Hi Jason, what you think about this article?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2011%2F04%2F06%2Fnotes040611.DTL
(If the link doesn't work, it is an article called "The great Barack Obama conundrum" written in the San Fransisco Gate, dated April 6th 2011 - by Mark Morford)
There's a lot to be said about this article. Where to begin....
1. It's a rant. Insults masked as claims, and ad hominem attacks (attack the person instead of the issue.) But ultimately I can hear the frustration of the author. "Looky here, it's the same old shit and I'm sick of it!!!"
2. Spins blame and responsibility onto one person (aka a scapegoat) rather than having anything intelligent to say about the system itself, or the part other people play. The government is not "only" the president.
3. The system itself... in this case the political system.
So what is a system? A working definition is: a whole compounded of several parts or members, a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
What then is the purpose of our political system? Here are few common stated purposes:
- enforce laws
- create public infrastructure (roads, schools, tel/com)
- act as an ideological organizing body (political parties, national identity etc.)
- take feedback for public needs and try and solve those problems (aka problem-solving)
With that definition there's a new view that emerges.
Regarding Laws: A way to understand the need for laws is to see the relationship to our social system as patchwork efforts to try and "fix" problems with the system itself. This is an integrity issue. The integrity of a social system can be gauged by the # of laws on its books (so according to this, how are we doing?)
Infrastructure and problem solving: The creation of "things" (be it roads, a coffee mug, schools, or an airplane) is a technical process. Our problems are technical. There is no republican way to build an airplane, there is no catholic way to increase yield from an acre of corn. So when you apply a political solution (or a religious solution) to technical a problem, you can start to see why we have the track record we do (and why articles like the one in the SF Chronicle exist)
Feedback: One could associate this to what we call "Democracy". But what is democracy? Everyone having a say? There's a problem with the concept since 10 white men hanging a black man IS democracy. So there's an assumption here that has been overlooked (and we'll get back to that). Another overplayed association with democracy is "Freedom". So what's that? The ability to do what you want, when you want? Let's look at freedom in our system. Freedom = Purchasing Power. Take away your $$ and how much freedom do you have? Think about it. No purchasing power means no access to food, clean water, shelter, education, healthcare, nothing.
Now getting back to that assumption.. The assumption that is overlooked is "Equality": Democracy assumes people have equal access to knowledge, education, resources, and have their basic needs met so they can make rational choices. Do we have that? No, we don't. We have more inequality than has ever existed. People have to trade their labor-for-income in our system (monetary) in order to earn money which allows access to the necessities of life.
As far as arriving at rational decisions via a political process: Having people divided by race, creed, political ideology, religious ideology, and social class - Coupled with an average 3rd-grade reading level creates mob rule, not democracy. There is no equality in the knowledge-base to allow for the public to make informed decisions about their own welfare and the welfare of others.
And finally, what "Say" do you think you have in the political process? Do people think about that? With $6 trillion dollars of private interest power on K-street to lobby Congress, corporate interest vying for candidates that will support their incomes & markets. And you & I get 1 voting day every 4-years to pick a person that has ZERO qualifications in regards to the technical resolutions to our problems (remember I started with that).
So what would be better? Well, how about a relevant process to the physical world we live in? That could be seen as the application of the 'methods of science' to social concerns. A "Systems Approach" to the management of resources and decision making. And a regard for dynamic equilibrium (i.e only use trees as fast as they regrow). With a combination of these methods it would be completely probable to create an access abundance on the planet for human needs, with the social value evolving from self-interest to social-interest via collaboration and cooperation instead of competition.
For more information about this take a look at a Resource-Based Economic model: www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
Jason;
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your basic diagnosis and prescription for solutions to our current highly dysfunctional economy/culture -- big change is required up and down the line - I'm not sure about your take on Morford's column.
It's definitely a rant -- I've read a lot of Morford over the years, and can safely say that ranting is pretty much what he does, albeit with an artfully slashing style -- but I don't see it as an attack on Obama at all. Quite the opposite. This column is aimed not at Obama, but directly at the Liberal "purists" (remember, he lives and writes in SF, which -- next to Berkeley, of course -- is the Liberal Mecca of America) who are constantly weeping and wailing about their disappointment with Obama's many faults and failures as President. Morford's point is that any clear-eyed look at reality in America today reveals Obama -- middle-of-the-road warts and all -- to be infinitely preferable to any of the potential Republican candidates.
Less than perfect? You bet. Something of a waffler? Guilty as charged. Not really capable of solving our society's many problems? Hey, he's not Superman. But given the economic and political forces that currently (and for the foreseeable future) hold sway in our economy and culture, his Presidency is something of a miracle.
In my view, Morford is administering a gently sarcastic bitch-slap to his mewling Liberal friends to remind them that -- in Garrison Keillor's oft-repeated words -- "things could always be worse."
A lot worse.
As I see it, nothing short of a catastrophic national emergency -- something much bigger than 9/11 -- would provide the overwhelming mandate any President/Congress would need to effect the kind of sweeping changes needed to turn things around. That catastrophe is coming in the form of climate change, the looming energy crisis, and the inevitable shortages of food and fresh water that will result from both -- but I'm not sure those dark clouds are coming fast enough to galvanize any American government into serious action.
With a populace steeped in ignorance, hypnotized by television, and fueled by a growing rage at their steadily declining quality of life -- a people unable to understand why this is happening -- I don't hold out much hope for any just-in-time enlightenment. Like the apocryphal frog in the slowly-heating pot, we're sit here and stew until the shit well and truly hits the fan.
And by then, it won't matter who is President.