tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post4239319480568737908..comments2023-11-05T04:31:48.615-05:00Comments on Elusive Lucidity: People Get ReadyZChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-77343151373571587402008-11-12T21:25:00.000-05:002008-11-12T21:25:00.000-05:00"A population has to know what its grievances..."A population has to know what its grievances or demands are (which is practically a given on atomized levels, at least), and then has to organize those grievances & demands in such a way as to inject itself into the demos."<BR/><BR/>I would challenge your understanding in this sentence. I would conversely assert that it is very rare to know what one's demands are. Even if a population is hungry and needing food, there is never only one resulting course of action. Obviously, the demand is for food. But how do we obtain this food? (and, of course, what is food and what is not food?) We can grow it. We can buy it (with what funds?). We can invade our neighbors and steal it. We can pray to the gods or the demons so they will provide it. Maybe some of the population should starve so that the remainder will survive. Perhaps we should appeal to better-provisioned neighboring states for their surplus food. Perhaps we should eat each other. Perhaps we should hunt animals in the forest, or fish the sea.<BR/><BR/>Our population's need for food does not tell us enough to be able to determine a course of action.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-33849861284746275812008-11-12T21:15:00.000-05:002008-11-12T21:15:00.000-05:00"and in a democracy (broadly defined) people must ..."and in a democracy (broadly defined) people must struggle in groups internally, politically, amongst each other in order to influence, or even overthrow, the practicioners of statecraft."<BR/><BR/>But to organize, they must have a common idea of the good they wish to achieve. No one could organize a political party asserting that the party's policy is to: "satisfy your self-interest". Naturally, potential partisans will demand to how what you mean by self-interest, i.e. what good you hope to do. They can only judge this not by the level of your desire to fulfill their self-interest, but rather whether the good you propose to do for them seems to them to actually be good and whether your method of doing good accords with their understanding of what is possible.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-76563037391683810192008-11-12T21:07:00.000-05:002008-11-12T21:07:00.000-05:00"Is self-interest something we can talk about or n..."Is self-interest something we can talk about or not?"<BR/><BR/>Not in the sense that I believe you're using it. See that the Comrade in The Hipparchus literally cannot give any definition of what self-interest is without turning to Socrates and admitting that he needs a knowledge of the good, otherwise self-interest is meaningless.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-15209684132970706952008-11-12T20:14:00.000-05:002008-11-12T20:14:00.000-05:00Alex, your second sentence states that self-intere...Alex, your second sentence states that self-interest is an incoherent and essentially empty concept. Your last sentence proposes that "true" economic self-interest is a goal of the prince. What am I missing? Is self-interest something we can talk about or not? (I'm not being rhetorical.)<BR/><BR/>I do not think that a populace has to appeal to authority with policy fully formed. A population has to know what its grievances or demands are (which is practically a given on atomized levels, at least), and then has to organize those grievances & demands in such a way as to inject itself into the <I>demos</I>. This is how I see it. <BR/><BR/>A monarch needs to keep his subjects content or preoccupied whenever his power may be in question. In good times he can be quite liberal and retain his legitimate authority. But in a representative democracy there must remain the potential for that mass body to articulate itself along procedural lines, too (not in enormous unison, it's not like it's USA vs Washington here). Elections are part of this. Only part. But I do not think that the exercise of politics is the same as the exercise of statecraft, and in a democracy (broadly defined) people must struggle in groups internally, <I>politically</I>, amongst each other in order to influence, or even overthrow, the practicioners of statecraft.<BR/><BR/>Of course there is the question of the worth of democracy itself.<BR/><BR/>We could go down that path if you want, but I'm not completely certain that is the path you're trying to go down.<BR/><BR/>* * <BR/><BR/>Jake, you're certainly right. The potential, I think, comes in the giant network of citizens (what's the email list, 11 million--the NYTimes just reported on it the other day) who may be better organized and energized than the anti-Bush movement was. ("May" is the operative word.) There will be party hacks who defect from the progressive wagon to the DP wagon. But people are easily connected, shit is hitting the fan economically, and even if the Obama administration turns out to be a nightmare of neoliberal militancy, I think that the affiliations among the populace will persist and proliferate.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-26706771882685653352008-11-11T13:25:00.000-05:002008-11-11T13:25:00.000-05:00"Obama's victory is generally understood as victor...