/or take their power from the current arrangements of the system, forgoing a new system that could improve things, if not eliminate some kind of misery from our lives. Do we stand still and let the present pass us by into the future, or do we face our fears and progress onwards?
With science and technology, we disregard the troublesome, inconvenient discipline that makes science work so well, even as we grab for the power and authority that depends on that care and precision of work. Political power is all well, but do we really profit all that much when we make real world decisions without real world truth at it's heart?
With evolution, a well-proven theory is distorted, turned into a straw man for its detractors, or a means of justifying immoral behavior or maintained status. But does anybody count the cost of misleading folks on the science, or engage the reality of how selective forces really work in a society?
With war, a dangerous solution is chosen without care, without honesty between our leaders and our citizens about what is necessary to do the job right, or the reasons for going to war in the first place. How can we defend ourselves against the right threats, when we have shackled ourselves to facing a false one for political reasons?
With culture, we fight a war to preserve a past long dead, and perhaps never alive, and cloud our own eyes to the underlying unity of our society. What good does it do us to avenge the sins of the past, only to miss and even feed the the sins of the present?
These questions, these problems come down to this: the complexity of our world, of ourselves, and of our society makes the ancient problem of the difference between illusion and reality that much more acute. Ignorance, deception, and uncertainty are stronger in our society than ever before, and politicians and powermongers all around take advantage of that. We make many decisions in fear and under a darkness of the mind.
That way lies decadence. That way lies hypocrisy. That way lies confusion and ruin. We can no longer afford to have a large section of the population ignorant. We can no longer afford a media that patronizes us by deciding what we're capable of handling. We sure as hell don't need that from our elected officials.
The systems around us, our government, our economy, our culture, our sciences, and whatever else exist to serve our purposes, our needs. But the complexity of the world often let these things gain a life of their own, and their influence overtakes our good sense and our free will.
It is a common nightmare to have the systems around us enslave or destroy us as they get out of hand, and for good reason- we sense that we exist on an edge between self-preservation, and self-destruction. We are pulled this way and that in this world, and in our hearts, we want freedom from being so torn.
The politicians offer us that, but it's not theirs to give. In the end, it's ours to discover for ourselves. First we must acknowledge that what we does has results, and be mindful of those. Second we must acknowledge that the world is not and will never be under our complete control. Third, we must acknowledge that an utter resignation to the way things are is not a viable option.
We must be humble, but mindful of our needs and necessities. We must interfere from time to time, but time it right for maximum effect, and minimum damage. We must be willing to compromise our control over the world, so we don't compromise ourselves, and we must be willing to acknowledge that one choice can deprive us of another. We must educate ourselves so our concerns arise more from what we know and can deal with, rather than what we don't know and are incompetent to handle.
We must realize that America has always been at its best when it is an empire by example, rather than an empire by force. We must realize that politics is of no use to us when its sole purpose is the perpetuation of the rule of one party or another. At some point, if a party has not met the needs of the public that swept it into power, it will lose that power. America is not the land of permanent majorities.
For our leaders to truly deserve that label, the must not simply be followers of consultants and crowds, but folks who have an intellectual life beyond that of their politics alone. We need leaders now who are smart enough to understand the society they've been asked to lead, and smart enough to acknowledge where their knowledge has limitations, and their preconcieved notions are insufficient. Otherwise we will only see the tiring cycle of revelation, scandal and spin perpetuate itself, and America will despair of finding leaders worthy of the meaning of that word.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2005 07:28 PMStephen,
“It is a common nightmare to have the systems around us enslave or destroy us as they get out of hand, and for good reason- we sense that we exist on an edge between self-preservation, and self-destruction.”
“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”
-William Edgar B. Orah
I would say that it is not a marvel, but an expectation that our governments be so inefficient and haphazard in dealing with its citizens and their problems/needs.
Posted by: Zeek at May 16, 2005 10:50 PMWe must realize that America has always been at its best when it is an empire by example, rather than an empire by force.
I’ve always been reluctant to look on the U.S. as an empire of any sort. Hate the idea, in fact. But it’s getting mighty hard to duck the question of whether or not the U.S. is or should be a kind of imperial power. And, if it is one, is it an empire for good or ill?
