Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Nobody I know voted for him...

by the stormy present Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:31:50 AM EST

Someone said this to me this weekend:

"I honestly don't know how he got elected. Nobody we know voted for him."

Guess what country she's from.


Nope. Not France. Surprise!

When you think about it, it could be anywhere.

On Saturday, I was talking to a mixed-nationality couple who live in Poland (she's Polish, he's not) and the topic turned to politics, specifically to the twin brothers who are Poland's President and Prime Minister.

Both husband and wife displayed a similar combination of emotions; they seemed simultaneously exasperated, embarrassed and a little angry about who's currently running the country:

Wife: "We were so surprised when he [the president] won. I don't know how he got elected. Nobody we know voted for him."

Me: "Hmmmm. That's sort of how we feel about Bush."

And now, with the French having elected Sarkozy, and the Germans Merkel, an so on, and so on, I'm wondering... WTF is going on? Has the whole world (except Italy and Spain) gotten more conservative?

There's more to it than just that. I honestly do hear the same refrain from a number of countries:

Nobody I know voted for him....

So there's another question -- is there some kind of unwritten global political apartheid system at work here? Are we more inclined than in the past to only associate with people who think like we do about politics?

To some extent, we might not be able to avoid it. Demographically, the statisticians tell us that there are geographic voting trends; the precise patterns may differ from country to country, but in many places big-city dwellers often vote differently than small-town or country folk.

In many countries, there are also religious or ethnic trends. Sometimes class is a predictor. At the same time, sociologists have long said that people tend to seek out and associate with other people "like" themselves.

So maybe it adds up to this: Nobody I know voted for him, and I don't understand how anybody could.

And while we sit there wondering how it happened, we (the progressives, you know, "us") have lost control. Someone out there is voting conservative. Lots of someones. And we don't know who they are! But it seems there are more of them than there are of us. Or at least there are enough people who can be swayed by them, who are being swayed, while we ask ourselves how it could possibly happen that so many people could be induced to vote against their own best interests.

And, too often, we say it with some disdain. Who are these people who are voting for them? Which might not be the best way to convince a fence-sitting moderate that "our" side is right.

::

Nobody I know voted for him....

::

In my case, it's not technically true. I do know people who voted for Bush. While my circle of friends voted almost entirely for not-Bush, my family is about 50-50. But even then, the pattern holds -- the major-city urbanites in my family tended to vote Democratic, while the small-Southern-city folks and rural dwellers tend to vote GOP. (There are a couple of politically-mixed marriages, as well.)

At any rate, my family tends not to talk politics, because we'd just kill each other. We're a hot-tempered bunch, and we have a tacit agreement that we just avoid subjects that will lead to bloodshed.

So maybe it's just avoidance. Avoidance of conflict? Yes, in my family, it's that. But there's also probably an element of avoidance of the other, even when the other is a blood relative.

Example: My brother-in-law actually refuses to go to parties where he might have to talk to Republicans. Seriously. (He also thinks the GOP should be dismantled and its leaders prosecuted.)

Maybe it's a spiral of silence. We're outnumbered. And getting more so with every election, it seems. (Except in Spain and Italy. Maybe I'll move there, so I can be with more people like me? Heh.)

But I digress. I don't know if this is really happening as much as I think it is, or if it's really new. But here's the real question: If it is happening, if we are increasingly associating with people "like ourselves," people who agree with us, are we -- and in this case, by "we" I mean lefties, liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us -- are "we" really doing ourselves any favors?

Because we can't change anybody's mind about how they should vote if we don't talk to them, and talk to them with respect. We may know we're right. We may be mystified by how anybody could not realize that. But it seems that some significant chunks of the world are trending in a direction "we" don't like, while "we" are scratching our heads and wondering if 50+ percent of people in [insert name of country here] have lost their collective minds, wondering how anybody could vote for him. Whoever he is.

Maybe we should knock off the head-scratching and start talking to folks, start seeking out the Other and engaging them. Start changing some minds.

Display:
... this is not specifically inspired by anything that's been said here on ET.  It just arose out of a series of conversations over the past few years with the same theme...
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:34:18 AM EST
I think that's a bit easier in countries that don't believe "their" reality is the only reality. Its kinda hard to talk with someone who feels that law-breaking is justified by the "Unitary Executive"...ie, if he breaks laws, its not illegal (huh??)

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:35:59 AM EST
What countries might you be thinking of?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of my family voted for Royal, but, as will not be too surprising, a great many of my colleagues and neighbors* are for Sarkozy (and were already for him, or occasionally for Bayrou, in the first round).

