The "Political Divide", what it is and what it's not.

Been busy with the other blog and contractors, hence the lack of posts lately.

In all the blather over the Wisconsin recall, which I will give my take in another post, once again the pundits lazily went to the "Americans are all deeply divided" theme.  Yeah, all Americans are unflinching partisan liberal/progressive Democrats or conservative/Tea Party Republicans, just like we're all either Baby Boomers or Millenials (another theme of the pundits, must be some cognitive defect that doesn't allow them to consider more than two things). Oversimplified as that idea is, it is true that political power is controlled by only two hostile camps. But IMHO the origins of the differences between the two have little to do with the usual suspects put forth.

In my mind, politics is increasingly driven by the threats to the modern lifestyle generated by the lifestyle itself.  In the United States today, the dominating culture is the extended suburbia and exurbia. This culture is totally dependent on the car for mobility, consumes vast amounts of open space and energy, generates tremendous amounts of CO2 in the process and is economically supported by conspicuous consumption, construction, finance and marketing.  The last two have gone from becoming a means to an end to an end itself.  For many people, this is a seductive, easy and gloriously self-indulgent lifestyle.  And it has political power, enough to have warped our politics to suit it's needs.But as many have noted in the past, it's not sustainable and has hit the limits. Hence, the housing crash, corruption of the state so as to serve the financial industry, energy crunch and climate change.

Because this lifestyle is so important to so many people, the very concept of adaption and change needed to address these problems is viewed by it's defenders as an existential threat. Hence the emergence of the new reactionary "conservatives", who also engage in paranoia and religious fundamentalism as populist glue to bind themselves to the have-nots.  That's you modern Republicans.

What is the opposition? Well the Democratic party and liberalism/progressivism is still molded by late-60's New Left.  As I wrote about earlier, this mindset is generally anti-populist while considering itself the advocate of the people. In other words, the stereotype of an Ivory Tower liberal.  As such it is overly analytical, deliberately indecisive, condescending and tainted by new-jerk anti-Americanism.  Not a very good model for getting the votes of, you know, other Americans.  It doesn't matter if your ideas are right if you act like a stuck-up prick.  Now the Democrats are not monolithic like the Republicans and you have Clintons, Obamas and others who challenge this mold in one way or another, but that mindset I just described dominates the liberal/progressive talking heads and blogosphere. These folks remind more of some strident faculty I know who constantly criticize and rail against department leadership, yet who cowardly balk when offered the opportunity to step up to the plate themselves. All this results in a Democratic party that is ineffectual and incompetent with a stunning inability or unwillingness to make a genuine 21st Century populist appeal for reform.

The real problem though is not that all Americans fall into one of these two camps, many if not most of us don't.  The problem is they are the only game allowed in town.  Democrats and Republicans get preferential ballot access, taxpayer-subsidized primaries, control of districting and massive financial and media support.  Until this paradigm is broken, we can never get meaningful reform, our politics will remain paralyzed, and the looming challenges will not be met.

Is the Midwest in America Anymore?

With all the natural and manmadee disasters occuring in Japan, we cannot forget the assualt on AMerican Democracy occuring by newly elected "Tea Party" Republicans. It really sticks in my craw that these Authoritarian-Narcissists have the audacity to associate their astro-turf movement with the American Revolution.  Despite their continually blabbing about the American Revolution, it is obvious that Authoritarians neither know or understand much about it. Case in point: Michele Bachmann's twice stated belief that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought in New Hampshire. The details are not important, the co-opting of patriotic symbols by the ANs to deceive the ignorant and fearful is.

What's happening in Michigan underscores the real nature of the Authoritarian-Narcissist Axis.The new GOP governor is following the lead of King George III and pushing a law allowing him to suspend local government and remove elected officials! One of the things that set off the Revolutionary War was George and his ministers suspending the classic form of direct democracy, the New England town meeting.  He is also cutting aid and raising taxes on the most vulnerable in society while at the same time giving 1.8 billion is subsidies and tax breaks to the big businesses that paid for his election.