Two recent works have gotten me thinking more about this. One is just silly and superficial but it’s bound to get a lot of press in coming days and weeks. That is “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” which some are already seeing as a not-so-subtle rebuke to recent U.S. foreign policy. In one part of the film, Darth Vader reportedly tells Obi-Wan, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy,” and Obi-Wan replies, “Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.” Personally, I don’t know a Sith from a Klingon, but I get the distinct feeling somebody’s going to argue America is chock-full of ‘em these days - and that all these Siths are either naively or cynically allowing an evil empire to slowly dissolve our democracy.
The other work is a bit more serious and, no doubt, a lot less less fun or influential: Andrew J. Bacevich’s The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War. I saw him on C-SPAN and got fascinated. He’s reportedly a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, holds a Ph.D. in history from Princeton, and is a moderate conservative. In essence, he seems to argue that Americans are now so entralled by the military we’re unintentionally putting our nation at risk.
So, the quetions I’m pondering are these: Is the U.S. an empire, especially one based (as Stephen suggested) on force? And, if so, are we Americans being corrupted by it or are we pure in spirit enough to somehow maintain an “enlightened empire”? I’d be interested in others’ ideas on this.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 16, 2005 11:31 PMIf we could somehow be sure that the information we were receiving was correct, and not skewed to force a result in favor of one camp or another, we could then say that it is possible for the population to sweep a party from control that has attempted to maintain its dominion over the political landscape. The current atmosphere is so clouded with rhetoric and spin, all stated as the one and only truth, that we can no longer trust the sources of our information. Therefore, we cannot trust our own judgements.
This problem is nurtured by the very politicians whom are the objects of scrutiny by these information sources.
There is an “information gap”. The information-hungry citizens want all of the unmitigated truth, and the government is not willing to give it. The news sources are not willing to give it. The opposition is not willing to give it.
We cannot judge our own country and attempt to steer it towards an honorable role in this world because we don’t know what is going on. We don’t trust anymore, because that trust has been betrayed so often.
Our country is at a point where we must wrestle the control of information away from those who dole it out in carefully chosen portions, seasoned just enough so as to alter its original flavor in order for it to blend favorably with the intended meal.
When we know the true taste, we will then be able to decide, for ourselves, if it’s palatable.
If we’re talking about Sith, we’re talking about folks who, like the Jedi are force users, but instead specialize in the dark side. There is an important distinction, though, between merely Dark Jedi, and Sith. The Sith have a specialized discipline all their own. I guess its the difference between a lapsed Christian and a Satanist.
Real World application? There are some folks out there, some politicians, who have not only made dark choices, but who have twisted their own morality (if they ever had it to begin with) to justify a life based mainly on such choices.
I think if you’re looking for the Sith in our government today, you shouldn’t look to the throne, but the man behind the throne. If anybody could be said to resemble Darth Sidious (aka The Emperor) from Star Wars, it’s Karl Rove.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2005 10:45 AMWell written. Almost poetic.
|
| …Third, we must acknowledge that an utter
| resignation to the way things are is not a viable option.
|
Similarly, while humans have a natural tendency to laziness (which breeds apathy and corruption),
it is immoral to surrender to it.
|
| Politics has a way of seducing us to process,
| having us throw aside the moral and practical
| decisions in favor of the expedient ones.
|
Similarly, this is how politicians cleverly
seduce voters into the process of petty,
partisan bickering that distracts the voters
from what is actually happening, and leads to
the compromise of their morals.
Things can be better.
Government can be better.
|
| Our country is at a point where we must
| wrestle the control of information away from
| those who dole it out in carefully chosen
| portions, seasoned just enough so as to alter
| its original flavor in order for it to blend
| favorably with the intended meal.
| When we know the true taste, we will then be
| able to decide, for ourselves, if it’s palatable.
|
So what is the recipe?
The recipe is missing a few ingredients.
The missing ingredients are Transparency, Accountability, and Incentive.
But, how do we get Accountability, unless you have Transparency first ?