What's been most surprising has been the steady drift of left-wing people to Sarkozy (intellectuals, pundits, well known civil servants that used to lean left, etc...) It's been infuriating to see them follow the 'common wisdom'.

* Most of our neighbors who are our friends actually voted for Royal, so it would reinforce the idea that people do tend to join up with people with similar world views. Some of our friends supported Sarkozy and are still our friends (unless they taunt me too much... yes you know who you are).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:49:05 AM EST
I don't understand what possible justification someone with Socialist leanings could have had for voting for Sarkozy.

It should have been the proverbial no-brainer, surely.

What reasons did they give?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:01:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They won't give the real reason: that Royal is a woman.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:02:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Last month, a French friend told me she was planning to vote for Sarkozy.  My jaw almost hit the floor.  She was a little pained about it, but she seemed pretty certain.  She said she's voted Socialist her whole life, but she was very negative about Segolene Royal.  I still can't entirely figure it why.

One other thing she said was that all of her friends, who were all Socialists, were planning to vote Sarkozy too.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:13:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What it seems is that the Socialist Party has lost control of its base, possibly because they have lost control of the political discourse.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
they have lost control of the political discourse.

That also seems to be a common thread.  How can we get it back?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the strength of the Socialist parties came from their being class parties. There was a time when the blue-collar workers were numerous enough to tip the electoral balance and they had a class conscience.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:30:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And people were much more into being in organisations and communal actions. And memory of when things were very different. And the Socialists haven't yet grown their own elite.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:45:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the Socialists haven't yet grown their own elite.

Yes, they have, that is the problem. The Socialist elite has upper-middle-class concerns.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Duh! I was speaking of the strong Socialist past, not the weak Socialist present.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the Socialists haven't yet grown their own elite.

What would you call Mitterand, Jospin, Royal?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:08:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're the second respondent interpreting my line as pertaining to more recent times, rather than as I intended, contrasting with those times. Maybe I committed some grammatical error in English?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I committed some grammatical error in English?

Yes, you did. You used the word "haven't", indicating an event that has not, as of the time you are speaking, yet taken place. The correct word is "hadn't", indicating an event that had not, as of the time you are speaking about, yet taken place.

by Del C on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:35:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I just saw what you wrote in response to Miguel.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:14:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the strength of the Socialist parties came from their being class parties

Maybe the whole idea of socialism inherently contains the seeds of its own destruction for that very reason.

By the very definition of its ideals, if socialism succeeds, then socioeconomic classes go away -- removing a (the?) foundation on which it was based, it's raison d'être.

So keeping successful socialism alive as an ideology becomes an unglamorous maintenance job, no longer fueled by material needs or class consciousness.  Like brushing your teeth.  Or scrubbing the floors.  Once you clean things up, you're  psyched about how nice everything looks and feels.  But keeping them clean on a daily basis for the rest of your life:  what a chore!

Meanwhile, an ambitious minority that inevitably exists in every population will become bored with socialism and the moderate affluence it affords them, and will start to demand greater "freedom" to pursue their dreams and desires, unhampered by socialism's collective correctives.  And as afew writes below, it's easy to come up with a "Randian" narrative that appeals not just to this elite minority, but to the entire population.  And the rest is history.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Morir de éxito" was a famous catch phrase first used by Felipe Gonzalez at a Rally in the early 1990's. I think it captures what happened to the Socialist party in that decade.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We've talked about this a great deal on ET in the past. We lost control of political discourse with the counter-offensive of the right and big bucks from the late 'seventies on. They're offering a Randian mythology of the individual making it by work, talent, merit. It's very simple and it covers all the angles because individuals want to believe in their capacity for work, their talent, their merit, to the point where they will discount (even if presented with facts) the counter-reality - wealth snagged by a tiny minority, social mobility slowing.

We need a whole new narrative that people will want to embrace more than that one. No more, and no less.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm aware that we've talked about losing control of the political discourse... what I'm really asking is what the new narrative should be.  What trumps a Randian myth?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:48:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ready to get to work on it?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you think I'm doing here? :-)
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 11:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about this for a new narrative?

Humankind depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence. We do not believe that other species are expendable.

The Earth's physical resources are finite. We threaten our future if we try to live beyond those means, so we must build a sustainable society that guarantees our long-term future.

Every person, in this and future generations, should be entitled to basic material security as of right.

Our actions should take account of the well-being of other nations, other species, and future generations. We should not pursue our well-being to the detriment of theirs.

A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice.

We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them.

We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.

The success of a society cannot be measured by narrow economic indicators, but should take account of factors affecting the quality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment.

Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help effect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.

