|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-03-14
© 2011 Peter Belmont
| |
Noam Chomsky:
Q: How old are you now?
A: 82.
Q: Why haven’t you mellowed?
A: Because I look at the world... and there’re things happening in the world which should lead anyone to become indignant, outraged, active, and simply engaged.
|
|
The American political system has become a specialty whose practitioners—professional politicians—are as talented, as well trained, and as finely-honed at their craft, nay their art, as professional violinists, professional basketball players, professional tax or patent lawyers, professional advertisers, professionals of any very specialized calling.
But in proportioned as our politicians are skilled, our citizens are unskilled.
We do not demand good sense or reasoned actions (or even words) from our politicians.
Just as an example of this, consider the refusal of the political caste to raise income tax rates on the very-very rich, a clear necessity either for fairness or for reducing the deficit (usually claimed to be a universal political goal). The result of prolonged low taxation of the super-rich is an increasingly skewed distribution of both property and incomes in the USA. Here is a picture to set the public’s teeth on edge. Why aren’t they on edge? Why is there no protest, no revolution?[1]
Rising Inequalities Since 1970s.
some other charts of interest.
Rather than demand anything of real importance from our political system, we are satisfied with “bread and circuses” [2][2] ”Bread and Circuses” (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l’homme moyen sensuel).. Those who wonder at the political importance of the ideologies such as “right to life” may have my answer: such ideologies are a means whereby politicians who loudly favor them keep their constituents’ minds off the dismal economy, off the unnecessarily high costs of medical care, off the mortgage scandal and the scandalous bailout which was supposed to “fix” the fallout from the scandal, off our ruinous and immoral wars, off our horrible human-rights record, off the diminishment of government services, off the scandal of our public schools, and off the scandal of our public’s failure to understand our political system (the subject of this essay).
Our elections, our democratic processes generally, do not offer our citizens reasonable options for the choices we should be making.[3][3] The two principal parties have effectively locked out any rival third parties and then, having captured the field, have both—with slight differences—become the party of big business and military imperialism. The people do not receive any electoral option to reverse these choices. The multiple-choice questions we are offered omit the most important choices! In this connection, read I Wish You Egypt, which shows us how much we (Americans) have to learn from the Egyptians (whom many of us thought to be less democratically sophisticated than ourselves)! Whereas the Egyptians were for many years prevented by a dictator from participating in the political life of their country, we Americans—who have no real dictator—are prevented by our ignorance, by our lack of interest, by our lack of understanding, by our lack of passion, and especially by our readiness to accept ideological declarations in place of real substance in political discourse—not merely from governing ourselves, but even from knowing that we are not doing so.
What the politicians are good at is running for office (encouraging voter enthusiasm, encouraging the enthusiasm of donors to their campaigns) and, once elected, making political deals (and encouraging donors for the next electoral cycle). These skills are intricately interrelated, for one cannot usefully encourage voter enthusiasm with a speech which will turn off donors—or make political deals which will turn off voters or potential donors. And the best politicians, when they are good, they are very, very good.
Sadly, however, there are a few skills which seem well beyond almost all professional politicians. Just plain being reasonable or consistent seems beyond the power of most politicians.
(Some argue that politicians are among the smartest people they have ever met and that if politicians do not, as a class, appear to be wedded to logical or rational behavior, this is not because they are stupid, but because they have “done the political calculations” and concluded, all too rationally, that they cannot do other than they are doing and hope to get voters to vote for them and large donors to donate to them. This description may be correct for many if not all politicians. But, in instrumental terms, there is little to choose between a politician who is stupid and one who insists on acting stupid. Perhaps I should say that politicians, as a class, seem to be unwilling to act or incapable of acting as though they were capable of rational thought in regard to the identification of and response to the problems that beset America. The system is dysfunctional. That is my point. The precise mechanism which accounts for that dysfunction is not so important.)[4]| [4] Mechanism: stupid or merely appears stupid. Irrational or merely appears irrational. |
Understanding scientific argument and making policy decisions on the basis of scientific information or mathematical calculations seems beyond most politicians (just as, for example, performing even the most basic mathematical computations seems beyond the grasp of many people, even otherwise talented lawyers (tales of botched totals at real estate closings are legion, or were in the days before computers). Ordinary logic seems beyond the grasp of most politicians. And what politicians are bad at, they are very, very bad at.
Just look at the scientific consensus regarding global warming and the daily evidence that global warming (or human-induced climate modification, if you prefer) is a happening thing now, today, with very well-reasoned belief that much, much worse is coming ineluctably in the future unless mankind mends its ways. Our politicians either don’t care that catastrophe is facing humanity or don’t understand it. What’s not to understand? And what can we say of politicians who don’t care. If politicians are not the stewards of humanity (and of the natural world as well, for that matter), who is? Who is “minding the store”? Who is supposed to? Does anyone think for a moment that the large corporations or the very-very-rich individuals are, as a class, “minding the store” or otherwise looking out for the future of America, of mankind, of the natural world? If, as I maintain, no-one is “minding the store”, then surely our political system is badly broken.