Thus, Transparency is a prerequisite for Accountability.
But, how do we get Transparency, unless we have incentive first ?
Only voters can give government incentive.
Voters can not surrender to apathy and disaffection. Resignation is not an option.
Rather than despair, there exists one simple solution to voters that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, and costs nothing: their vote
But, not just any vote. Your vote must be wisely used to make it count.
Forget about the old petty partisan politics.
Do not be seduced to that common distraction.
There is a way to peacefully, quickly, and economically force government to be better, to be Transparent and Accountable.
The missing ingredient has always been there, but we have just overlooked it;
perhaps because it is so simple. The only difficulty is convincing voters to
simply not vote for incumbents or main party candidates, until things
drastically improve; to treat government as a single entity, rather than
being distracted by the individual parties and politicians, because that
doesn’t encourage politicians, as a whole, to police their own ranks
to make government more Transparent and Accountable.
Stephan,
If we are to find truth, we must seek it out for ourselves.
Who was it that said “trust nothing that you hear and trust only half of what you see”?
Albert Einstein said, “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
Truth is only truth, if it is reality for everyone.
Posted by: Rocky at May 17, 2005 11:29 AMReed,
I think that America can definitely be considered imperial at this point.
Since the end of the Cold War, America has abandoned all her former principles and has become comfortable with the idea of possessing more and more military power. Today, as a matter of course the majority of our citizens think this is a wonderful idea — including many people on the left. Even John Kerry when he was running for office had to maintain the consensus of opinion that says America can never have enough power, by saying he would expand our capabilities.
Now it seems that all our leaders (or would-be leaders) are going to be expected to sound like Warlords (talking real tough) rather than Presidents (speaking wisely, intelligently, shrewdly).
Personally, I think all of this is absurd.
We already have military capabilities that dwarf those of any possible enemy we have — including any combination of them. Even those of our allies don�t come anywhere close to what we currently have. No one has anything like our Nimitz-type carriers and nobody has ever had more attack aircraft than we do right now.
Along with the notion of ever expanding military power, people have also become increasing comfortable with the idea of sending our military to do whatever it is our leaders want them to do in any part of the world. As we’ve seen, even pre-emptive war is now okay — because fear (terrorism) and aggression (nation building) is in the drivers seat.
Recently I was reading an article where they claimed that the United States spends more on defense today than every other nation in the world PUT TOGETHER, and that that fact is completely unprecedented in all of world history. Collectively, it seems we’ve decided there will never be enough.
But as with all empires, we�ve put ourselves on the road to our own destruction from the very beginning — because of course we must eventually bankrupt ourselves in the quest to dominate the world. Tragically, but typically in this process, we’re slowly changing the character of our nation, while we rapidly lose the respect of the world�s people.
Recently I was reading an article where they claimed that the United States spends more on defense today than every other nation in the world PUT TOGETHER, and that that fact is completely unprecedented in all of world history.
Yes, that’s a point Bacevich made on C-SPAN. Astonishing. Thanks for the response.
By the way, for more on the new Star Wars movie as a political parable, see a recent column by Dan Froomkin.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 17, 2005 12:19 PMThanks for an interesting series, Stephen.
I have no comment, you’ve said it all beautifully. But I’ll share one scary picture.
William,
Could you tell us where you got the photo.
Posted by: Rocky at May 17, 2005 12:52 PMThat belongs on a T-Shirt.
Empire Has a Devious tonality to it.
While we bemoan what we have China is amassing a war machine and provoking it’s nieghbors in it’s quest for energy like oil and natural gas. So that they can and will run the world in there own image, otherwise known as tyranny. They already posess intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit us both single warhead and triple warhead and an army that we cannot match let’s talk about an Empire that routinely kills people for there beliefs. It is one thing to develop these and another to biuld and amass then as well as the mechanism’s needed to land on our soil and crush us.Ther will come a day that you will wish for what you have now. Just one of those crazy zealots who have the proof of facts. softwar.net,northeast intelligence network,Steve Quayle,john loftus you can research yourself. The truth is out there and the government doesn’t have it all.