I think the problem is that political parties (political movements) take time (=decades) to set up, build momentum, take (some) political power, use that power to change behaviours/environments/outcomes, and from that base to build larger blocks.

Plus, you're talking about changing--evolving--a political discourse against a backdrop of existing political discourses.

So political types should be looking to see which--if any--political parties where they operate match their ideals re: ideal political outcomes (did/does the french PS meet this criterion, or was it a "not as bad as the other lot" option?); and if no such parties exist, then...there will be decades of work to be done, starting at the localest of local levels.

Or one can avoid political parties and get into "issue" politics, fighting for the issue(s) that most concern one, where the political party or parties that are most positive on these issues are supported in those areas.

An example from where I live: We have just had 20% voting directly for Green candidates.  Labour has gone backwards fast (they were in power, so they lost out because England--and other places, it seems--are "small c" conservative: change is bad, and to be moaned about.)  The conservatives now have power, BUT their manifesto was green (in colour); they discorse (as opposed to their actions...we'll see...) was green in nature.

And here's a bit of political reality.  We have terrible traffic issues, people like cars.  But the residents don't (except for their cars and the cars of their friends/family); so we have a permit scheme for residents and a very expensive meter system for others...and boy, the others hate it!  They can't park up in the centre of town (in front of my house) without paying a lot of money!

But I like the scheme!  Less cars = all benefits, no losses.  We have one of those "hire a car for the day" schemes; we have buses; we have a train station or five...(spread across town)...

But I expect their to be a backlash against the parking system...so...waddaya do?

Fight for better bike lanes!

heh heh...

...overall I think there is a world culture of "the winner vs. the loser": this explains people's attitudes (for me.)  The sixties (in Europe) was, rather, a time of "All of us together fighting reactionary stick-in-the-muds!"--well, it was way more complex than that, but it seems that once everyone (or a majority) accepts that the situation is: Win or Lose; then they will try to win for themselves...hence the fraying of the social fabric...and politicians needs to appear who categorically fight the Win/Lose dynamic...

...and how many here remember the sneering against "Sports where no one loses!"  Ptui!  And "Exams where no poor child [disdain!  Hack spit] ever has to feel badly because they didn't do well."

And so we'll have a growth in Winner vs. Loser until the losers are suffering so badly they accept an accomodation that says, "It's not about winning or losing; it's about..."

Well, I'm rambling.  Again!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 12:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, in the end, like TBG below, you're saying we have to wait till it's the Great Depression 2 or WW6 or Armageddon.

And even then there's no certainty people will spontaneously turn to a mutual or cooperative ideal as against when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 01:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, in the end, like TBG below, you're saying we have to wait till it's the Great Depression 2

No!  What I'm saying is that the new political constructions--those that will be strong in a decade or so--are in formation now.  Certainly there is a rise of some kind of right/ethnic/religious movement in central/eastern Europe; there is no concommitant rise of a "left" narrative that I can see--because the world has moved on from "How much of this (endless) pie can I take" back to "There isn't much pie, and that bit's mine!"

Or something!

I believe the nation state is dead, has been for a while, but it ain't gonna collapse for a couple of hundred years.  The EU is an example (Where are the borders?  Hmmmm.  Depends.  What's its ethnicity?  Hmmm.  There are lots.  Where's the seat of power?  Hmmm.  We have lots of different ones)...okay, it's not perfect, but I like the fuzziness.

However, it is also possible that regional blocks with malign intent will fight each other like old dinosaurs...

...so issues

1) What is to stop the global rich (i.e. that means us) from taking the best and leaving the rest (to rot?)  People have shown, en masse and over time, that unless they have some sacrificial ideal ("I die, but the dream lives on!"), then...hey, I don't want to take his stuff, but if some evil bastard from my side (there will be sides) just kinda goes over there and takes it, well, I won't say no.

I'd say that's more or less our current situation.

2)  We know through experimentation with educational systems, psychology, meditation, psilocybin, whatever you will...that the mind is...well...capable of enlightenment.  India has known this for these many thousands of years.  It has had a policy of non-violence since 800AD (he types wildly, but it's a long time and based on...profound thought)...so how are we to...enlighten people?  Well, I'd say you can't simply "enlighten" people--you have to elighten yourself and then...a web...a connectivity of enlightened people will become...visible.

And I don't mean that in any "pseudo science", "fantasy land" way.  Jerome has enlightened views (in my opinion) with regard to discussions of energy.  That naturally (I propose) has led and leads him to see connections, to make connections, and etc...  Nothing mystical; it's like hearing a band you really like and of course finding another ten similar bands and off you go.

But but but...cocaine!  Commerce!  24 hours eyeballs on the prize.  Over-stimulation.