You see, the only right these people believe in is the absolute unfettered right to wealth and property, that is the initial right in their eyes. They believe that all other rights flow from that one and it follows that in their eyes that the extent of your rights is dependent on your wealth. This is the attitude to liberty held by Medieval European nobles.  When they say they are for limited government but then govern as authoritarians they are not being hypocritical, just disingenuous.  They believe in government alright, just not a democratic one.

The Democratic Party has been largely useless in realizing this and fighting it. The liberal activists have been up in arms and angry at the Dems, but only on the internet.  Seriously, do you think the snarketariat over at Wonkette, the hand-wringers at Huff-Po and Democratic Underground, and the easily spooked at Firedoglake really are any threat to the ANs?

Fortunately, the actual working and middle-class have taken things into their own hands, even farmers are joining the protests in Wisconsin.  The firefighters are starting to take their pension funds out of banks that fund the ANs' campaigns. The unions are far from perfect and still have problems with corruption and overpaid bureaucracy, but at least the rank and file is doing what they need to do. And some of those I bashed above are helping to some degree, but what they mainly give is the same moral and political support that the homefront provides to soldiers in the field.

Fear and Loathing over Egypt

Today we may be seeing revolt wash across the Arab world. In the mid-to late Eighteenth century, a wave of revolution began in the British North American colonies and over several swept through France, Ireland, Haiti, Poland and Latin America, the so-called Atlantic Revolutions. What happened then provides us with a lesson on how these waves behave and we it is foolish to attempt to control them or predict the outcome.

The Atlantic Revolutions all had intellectual roots in the Enlightenment, but the aspirations, goals and circumstances of the ordinary people who revolted varied considerably. The Thirteen Colonies were a unique collection of settlements, each founded with different motivations and possessing varying degrees of local democracy. The British settlers overall shared a level of prosperity and individual opportunities not available in the mother country and were imbued with a belief that they had certain inviolable rights as Englishmen. In comparison, the average French person lived in considerable poverty and under the threat of famine. The government was autocratic and medieval and levied the most oppressive taxes on those least able to afford them. In turn, conditions in Ireland, Poland and Latin America all had their own unique characteristics. In all cases the reasons for revolt existed, but it required one successful example to encourage the others to follow suit.

While the Enlightenment provided a common basis for the Atlantic revolts, each ran a different, unpredictable course and had different outcomes. The American Revolution established the United States, which exists as a stable democracy to this day, while France tore itself apart as their revolution turned increasingly radical. In contrast to the US, France has had two Empires, a restored Kingdom and five republics since 1789. Ireland and Poland's revolt utterly failed, and the Latin American revolts did not establish long-lasting, united and stable democracies.

To me, these examples show two things about a revolutionary wave. First, while ideals may be shared, the outcomes are uncertain and cannot be predicted. The US could have easily been subject to disunion and autocracy,  and France may have set a up a stable republic if not for foreign intervention trying to turn back the revolution. It is foolhardy to say with certainty where one revolution will lead based on another.

We now see a revolutionary wave beginning  in the Arab world. Tunisia provided the successful example. Jordan, Yemen and Egypt have degrees of unrest. The latter is the most developed (with a huge march demanding Mubarak's ouster going on at this moment) and is the one that has the most importance to the world as a whole. Looking at this situation, those who prefer order over democracy have raised the spector of a radical and terrorist friendly regime taking power. Some have stated a preference for a friendly dictator over the uncertainty of change, keeping Mubarak while managing reform and good ol' Rick Santorum claimed that the downfall of Mubarak is equivalent to the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Iranian Islamic state.  This is ridiculous and arrogant. No foreigner has the right to tell Egyptians what type of government they should have and there is no way of knowing how the revolution will pan out. The idea that an Islamic state is guaranteed to arise is unfounded. as is the notion that a post-Mubarak government would be friendly to Iran. The Iranian regime is not only hostile to the west and Israel, but also Arabs and Sunni Muslims - Egypt is Arabic with a majority population of Sunni Muslims.

No one knows what will happen and interference from the outside would probably provide popular support for any radical elements. All we can do is hope for the best and make sure to support a new democracy if it emerges as much as we supported Mubarak.

Update: More stupidity from Bolton.  These neo-con yahoos would love the US to turn into late 19th century Britain.