Ideologies
Politicians are good at the sort of reflexive thinking which is responsive to ideologies—ideologies being, of course, rules of thumb adopted by people who wish to be able to behave in an orthodox manner rather than to be forced (by the absence of any rule of orthodoxy) to behave in a reasonable or well-reasoned manner. Voters have been trained to think well (or ill) of a variety of ideologies, or of names which they imagine to be labels for ideologies, labels like “liberal” and “conservative”, “Democrat”, “Republican”, “democracy”, “right to life”, “freedom of choice”, “Israeli and American values are absolutely identical”, “America supports the rule of law”, “he may be an SOB, but he’s America’s SOB”, “freedom”, “family values”, “tax and spend”, “don’t raise taxes”, “balanced budget”, “American needs a strong defense”, and politicians (who have had much to do with this training of the voters) have become very skilled at saying things and thinking things (if indeed they think at all) in terms of these ideologies.
Conflict between ideologies
The problem about all ideologies—apart from being too simple-minded, the bumper-stickers of political thought—is that one person may “hold” conflicting ideologies. And when politicians hold conflicting ideologies, they are likely to be very amusingly—and very damagingly—inconsistent. Consider, for instance, the politician professing to “support the rule of law” and claiming, in the same breath, that “Israel’s and the USA’s interests are the same”. He is essentially telling you that the occupation is being conducted legally—a palpable fraud. Those politicians, the vast majority in the USA, who merely say that “Israel’s and the USA’s interests are the same” are in effect claiming that the USA’s interest conflicts with the rule of law. Not very cheering, either.
Indeed, politicians do most of what passes for thinking in terms of such ideologies, and [appear to] have no time, no space in their brains, no flexibility in their personalities, no skills for what even a reasonably bright high-school student would call, ahem, “thinking.”
Conflict between ideologies produces the appearance of irrationality
Perhaps one example of political irrationality would not come amiss.
These days we are told that the government is spending too much, borrowing too much. Most politicians join this chorus. Why do they do that? Because all the other politicians and the media are in the same chorus. Ideology is all about togetherness, about orthodoxy. Balancing the budget”, “reducing the deficit” has become an ideology, a mantra, a substitute for thought.
If politicians thought about it at all, they’d realize two things which they show no sign of realizing. First, the economy is lousy and so the government should be spending more, not less. Second, if overspending is bad then undertaxing must also be bad. But the government is resolute in not increasing the rates at which the upper “brackets” of the income of the very-very-rich are taxed, even though 50 years ago such incomes were very highly taxed and the nation did very well. Why? well, of course, the very-very-rich are major donors to political campaigns, and it doesn’t do for either party to offend them. But, as a cover story, the slogan (or ideology) of “no new taxes” and “don’t raise taxes” has been taught to American voters as a sort of patriotic song which excuses politicians from doing the obvious (if balancing the budget were really a priority).
Also, the so-called “defense budget” is simply out of sight too large. No legitimate purpose can justify the USA spending $1.2T (that’s $1,200,000,000,000)[5] per year on “defense”[6]| [6] I write “defense” in quotes, because the USA has not been attacked since World War II. While it is true that from 1945-1990 there was a perceived need to establish a wide variety of defenses against possible aggression from the USSR during the cold war, the USSR and the cold war are 20-years behind us, but the military empire remains. Without the same explanation and perhaps without any militarily cogent reason. Our armed services attack, terrorize, and compel obedience in others—but though militarily active, they have not defended the USA against attack for 65 years. |
[7] (which comprises expenses for hiring Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force personnel, the various contractor-supplied mercenaries and private militias which the USA runs in lieu of armed services personnel, the entire “intelligence”[8] apparatus, including a vast number of contractor-supplied personnel used in lieu of CIA and FBI and NSA employees, the entire vast system of contractor-supplied “consultants” for all sorts of jobs including, for instance, anti-terrorism—to say nothing of medical and other services for ex-servicemen and retirees. And if I failed to mention the very high costs of producing aircraft, guns, tanks, aircraft-carriers, munitions, and all the other often high-tech equipment that we insist on supplying to our service men and women—and to contractor-supplied mercenaries and militias—or if I failed to mention the very high costs of maintaining our system of world-wide military bases, let me by all means mention them now.
If politicians were really interested in reducing deficits, they’d cut “defense” spending by 10%-50% and raise taxes on the high-bracket parts of the annual incomes of the very-very-rich (say incomes over $1M/year). But they don’t. Politicians simply do not do the things that make obvious sense to accomplish the goals that they have announced.