So, I fully support ThatBritGuy's proposal to find out about

a) financial manipulation
b) sexual behaviours
c) drug use [very big!  They're all cocain fiends!]
d) treatment of family members [nepotism/exclusion]
e) etc...

and, yes, publicise publicise!  They want to be "in control".  Well, okay, Mr. Liar Cokehead Mistress Fucking Con Artist...

...and then I think of everything I know about Dick Cheney--and I don't really follow politics--and...I think...well...people already know all this stuff.  That fat guy (Rich Limbaugh is a big fat idiot!)...who got caught out on prescription drugs.  The idiots still listen...

...so there is a class/elite discourse, too.  "My" friends don't vote for idiots.  Well, if I could name my ideal political party it would be ZEN Communist, with ZEN written in fake fur....

...yap yap!

But no, certainly I do NOT mean "wait"; but we should also realise that a great depression or, more likely, a sudden revolution in habits due to either

a) the weather going very strange or
b) we simply run out of easily accessible resources (inlcuding...food)

....ya know, if those events occur while progressives are discussing "this or that candidate" (not that they are, but...my point is...), they will find that a party called "WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT FROM THEM IF THEY DON'T GIVE IT TO US", or some variant thereof, is picking up votes aplenty (link to far right groups...in my head...)

....we need a consumer revolution, a labelling revolution, an education revolution, transport revolution, work, money, you name it...so much to do!

Me, I'm putting Shakespeare's sonnets to music: it seems the right thing to do at this time.  Oh, and I'm cycling to work.  ;)  These are the acts of a ZEN communist and I will defend them with Tai Chi if I have to (I'll have to learn it first.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not a new narrative, that's an old narrative. It works for nice people, who are mostly middle class, and mostly don't need it. It won't work for people who think the pie is getting less taller, and they won't have enough food to put on their family. It also means nothing to narcissist and predators.

Something I don't understand is - what happened in the 60s? Suddenly colourful fun craziness came out of nowhere and took over the world.

True, by the time they got to middle age a lot of the boomers had given up on my g-g-g-generation and were talkin' about my c-c-c-corporation.

But still - things nearly went over the edge. And unless you count the Cold War, there was no obvious inciting incident that I can see.

Whatever it was, it needs to happen again.

Any ideas?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something I don't understand is - what happened in the 60s? Suddenly colourful fun craziness came out of nowhere and took over the world.

The Democratic Convention in Chicago in '68, according to Hunter S. Thompson.

The moral: the will shoot you and they will beat you and they will imprison you for no reason and they will...fuck you over because...you are now threatening their position.

That's not a new narrative, that's an old narrative. It works for nice people, who are mostly middle class, and mostly don't need it.

I don't understand that.  "Middle class" means...what, if your food is poisoned?  I don't have a problem with "middle class" if it means an end to "poor" and "rich"--a way of describing some middle ground.  I think "middle class" is a way of sneering at a varied group of people, some of whom have simply put various (tried and tested) techniques into action (e.g. Jerome following the French academic path) and...lo!...they free themselves from...debt...for example.

Does not having debt make one middle class, or is it the ownership of land, of skills...I don't know what it means.

Well, okay, I do.  I am middle class because...why?  I work--I am working class.  But I have "white collar" skills.  So working class means people without certain skills?  I thought the union revolution in the sixties (because concommitant with the hippies was a deep--in Europe--collective movement to mass-representation against elite privilege) was about...recognising class interest--of the workers (including managers, for example managers of production lines) against money (the factory owners.)  And if that produced better houses, better education, yack yack.  For all!

So I don't know what middle class means.  Maybe it means "breathing space"?

And I certainly think that many people we would identify as middle class have an URGENT need to find some enlightenment.  FT journalists are middle class.  Managers in international corporations are...most of them...middle class.  The upper classes are, if I remember Jerome's statistics right, 0.1% of the population--of Western countries!

So my idea is that we need, yes, another hippy revolution: Drop Out; Don't Go Into debt--unless it's with an LLP.  Realise that somewhere £20,000-£30,000 is enough....except that it isn't!  If you want to buy a house in London...so...

...revolutionise yer interior and look for evolution in the exterior--support evolution in public life, support revolution (even if it seems "naff") in private lives, and this time network in and through (this is the tricky bit) so that when the hammer comes down, we can step to the left, or sideways, and whack!  We ain't hit!

But some other git is.

Maybe one trick is to realise that it ain't gonna happen "in my lifetime", because there ain't an "it".  Life rolls on...order to chaos and back again (in the long view)...one human...lives and then dies.  Humanity, as a group project, evolves or dies.  If the West (wot dat?) disappears...hey, if 90% of humanity disappears, there will be 600 million people left, which is probably the population of the world two hundred years ago...