<I>"Obama's victory is generally understood as victory of the masses--maybe in theory--but it was a victory for American imperialism too."</I><BR/><BR/>The price of democracy in the age of Neoliberalism is that theoretical "victories of the masses" are at best half-measures, and at worst massive defeats.David McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-68674307736861957482008-11-11T13:15:00.000-05:002008-11-11T13:15:00.000-05:00The other party's back is broken, and we the elect...<I>The other party's back is broken, and we the electorate should make the Democrats aware that we could do the same to them if they do not heed us. Now should be when the gloves come off.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm confused. Are you saying that citizens electing Obama broke the Republicans? While there was a very vocal minority against Bush, and a lot of popular disapproval, I don't think there was enough popular <I>action</I> against Bush during these past years, and now it is through the simple inking of Obama's name on a voting card that people 'fight' back? If this is the kind of response we can expect from citizens after Bush, I don't see how the Democrats will have any problems dealing with negative reactions to their own policies for the next 4-8 years. <BR/><BR/>In any case, while I certainly voted for Obama, I am still skeptical of his ability to change the direction of this nation. It's kind of silly to pin all our hopes on to one man, but there is potential for him to be somewhat effective. While there is certainly a lot of hope, a lot of it is based on this idea that citizens and popular organizations can somehow 'pressure' Obama into doing what they want. Especially now that he is elected, and can be molded into an ideal leader. I think otherwise. Joe Biden has already expressed his distaste of public opinion on public policy.<BR/><BR/><I>"There are going to be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."</I> - Joe Biden<BR/><BR/>And who is really going to be influencing Obama when he says:<BR/><BR/><I>"The allegation that Senator McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling. Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden, or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House."</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I remain skeptical of popular fronts being able to guide Obama's future actions. They have already been silent during the elections, or rationalizing Obama's many capitulations. Who is to say citizens won't rationalize any poor choices Obama might make in the future, as they have done so already? He's already supported federal bailouts for Wall Street (who have contributed immensely to Obama's campaign - it was not <I>strictly</I> grassroots), social spending cuts, the FISA act, war efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama's victory is generally understood as victory of the masses--maybe in theory--but it was a victory for American imperialism too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-14222838467671177912008-11-11T12:48:00.000-05:002008-11-11T12:48:00.000-05:00"The president will do this regardless. I take thi..."The president will do this regardless. I take this as a given. It is simply a question of whose ambitions, intentions, and grievances are attended to."<BR/><BR/>It simply can't be a question of whose interest a leader acts in. That's because "self-interest" is an incoherent (and ultimately essentially empty) concept. Of course, here's where I will clash with the social contract theorists (or more classically, where Socrates clashes with Thrasymachus in the Republic or as Socrates discussed in the Hipparchus).<BR/><BR/>For example, it is probably safe enough to say that many of the people who supported Obama want what they perceive their economic self-interest improved. But what does that mean? It is not clear that all of these supporters have the same idea of what their economic self-interest is, or even, in many cases, have any coherent of what their economic self-interest actually is.<BR/><BR/>Further, since their level of economic wisdom is low, they do not know how to achieve their perceived economic self-interest. Only if a person correctly understands the economy can they understand how best to fulfill their economic self-interest. I think it is safe to say that relatively few understand the economy. Therefore, it is necessary for the prince to determine who best understands the economy, and what actions best fulfill true (not percieved) economic self-interests.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-39718303012100127982008-11-11T12:32:00.000-05:002008-11-11T12:32:00.000-05:00I stuck, very reluctantly, with McKinney (even tho...I stuck, very reluctantly, with McKinney (even though she's marginally irrational).<BR/><BR/>There are too many of Obama's supporters who will be even less likely to pressure him from "the left" than there were among Bill Clinton voters. So I hope he's braver and bolder than I think he is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-88425495883004456912008-11-10T22:42:00.000-05:002008-11-10T22:42:00.000-05:00Again, is it good or praiseworthy merely for the p...<I>Again, is it good or praiseworthy merely for the prince to do whatever those others want?</I><BR/><BR/>The president will do this <I>regardless</I>. I take this as a given. It is simply a question of <I>whose</I> ambitions, intentions, and grievances are attended to. I think where we might differ is in 'Who's the Prince?' I don't think it's Obama (nor is it Bush, nor would it have been McCain) ...ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-21917770997192196012008-11-10T12:25:00.000-05:002008-11-10T12:25:00.000-05:00"Obama will be worthy of esteem, respect, admirati..."Obama will be worthy of esteem, respect, admiration insofar as the millions of people who have worked very hard on the ground to get him into office continue to exert pressure on him."<BR/><BR/>Again, this formulation remains extremely problematic. Let's deal first with the problem of esteem. I'm not certain why you keep rephrasing how we should praise or honor the new prince. While this is an extremely important question, it's not the primary question.<BR/><BR/>Rather, the primary question is for what deeds (not how) should we honor or praise in the prince? Your sentence seems entirely incoherent here - what does "exert pressure" mean? It seems to be some sort of abstraction, an analogy drawn from engineering terms. I don't know what it actually means politically.<BR/><BR/>Second, Obama is to be honored because others "exert pressure" on him? Again, is it good or praiseworthy merely for the prince to do whatever those others want? (and we do not know even whether these particular others exerting pressure are a majority of the populance, or are the wisest in political judgment, or are those most in need, etc. Why, necessarily, are some of Obama's supporters the best judges of what he should do and not others - including possibly his opponents?)<BR/><BR/>I.E. we can not discuss how the new prince is to be praised or condemned, if we do not first know what the prince should do.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-61374177197836848272008-11-08T11:08:00.000-05:002008-11-08T11:08:00.000-05:00Estimable works for me. Obama will be worthy of e...Estimable works for me. Obama will be worthy of esteem, respect, admiration insofar as the millions of people who have worked very hard on the ground to get him into office continue to exert pressure on him. Obama is a focal point, even something of a cipher, and his statecraft will necessarily reflect influence. But whose? Drawn from where? The elite or the popular ... ?<BR/><BR/>In these first few days of "transition" I have not been impressed. We'll see where things go. If I have energy and time I'll try to keep a series of "feet to the fire" posts here.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-38189068636355591382008-11-07T18:09:00.000-05:002008-11-07T18:09:00.000-05:00"I'll get to more substantive stuff later, or tomo..."I'll get to more substantive stuff later, or tomorrow, but to answer your one question, Alex: "respectable" would probably have been more clearly expressed as "estimable.""<BR/><BR/>I'm not certain that estimable works either.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-60519427914730913332008-11-07T11:50:00.000-05:002008-11-07T11:50:00.000-05:00The Obama Transition has set up a site where you c...The Obama Transition has set up a site where you can share your views on government policy, at:<BR/><BR/>http://change.gov<BR/><BR/>GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-10434582789062204092008-11-06T20:38:00.000-05:002008-11-06T20:38:00.000-05:00http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/6/president_el...http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/6/president_elect_obama_and_the_futureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-77914500297701278062008-11-06T13:27:00.000-05:002008-11-06T13:27:00.000-05:00"There's a hefty dose of Martin Luther King, Jr. i..."There's a hefty dose of Martin Luther King, Jr. in there as well."<BR/><BR/>Obama will often link, and usually does in his more important speeches, explicitly or implicitly, Lincoln and King together (remember that Obama often literally places his important speeches in locations that either Lincoln or King once spoke at - Springfield, the Cooper Union, etc). This isn't some name-dropping tactic - Obama's most used rhetorical structure is to create a speech where he moves from Lincoln to King or vice vera. He mentions JFK (or Ted Kennedy) or FDR a bit, but King and Lincoln are the fulcrums.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-49342729042601572922008-11-06T13:18:00.000-05:002008-11-06T13:18:00.000-05:00I'll get to more substantive stuff later, or tomor...I'll get to more substantive stuff later, or tomorrow, but to answer your one question, Alex: "respectable" would probably have been more clearly expressed as "estimable."ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-51629905508127714792008-11-06T12:59:00.000-05:002008-11-06T12:59:00.000-05:00Alex, There's a hefty dose of Martin Luther King, ...Alex, <BR/>There's a hefty dose of Martin Luther King, Jr. in there as well. <BR/><BR/>Nathan, <BR/>Obama's grassroots campaign strategy combines financial with physical participation. I don't share your skepticism about the encroachment of spectacle (well, not much) in part because much of his resources were devoted to actual personal interactions, and in part because the financial component implies a truth about (capitalism) - that small contributions from many people are more powerful than large contributions from the few. Obama* is the first politician to understand the electorate rhizomatically, and the effects of that understanding won't be understood for some time. But those of us who are skeptical of both capitalism and government can see this as a terrific opportunity for reasons beyond policy. <BR/><BR/>[* by Obama, I mean Axelrod]David McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-30143509952995816452008-11-06T12:36:00.000-05:002008-11-06T12:36:00.000-05:00As you'll note, Obama's speech Tuesday night hinge...As you'll note, Obama's speech Tuesday night hinged on two explicit quotes from Abraham Lincoln - perhaps the greatest and wisest of all modern statesmen. Obama does follow the best models.