Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Representation and Misrepresentation in our Democratic Republic

A few years ago, a mentor and friend of mine passed away. He’d been a professor of Sociology and his specialization was politics; he’s been described by many colleagues, students and admirers as a political historian. It would be a surprise to most people to learn that the primary way in which he came to study politics was by way of exploring utopian fiction.

The word “utopia” actually means “nowhere.” To me, that is the greatest inside joke, ever. People are constantly dreaming up models for what they consider to be the “ideal society,” but these are mostly “nowhere” as in impossible (with a stilted sense of what is reasonably to be expected of real human beings), and most such literary experiments often come prepackaged with what can be readily identified as their Damoclean dystopian counterpart. 

My friend politically identified himself as a democratic socialist. His notion of a better world was one where the culture, morals and politics are shaped as a grassroots effort from below, from among the masses. This notion is not best served by the concept of direct democracy, but recognizes that a system that intends and proclaims fairness and equity to all must afford a great degree of representation.

We are, after all, currently living in a bureaucratic collectivist society, here in the United States. The constitution, upon more modern consideration, is logically intended to apply to all people, and those who run for political office have sworn to represent their constituents and uphold the ideas and ideals of the constitution. The fact that governance does not seem to currently serve that end is just cause for people to quite rightly ask, “Has democracy died?”

My friend’s personal credo was “No double standards.” He had been brought up in a family that tended toward socialism and progressivism. Socialist ideas were to be found everywhere in the United States. The Midwest, now so very conservative, was once a bastion of socialism, with support for labor, as well as a breeding ground for experimental programs and organizations that were designed to work in the public interest. Some may be surprised to read that, but it is true, despite the fact that socialism has been made a dirty word for such a long time. If you need proof of this, here is a link you can follow for a summary of the long, rich history of socialism in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States

Transcendentalism, New Deal, labor unions, Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Wobblies, the New Left – all these and more are aspects of what could be called the American Socialist Tendency, just another name for movements espousing a philosophy and politics supporting social education and programs to help bring people of all classes up.

These, along with many other leaders, organizations and movements, were reactions in large part to the negative role of rampant capitalism in society, the wage disparity and grinding poverty that was in such contrast to the high flying lifestyle of the very rich. Although the constitution is clearly meant to apply to all citizens, the fact that in every generation, any segment of society that could not be identified as “male landowners” has had to fight for recognition and rights under the constitution has been disappointing, to say the least. That laws have clearly, especially to the present day, been used against people who are powerless, many times for the benefit of people with power among the wealthy upper class, or for an empty, “state” victory, goes clearly against the framers’ claim for us all to have the experience of “Justice …  domestic Tranquility … common defence … general Welfare … Blessings of Liberty,” etc.

No matter what some choose to believe, the values that our history of socialist tendencies represent are actually inextricably woven into the fabric of our administrative state, in every federal social program that still exists to benefit individuals in need.

The president’s oath of office reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, (so help me God).

One doesn’t need a Ph.D. or be an attorney to be aware that this oath has been broken in many more ways than one, and that partisan brinkmanship has set a course to unravel every progressive step made since at least the Haymarket Riot of 1886. The current administration is trying to bring to life Hobbes’ Leviathan, but probably not to protect the state, and certainly not to preserve the constitution. The interesting thing about twenty-first century capitalism is that it is global, and the war being waged on our shores has significant repercussions both here and everywhere abroad; it’s all about money and power, consolidating it for a self-interested, blindly unethical multinational oligarchic elite. Simultaneously, in other parts of that same global system, other countries are working at crossed purpose toward more ethical statesmanship, making capitalism toe the line.

Getting back to the utopias, I find it interesting that so many of them have top-down ruling classes, and so few have leadership from below, as if qualified people from every class should not be allowed to come together to form governance from where the people are. If it seems whimsical of me to make this observation, we have only to look at the daily news to see that we have reached a point in our Democratic Republic where there is an out-of-touch ruling class making decisions about a diverse populace that it neither understands, nor cares to do so.

The lack of any strong third party or even fourth party, the destruction of party membership, indulging in identity politics rather than cultivating coalition unity, the reduction of party conventions to a rah-rah rubberstamping event, instead of a platform building with caucus representation and ratification, these have contributed to the current condition. You see, what is gone is the representative part of our representative government – where we told the party what we wanted, what we needed, what was good for us, and they worked toward those goals. Those people we elect to office are supposed to vote according to our wishes and for our benefit, not in lockstep partisan obeisance to a petty, populist tyrant. Instead, those representatives are vetted and selected from party leaders to do what is good for them and to our detriment. The bipartisan brinksmanship has now been sown into every branch of the government that “checks and balances” were meant protect against. Don't think the leaders of your party haven't contributed to this state of affairs. It is almost like we don't have parties, at all; it could be the party of one, such as in the 1921 dystopian novel "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin. 

Choice, we are told we have choice. I see hundreds of bottles of different shampoos to choose from in the stores – none of which are good for my hair – but I don’t have the power to choose representatives that will vote for and protect my interests. Our economy is being driven forward so it can be carved out by the oligarchs, pushing more people to homelessness and destitution with stagnant wages and ever-rising, frequently falsely inflated costs. No one thinks about it, but that is a means of voter suppression, driving people out of homes and into the streets; that’s a species of gerrymandering, isn’t it?

So, here we are:  UTOPIA! And, oh, isn’t it fun? The daily outrages are a laugh a minute.