...man, I'm rambling badly!


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something I don't understand is - what happened in the 60s? Suddenly colourful fun craziness came out of nowhere and took over the world.

Sorry, I thought you wrote (calling Dr. Freud!) what happpened to end the 60s.

What created the sixties was the influx of money and jobs into the US after WWII, combined with movements in academia which the corporates weren't following, and yes I would say a heavy dose of psychotropic substances which do, the evidence is clear, re-adjust the spectacles we view life through severely.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But we love it when you ramble ;-) BTW that's what my parents did for pleasure in the 30s - ramble. In fact they met on a ramble.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a ramblin' man!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny that. I was just looking at some Lonnie Donegan clips on U-Tube.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still believe that the medium we are using right now will be the new form of politics, and will ultimately replace 'parties'. Politics has always been about the organized versus the unorganizable. Self-organization allows the unorganizable to come together.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that this will ultimately replace politics.

The netroots are the new shop floor. It's the best possible way to get people to organise using the tools available today.

But I'm not so convinced about parties. Parties seem very natural. And people seem to choose leaders who are seen to embody party values - much more so than they chose policies.

You won't get rid of parties unless you get rid of leaders. And you won't get rid of leaders until they're chosen by lottery, like jury service, rather than by ballot.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 07:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you have to include mobile phones.  For better or worse they have changed the nature of physical confrontations and (most?  all?) other social relationships.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 07:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what happened in the 60s?

Left wing politics were a fashion statement and the demographics (baby-boomers) made the atmosphere ripe for change. I honestly don't think there is much more to it.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 07:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Left wing politics were a fashion statement

Wow!

But yeah, for a lot of people I suppose it was a fashion statement.  They weren't involved, but they saw that it had energy, so they drifted towards it maybe....and then the shit hit the fan big time.

Those are US National Guardsmen in the foreground attacking unarmed students on the hill at Ohio's Kent State University in May, 1970.

http://mythingthepoint.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_archive.html

But perhaps the majority watched it all on T.V. and never felt it in their bones, so when the crunch really came down...

With billy clubs, tear gas and Mace, the blue-shirted, blue-helmeted cops violated the civil rights of countless innocent citizens and contravened every accepted code of professional police discipline ... No one could accuse the Chicago cops of discrimination. They savagely attacked hippies, yippies, New Leftists, revolutionaries, dissident Democrats, newsmen, photographers, passers-by, clergymen and at least one cripple. Winston Churchill's journalist grandson got roughed up. Playboy's Hugh Hefner took a whack on the backside. The police even victimized a member of the British Parliament, Mrs. Anne Kerr, a vacationing Labourite who was Maced outside the Conrad Hilton and hustled off to the lockup."[3]

In 1968, Jo Freeman wrote, "Over three dozen newsmen were injured in their attempts to cover the action.[4] In trying to explain his decision to quell the protests, Daley uttered one of the most famous quotes of the era: "The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response

I dunno...maybe I'm in a grumpy mood, but sneering (that's how it read to me) at those who (in however limited a way)...sorta realised that there were sides...left and right in those days...and chose the left...even from their armchairs...and even though they may have moved into denial of what went on...

There is a lot, a lot and then some more to learn from the sixties.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The above photos are why my authoritarian, common-citizen hating president didn't have the balls to call for a draft.

Your pictures do not paint an accurate picture of the times. Blacks and gays certainly risked death, and that is not to be joked about, but how many protesters in the US or Europe in the 60's and 70's honestly faced personal risk by protesting? This was not the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century - this was a new era of prosperity and privilege. Not even the same universe.

I don't think it's sneering at all. I acknowledge the good but I will not mythologize it. Ultimately once these people grew up, well, look at the world today.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but how many protesters in the US or Europe in the 60's and 70's honestly faced personal risk by protesting? This was not the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century - this was a new era of prosperity and privilege.

Isn't that the sub-text for a certain part of the definition of a particular segment of the middle-class?

Even though my parents struggled at times to put the type of food they wanted on the table, there was always a certainty that there would at least be some food on the table. Even though I hadn't a university trust (or university degree), I was raised in a tempo that supplied a certain confidence that I will not have a lot of trouble getting through life intact. (Helps that I am white anglo of course.)

So, I could demonstrate and occupy the deans office, I could experiment and keep my hair long, but in the end it was certain that I would have my share in the 'new era of prosperity and privilege."

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 05:30:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, sorry for going all picture-heavy on you.