What can we learn from this? Either that politicians are not logical or they are not serious about their so-called goals (such as “reducing the deficit”). In other words, they are either stupid or they are lying to the voters.
I don’t want to be governed by a professional class of politicians who are, on the whole, either stupid or liars. And, when contemplating the American system of campaign financing and lobbying, let me add that I don’t care very much for being governed by a professional class of politicians who are, as a class, corrupt.[9][9] In my view, a politician who supported first the de-regulation and then the (consequential) bail-out of the big banks, allowing the managers to continue their million-dollar salaries and bonuses, after the mortgage scam (scandal), while thousands of her constituents are being foreclosed on, are out of work, etc., is corrupt. In my view, a politician who will vote to maintain the profits of big PHARMA while thousands of her constituents cannot afford to buy essential medicines is corrupt.
And that is why the USA must reform its political system.
We need candidates who will run on a program of well-reasoned, logically consistent policies, and the first of these policies must be a willingness to [1] do without campaign contributions from wealthy persons or corporations and [2] a willingness to stand up and say, about the ideas and slogans traditionally used by politicians in the USA, ”With all respect to those who hold these views, I disagree entirely. I don’t think people who talk that way have thought things through. They offer no reasoned analysis for what they say, and what they say has been ruinous for this country for years and will continue to be ruinous if continued. We must change direction. And here is why: [sensible remarks follow].”
We have a few politicians already who act this way. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio try to put forward well-reasoned suggestions for government policies. There may be a few conservative politicians who think clearly and have avoided corruption: I confess to paying less attention to the conservative side of things. But two (or a very few) people in a Congress of 535 is far too few.
We need at least 25% whose chief job will be training the people and the media to understand difficult arguments, to relish and value careful thought, and to dismiss out of hand any proposal based on no more than ideology, habit, loyalty to big business, protectiveness toward the very-very-rich, or the like.
And to get there we must begin to eliminate campaign contributions as a factor in electoral politics. In the beginning this must happen through vigorous internet-campaign-finance-raising. Later, when the power of the wealthy has been broken, it may be time for making TV and radio campaigning free to candidates (or to political parties). This is a very big problem and it will take time to figure out what to do about it. Perhaps we need to eliminate primaries (which give far too much power to the large donors) and shorten the electoral campaign cycle to, say, one month before elections. That would give the selection of candidates back to the parties and make real political parties of what, today, are merely competing mechanisms for chasing large financial contributions for campaigns—a precisely calibrated system for delivering almost all electoral power to large donors.
But whatever the solutions are to America’s many, many problems (among them: global warming, tolerance and celebration of people and customs not quite like “us” or “ours”, reduced use of petroleum, energy production generally, banking, business, population management, world peace, human-rights, and democracy), what is clear is that politicians specialized for the narrow specializations that politicians now consider sufficient for their professional role will not be identifying our problems and will not be solving our problems. If past is prolog, they will give no evidence of thinking about them at all.
-----------
[1] ”Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi, at p. 30, “There are really two Americas, one for the grifter class [PAB:the super rich] and one for everybody else.” For more on this great book, see here.
-----------
[7] ”No one – not even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – is willing to call the two land wars currently underway in Asia successful and the hemorrhage of more than $12 billion a month to support the conflicts does nothing whatsoever for a struggling US economy unless one is a defense contractor. Yet the view that the United States must use its waning power to remake much of the globe prevails. The policy is in some circles underwritten by the myth that the United States is a special nation that makes it somehow immune to the history of the decline and fall of past empires. The catch phrase “American exceptionalism” persists in the minds of presidential wannabes like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, both of whom conflate the country’s genuinely unique national qualities with a divine right to intervene militarily anywhere and at any time, a continuation in perpetuity of the nearly forgotten Bush Doctrine.” (Giraldi) The idea that the USA should remake the world in its own image is essentially a religious belief embodying two errors: first, the USA is a good universal model (“light unto the nations”), and, second, that the this model should be forcefully propagated. While some people probably believe in this essentially religious idea, the Military-Industrial-Complex appears to use it as an ideological cover story for what has long been called war-profiteering.
-----------
[8] I write “intelligence” in quotes, because the vast, the really vast, array of often-competing apparatuses of spying and analysis run by the USA’s government have so often failed to give advice or analysis which was both correct and given credence by ideologically-lockstepped government. We pay too much for a system which does not produce results that are worth what we pay for them. USA’s “intelligence” did not predict the fall of the USSR, the fall of the Mubarak government in Egypt, the absence of WMD in Iraq, or the crash of the banking system (something well worth predicting, by the way).
|