What are we going to do? What can we do?

We must resist, and we can. Educate, organize, vote, and hold elected officials accountable. Public opinion is not enough to affect a referendum, but in this modern world of endless media and technological manipulations, public opinion might sometimes be the only tool in the kit. Protecting and subscribing to and reading real news is vital. Engaging in real and fair discussions is vital. Listening is vital, too. We cannot surrender to cynicism, but we must strive for and participate in rationality. We must obliterate lies with the truth.

My late friend’s widow, also my friend and an activist herself, has this quote by Margaret Mead at the end of each email message, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”

We must do everything in our power to make that true.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Outrage Over Gun Violence: ADDENDUM

Media discussion compelled me to more thoughts on the mass shooting at The Pulse in Orlando Florida:

Interestingly, the very highest statistical percentages of homicides fall into these two categories: white male on white male and black male on black male. This is about power and control; mostly about which alpha (or wannabe alpha) male has power over another. I would really like to see more specific research findings on this. A friend calls this alpha male aspect “toxic masculinity.”

The specious lie is that black men, "radical Muslims," or indeed members of any minority group, in possession of guns is “the greatest danger to our society.” This is completely incorrect and always has been.

White men with guns are the greatest danger to American society, by sheer demographic numbers, not to mention the stats on gun ownership. Research from 2014 found that while black men were more likely to be homicide victims, they are half as likely to have a gun in the home as non-Hispanic whites. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/#racial-and-ethnic-groups)

In 2010, black members of our nation represented 13% of our total population; black men represented 55% of homicide by gun. Much can be inferred from this simple data.

Shockingly, 2004 national firearms survey (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296683) reported 48% of individual gun owners have four or more guns, and suggested about two-thirds of all guns are owned by just 20% of all gun owners. Over 6 million Americans own 10 or more guns. (https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/gun-ownership-america-hemenway-survey-harvard/)

Guess which demographic is most likely to own an arsenal? What a surprise: White men are more likely own guns, and also to amass an arsenal because of societal entitlements that allow greater access.

Does all this ownership of guns constitute a well-regulated militia? Only if the “enthusiasts” are members of the police, military or National Guard. A woman retired from active military service suggested that everyone who wants to own and operate an arsenal really just needs get over themselves, needs to enlist and serve. Like that will ever happen…

ÐÑ

The greatest challenge to our world is finding an equitable balance in which all people can have a decent life, where they needn't fear others and where anger is a rare occurrence. The anger and rage that is allowed to billow like wildfire must be checked.

I believe capitalism is greatly responsible for all of this -- or, to say it in another way, I think this is a primary failing of capitalism. If you don't tend the garden of consumers wisely—providing jobs that enable them to live and buy another day—they’ll eventually morph into a raging mob you can't control unless you have a well-regulated militia. Of course, this is just precisely how the NRA likes it; the “garrison state” butters their bread.

ÐÑ

One of my readers expressed this in response to my blog of ___ : “… the attack on the LGBTQI community, particularly at a Latinx drag night, is an attack on alternative genders as well as the right of Latinx, people of color and whites of all genders to live or express an alternative gender. Given the shooter was not white but was American it is unclear what the racial / political dynamics of this incident were. We may never know but based on the questionable coverage it seems like a massive conflict between internal struggle with sexual orientation and external machismo and militancy.”

By way of response, I must emphatically agree.

However, most to the point for me is that people of multiple race, ethnicity, gender (alt, queer, straight, trad) and even nationality are the likely to have been the complete demographic makeup of those celebrating in The Pulse on the night of the shootings.

PEOPLE were killed or critically injured: mothers, fathers, children were killed or critically injured. I think this mass shooting attack is best defined as a crime against humanity. Really, it was our entire collective, culturally diverse and ever-evolving, beautiful society that was attacked by this shooter, who ultimately did not know or care about the humanity of any of those individuals, having (for whatever reason) objectified them all—or at least having abandoned his own humanity.  

While we can and should continue lobby with and through our identity constituencies, we must also lobby as a united front of American Citizens. Identity politics is fractured politics; equal rights and justice must be for all, no matter the demographic. To quote the old left wing anthem (from the 1880s!): “The international ideal / Unites the human race.” We need all our fragments, all our identities and cultural perspectives  to come together for this to be true.

On the main, our politics has become overly fragmented and polarized, rather than holistic. Our party system is antiquated and does not serve the collective or even the constituent voice. Suffrage has been eroded by legal dirty tricks, state by state. Party conventions used to be a forum during which a policy and program platform was built from among the delegate voices representing all various constituencies (this is how we used to be represented*); now they are merely rah-rah rallies for the nominees. Votes and consensus are socially engineered by a political elite (using the divide and conquer method) and receive plebiscitary endorsement at the polls.

I firmly believe there can be no stronger coalition for freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, equal rights, equal justice, equal protections (such as gun control) than a united movement of diverse citizens. I think our lobby will be strongest and most fully represented from that position.

© 2016 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen

*See Walter F, Mondale’s essay: “Atlantic City Revisited; The Mississipi Freedom Democratic Party and the 1964 Democratic National Convention.” This is a very important read; you find out, first hand, the convention dynamics that contributed to the Civil Rights Act and LBJ’s reelection. I contend that the kinds of compromise toward political change that took place at the 1964 and 1968 conventions can no longer happen in the party conventions of today. This link leads you to a version that includes interesting commentary in italics: http://www.crmvet.org/comm/miller-mondale.htm