I think we're talking about two different groups of people.  I'm talking about the following:

a) People coming out of McCarthy period (California/Hollywood/implications for work--definitely)

b) Academia -- rise of "alternative" theories and alternative depts and universities even, which gave middle class kids a safe entree (perhaps) into new ways of viewing the world and, concommitant with that

c) the civil rights movement, which certainly was dangerous for anyone involved down south, white or black, but you're right: the numbers are small

d) the movement of the state towards seeing "any" alternative views as being potentially dangerous...threat levels creep up on the "middle class" types who maybe started feeling less comfortable.

I was annoyed at your statement(as I read it) that the sixties was a bunch of faux-leftists all growing up young together...and that was it.

So I just wanted to set some context for the faux leftism and point out that the sixties was (in my opinion) a very important period--one we are still suffering the shocks from, good and bad (a good shock is that, as you say, Bush simply cannot reintroduce the draft)...

So sorry for getting picture heavy on ya.

Ultimately once these people grew up, well, look at the world today.

Well, I'm not sure how the story runs in the US, but over here the old hippies are famous (among those who know) for setting up the organics business, buying land in Wales (ask ceebs!), becoming liberal teachers, perhaps, and generally being mellow productive citizens.

Thatcher was a product, I think, of unionisation--and knock on effects.  Reagan, I imagine, was a product of the US's need to somehow get over Nixon, and maybe get over too much cocaine in the seventies (not the sixties), and generally get over...whatever they'd done that had psyched them out so bad.  Or maybe they all wanted a tax cut.  I dunno.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 07:28:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't intend it as negatively as you felt it was (on rereading it does sound pretty dismissive). To expand on it briefly, I think there were reasons the various movements emerged embryonically (which is more important to understand IMO) and then they became fashionable as a form of rebellion for the young masses (given the demographics at the time). I don't think "fashionable" has good or bad connotations in this context - the outcomes are what is important.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 12:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
first we were soooo many....going to festivals and seeing my first crowds, only 30,000 or so, but wild...the buzz...never before had such a demographic existed...all conceived in the first years of peace, when people were sick, traumatised by the horror, desperate to create a new wave of babies to distract them from the stench of waste, death-by-numbers and destruction they had seen, so young themselves...

so they, the survivors, fucked like rabbits and created the boomers, projecting that desire for peace and prosperity onto us, who ran with it to places our parents could not relate to.

communication was coming on full tilt. the tv generation, images that moved us into a shared future, seeing earth from space, stirring speeches from jfk and mlk, and the giant reality check of vietnam.

these factors all played their part.

nowadays the slavering media - that made shitloads of money banalising hippies during those years, waits to pounce on any smidgeon of novelty and pump it full of emptiness....

so much so that people have become leery of enabling them, they are such compulsive hacks....better to steer clear of the 'pedestalise so to cut down later' syndrome, play the cards close to the chest....give them one second of earnest, heartfelt energy and watch them do summersaults sneering and belittling, so to keep their readers smugly happy with their eviscerated voyeurism...

there was so little irony then....now there's nothing else, and we have become addicted to cheap putdowns as just another consumer item, to devour and forget, another mars bar, the wrapper tossed to the kerb like yesterdays newspapers...

rhetoric is easy, and leaves one vulnerable...

better the steady accumulation of tiny, seemingly inconsequential acts (random kindness), no fanfare, folderol or brouhaha, just the acts, ma'am,  gritty and funky with truth, torn edges where it was ripped out of our hearts.

as the lies get shinier and more persuasive, resistance melting away with morality, whatever that was....

the spin ever more artful, the trance ever deeper, along with the methane farts from all the bullshit production.

it takes but a few seconds for a good meme to be cowpiled on to, covered till it crusts into 'history'...

whatever new fervent declaration, it ends up an exxon ad.

whatever brave song of courage and freedom, abracadabra - it's the soundtrack for indulgence so brazen, so shamelessly selfish, so pathetically shallow and vain, so plumb thoughtless...

feel a profound aha coming on?

bite your tongue and go pull weeds instead...

starve the beast, it has swallowed the dreams and hopes of the naively soulful, and fattened its beastly rump on them into fibroid, cancerous cellulite.

there is no ism that will help us now, no Big Idea, no snake-oil, no salvation-on-a -stick.

just truth, unshaken, unstirred.

we cannot promote reality, nor gild the lily, we can only accelerate the end of illusions by serenely snarking on them, so deductive reasoning can have more space to grow.

if we try to dis-place, there will be more pushback.

when they have run out their pathologies, perhaps we can re-place...

apathy reaches out its embrace, murmuring of enlightenment, and old sufi tales that make me smile wistfully, i guess, for we no longer outnumber 'them', the window closed and the shutters too and our memories refuse to revise themselves....it was so real, so real...