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-88975255497342254832008-11-06T12:27:00.000-05:002008-11-06T12:27:00.000-05:00"Obama will be a respectable president only if we ..."Obama will be a respectable president only if we ensure that he is one."<BR/><BR/>Respectable?Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-62726481314923945182008-11-06T11:40:00.000-05:002008-11-06T11:40:00.000-05:00By the way, "anonymous" just above is me.GregBy the way, "anonymous" just above is me.<BR/>GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-37820622996790883062008-11-06T11:38:00.000-05:002008-11-06T11:38:00.000-05:00Zach,One thing that makes me hopeful about Obama i...Zach,<BR/>One thing that makes me hopeful about Obama is that I think he understands what you said that we will have to make him and the Congress accountable for him to have a successful administration, per when he says, "This isn't about me. This is about you."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-77128374195495924322008-11-06T03:40:00.000-05:002008-11-06T03:40:00.000-05:00Watching the election from Europe, I'm obviously m...Watching the election from Europe, I'm obviously missing out on the huge feeling of community that I've just begun to understand is for many people one of the determining hopes and achievements of this campaign and election; so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.<BR/> But even then, there are a few things that make me sceptic, especially when I see dave's comment about this being the best political campaign in political history. Well, it is also the most hugely expensive, and I'm not quite sure what kind of signal that sends out. By refusing the government subsidies and then spending more than anyone else before getting the most a democrat candidate got since 1976, Obama is sending out the message that money is going to make political campaigns a spectacle to an extent unheard of before. I'm not sure if that will turn out to be true or not, but for the moment all the reports about how europeans are watching his campaigning methods with interest certainly suggest that much. And maybe I'm just fighting against something that's a given, but mass money to buy "hope" (and here it is used in the liberal sense) as the only way to create community is certainly not my views of politics.<BR/> Secondly, though I agree with you that what the campaign has demonstrated is the willingness for change, and what it has created is a possibility for it, I'm still sceptic about Obama's version of change. Here is a man, after all, who voted for the patriot act, who supported the war in Irak and didn't talk about ending it, who joined the republican's sides on bailing out Wall Street... And when he started constituting his team, many names belonged to the Clinton administration. There is no doubt that for many people he symbolizes hope. I'm just very unsure that he embodies it.<BR/> But one thing for me is clear, and that is that I agree with you 100% that grass-roots political activism is the only way that some of what Obama prones might come around. If his presidency turns out to have yielded even half of the results people hope for (which would already be quite something, no irony intended), it'll have been because those people were behind him making very, very sure it would.<BR/>NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-75755182790419203262008-11-05T23:24:00.000-05:002008-11-05T23:24:00.000-05:00Zach, Thanks for joining the tidal wave. We're hap...Zach, <BR/>Thanks for joining the tidal wave. We're happy to have you. <BR/><BR/>I was really happy to see Ran's essay on supporting Obama, which hints at some of the reasons I was especially excited about his campaign apparatus, which might have been the best political campaign in American history, returned significant investment in politics to the grassroots, and went about building a base for (moderately) progressive positions in states that Democrats haven't bothered contesting in 40 years. <BR/><BR/>David Rees, the day after Election Day, 2004:<BR/>"CHIN UP.<BR/>We’re smarter than those motherfuckers.<BR/>We can learn more quickly than those motherfuckers.<BR/>We can be more ruthless than those motherfuckers.<BR/>We can be some six-million-dollar motherfuckers ourselves.<BR/>Chin up.<BR/>We’re more American than those motherfuckers.<BR/>We’re more responsible than those motherfuckers.<BR/>We’re more compassionate than those motherfuckers.<BR/>Hell, our atheists are more Christian than their Bible-thumpin’ motherfuckers.<BR/>There’s an election in two years.<BR/>There’s nothing we can’t do.<BR/>Chin up.<BR/>Because it’s on, motherfuckers.<BR/>It is on."<BR/><BR/>GODDAMN RIGHT. <BR/><BR/>There's much more work to go, but this step has me very enthusiastic. For now - I'm still giddy.David McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.com