Posted by: Chris davis at May 17, 2005 05:49 PMChris,
“While we bemoan what we have China is amassing a war machine and provoking it’s nieghbors in it’s quest for energy like oil and natural gas. So that they can and will run the world in there own image, otherwise known as tyranny.”
What the hell? What makes you think China wants to mold the world in its image? Do you even know one native Chinese person? Is any of this backed up by anything other than paranoia and political propaganda?
“They already posess intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit us both single warhead and triple warhead and an army that we cannot match let’s talk about an Empire that routinely kills people for there beliefs.”
Their ICBMS and nuclear weapons systems do not come close to ours. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) will keep the from going to war with us or doing anything overly antagonistic anyways. I don’t know what this bull-shit about them routinely killing people based on their faith is, but if it had any validity to it I would have heard of it by now.
“It is one thing to develop these and another to biuld and amass then as well as the mechanism’s needed to land on our soil and crush us.”
From what I gather, this sentence implies that some day China will land on our soil and take over… That is insane. I have no idea why any one thinks of China as a threat, or why people came up with the term “the China threat,” but I do know that it is a load of bull-shit that is driven by chauvinism and jingoism alone.
“The truth is out there and the government doesn’t have it all.”
The truth is out there, and I think you need to get a grasp on it.
Posted by: Zeek at May 17, 2005 08:12 PMYes, but what about the NY Times charging for internet columns? Are the bloggers far behind?
Posted by: Tom Besly at May 18, 2005 08:06 AMZEEK
Tired of LOSING! yOU ARE MARGINAL AT BEST!
Posted by: CAD at May 19, 2005 01:15 AMCAD,
ZEEKTired of LOSING! yOU ARE MARGINAL AT BEST!
And you are incoherent at best… Type something that makes gramatical sense so I can understand you.
Come on Zeek,
The Tumblers in the Lock of Time is one of the best series I’ve seen here yet.
Stephen,
I love it.
Very well written!
OSI,
Come on Zeek,The Tumblers in the Lock of Time is one of the best series I’ve seen here yet.
What the hell? Have you all gone mad? You are making no sense and I am getting very confused and angry. I never said I didn’t like the TINLOT articles Stephen has been posting, quite the opposite.
Posted by: Zeek at May 19, 2005 11:56 PMYes, but what about the NY Times charging for internet columns? Are the bloggers far behind?
I wish. Though, since I don’t have to worry about losing “access” you can always count on me giving you the unvarnished truth - and a thick veneer of opinion. That’s gotta be worth something, right?
Adrienne and Reed, please, we’re a hegemony, not an empire (unless you count Iraq. And Kuwait. And the UAE. And I just heard a Singaporean say they’re the 56th US state). Just like China is becoming a hegemonic power… Again. That is to say, both the US and China have, or are, securing their backyards and seeking to spread their influence.
I don’t foresee a clash unless the Bush administration tries to challenge China’s version of the Monroe Doctrine. Though, since China is trying to hook up with oil suppliers that don’t conflict with US and European supplies, they’re getting drawn into an adversarial position in countries like Iran and Sudan. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of stabilization efforts China will make there to secure its oil supply.
And really, I’m not worried about the size of the US military as much as its Commander in Chief. We’re a rich country (with an excellent credit rating, apparently), and we still spend more tax dollars on butter than on guns.
Oh, and Zeek, I can’t believe you’d write something like that about me.
AP:
“Adrienne and Reed, please, we’re a hegemony, not an empire”
I can’t agree AP — because hegemony by it’s nature implies some measure of consent. It tries to form “coalitions of the willing” and to a large degree. The only way that usually occurs is through persuasion, consultation, and most importanty, compromise.
I actually think that is how America used to be (despite our mad lust for overblown military power) — but with these nutty Neocons in charge, with their unwillingness to engage in none of those things, and their comfort with the idea of unilateralism, I believe America has definitely been nudged into Imperialism.
OK, I’ll be flexible and say we’re heading in that direction - hence the reference to all the places our armed forces exert heavy influence. Mostly along our strategic oil lifeline. The sooner we get over oil, the better for everyone.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 21, 2005 09:32 AM