STILL IS!

we have to be subtle as serpents, and gentle as doves, or we are just more grist for the mill-(ionaires).

without us to give them fuel for their unholy fire, they'll be down to reprocessing the old fuel rods of yore....

keep it lowdown, avoid tall buildings and crowded places...

when critical mass comes, perhaps the very swiftness will show us why we had to be so patient, soooo long.

new channel tonight...


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
first we were soooo many....going to festivals and seeing my first crowds, only 30,000 or so, but wild...the buzz...never before had such a demographic existed...all conceived in the first years of peace, when people were sick, traumatised by the horror, desperate to create a new wave of babies to distract them from the stench of waste, death-by-numbers and destruction they had seen, so young themselves...

Exactly.  So many, and so young!  Naturally it was going to be a fun and wild and crazy time.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 11:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think in the 1960's there was unprecedented prosperity in California and many other places. Unlikely to happen again.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 03:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to be flippant, I don't know the answer.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 11:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think what's happened is that the peasants now identify with their masters. They refuse to accept that they are peasants. And even if they were, they believe the masters have their interests at heart.

We're all neocons now. Heartening, isn't it?

If it were down to me, I'm afraid I'd be running an old-fashioned muck-racking campaign. Probably the only way to demolish the mythology is to demolish the authority of the masters with blunt character assassination. (And it probably wouldn't take much.)

Dig out as much dirt about sex and drugs as possible, make it as public as possible, and then make people wonder if they really want to associate with these people. Contrast photos of mansions and helicopters with photos of sweatshops and stories of child labour.

That kind of thing. It's ugly and crude, but I really can't see an effective alternative.

Historically, narratives only seem to change during times of significant stress. So I suspect we'll simply have to write off the next five to ten years and live with a significant drift towards fascism.

When the smoke and rubble start to clear and people are sick and tired of violence, poverty and death, there will be an opportunity to re-establish a genuine New Left - assuming there's anyone left to care.

But I can't see it happening by pushing talking points around. When Socialists start voting for someone on the far Right in significant numbers, we're depressingly past that stage.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 11:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
demolish the authority of the masters

Fine by me, but who are the (publicly identifiable) masters?

When the smoke and rubble start to clear and people are sick and tired of violence, poverty and death,

A good war usually cleans things up. I wish I was being snarky.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 01:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You probably can't go after the prime movers. But you can check the momentum on the board by removing a few of the more accessible pieces - which means anyone in the public eye.

Private Eye in the UK was started to do this, but it's become a token gadfly and pressure valve - useful to have around, so people can pretend that there's some kind of accountability, but not aggressive enough to make a difference.

However, it wouldn't be enough to find individuals. The narrative would have to tie them to their ideology, so that as one went down so did the other.

This is largely what killed the Tories in 1997, and the corruption angle hasn't entirely gone away, even after ten years.

But that angle became associated with an instantiation of the conservative party, rather than with the ideology itself. To change the narrative a link has to be made between both, so that when people think of corruption, exploitation and backhanders they'll think of the City, the Econo and the rest of the financial establishment.

It's a risky business, and I'd hope anyone attempting it in practice has a very long spoon indeed. But since we no longer do direct action and demonstrations (because direct action and demonstrations don't work) staking out a prominent household-name position in the media is probably the only way to make a counter-narrative stick.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Somewhere in my CD collection I have an album called End of the centiury party by a guy called Gary Clail. In the middle of that album is a track called Two thieves and a liar, so far, so unremarkable, but in the middle of the track is a sample taken from a tv programme from the early eighties. Now that programme I' saw when it first came out, and commented that there was no way that it would ever be shown again.

The program consisted of one of the 60's gangsters, Charlie Richardson or Frankie Fraser being let out of prison, he was picked up by a TV crew for World in Action and taken to see the haunts of all the modern day crooks  . The Gangster took the film crew to the City of London, and ran a running comentary of how the people who worked in the financial institutions were the biggest bunch of crooks in the country.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 08:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Historically, narratives only seem to change during times of significant stress. So I suspect we'll simply have to write off the next five to ten years and live with a significant drift towards fascism.

When the smoke and rubble start to clear and people are sick and tired of violence, poverty and death, there will be an opportunity to re-establish a genuine New Left - assuming there's anyone left to care.

What is needed is to start pushing a narrative that will become relevant after the crisis comes to a head.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 03:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, the idea needs to be already in people's minds, ready to take over when their current worldview is shown by facts to be inadequate. [Note I am not dismissing how strong the facts need to be in order for people to question their worldview].

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 04:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is very much what "religion" (in its various guises) has done in the so-called "developing world" (and to some extent in the rich world too) over the last 20 to 30 years, as peoples' post-colonial optimism (and ideologies) died in a swamp of corruption and conflict and other ills.  Pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism, Marxism, capitalism... all of them have lost their lustre, and people have in greater and greater numbers turned to religion, which has generally always been, on balance, a force for conservatism.   (Although certainly there are examples to the contrary, I'm talking in overall historical trends.)

Such a shift is bound to happen again, as it has in the past.  Progressives need to be prepared.  The conservatives are winning the talking war at the moment, but the pyramid scheme can only last so long.  But ideally, we need a vision and a narrative and a plan that can actually deliver, can actually improve peoples' lives rather than just deliver promises and no results.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 05:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know the answer either, and I wish I did.  Working on it.

In the meantime, Washington Post op-ed columnist E.J. Dionne had some thoughts about this in today's paper:

Nonetheless, the social democratic and liberal left faces a big problem because globalization makes the movement's core pledge -- to produce economic growth that lifts up the poor and the middle class as well as the rich -- far more problematic.

For much of the period after World War II, national governments found it relatively easy to redistribute wealth and income through taxes and decent wage agreements negotiated by strong labor unions. Globalization and heightened competition are taking a toll on unionized industrial jobs, while national governments have less freedom of action when capital is so mobile. As a result, thriving emerging economies are enjoying higher growth rates than their traditionally wealthy competitors.

And where Royal won by almost 3 to 2 among public-sector workers (she also carried students and the unemployed), she lost private-sector workers (as well as the retired). The left can't win without a better showing among workers in the private economy.

In fact, Royal's biggest problem was reflected in another Ipsos finding: While 42 percent of her voters said their ballots were aimed primarily at keeping Sarkozy out of the presidency, only 18 percent of Sarkozy's voters said they cast negative ballots against Royal. The left is in trouble when its campaigns are based more on anxiety about the right than on the hopes that progressives inspire.

But the center-left clearly needs a shot of dynamism. It must convey a clearer sense that it knows how to preserve social justice in a globalized economy and how to respond to a growing impatience with government. It must figure out how to preserve civil liberties, protect immigrants and foster an inclusive sense of national solidarity at the same time.

Dionne is what passes for a lefty in the WaPo stable of editorial writers.  I don't always agree with him, and his genial center-left moderatism is in no way a balance to the shrill, soulless conservatism of the rightwing WaPo columnists (who far outnumber their colleagues on the left).  But he is at least thoughtful and considered, and I think he makes a very important point when he said the left must find ways to inspire voters, not rely on their fears about the right.

Our fears (or at least my fears) about the right are growing stronger every day, but that clearly isn't enough to win elections, at least not yet.  One wonders exactly how bad the right would have to get before people are scared enough to stop voting for them.  I would rather not wait for that.  We need a vision now.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 03:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nonetheless, the social democratic and liberal left faces a big problem because globalization makes the movement's core pledge -- to produce economic growth that lifts up the poor and the middle class as well as the rich -- far more problematic.

For much of the period after World War II, national governments found it relatively easy to redistribute wealth and income through taxes and decent wage agreements negotiated by strong labor unions. Globalization and heightened competition are taking a toll on unionized industrial jobs, while national governments have less freedom of action when capital is so mobile. As a result, thriving emerging economies are enjoying higher growth rates than their traditionally wealthy competitors.

That is, the essence of globalisation is nothing other than the mobility of capital. Governments have to enact policies in the interest of capital because capital has at its disposal the threat of just taking the money away. And without money, real capital [physical and human] cannot be mobilised.

Which brings us, I think, to monetary reform. A national government would have to base the value of its currency on the country's immovable assets instead of on internationally movable credit in order to be able to enact a social economic policy.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 04:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
either intensely dislike Royal (for not always open reasons, so Migeru's hypothesis might be playing), or seem to have been taken by the need for "reform" and "change" and "respect for authority" that Sarkozy embodies apparently so well.

Amongst the civil servants, pundits and the like, it's the need to 'reform' that dominates - cut off debt, reform the State, do something about the time bombs of pensions, do something with affirmative action and the like. They have bought the line that the socialists are the real conservative bunch.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dare I say Reagan Democrats?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gee Jérôme I really feel for you...

...but why would a friend taunt you ?!?  I mean sure, Sarko beat the pinko like a red headed stepchild, (how hard was that gonna be, duh!), but still, taauunting?  Plus with all the great tax breaks comin' down the pipes (KACHINK !!!!  YEHAWWW !!!) your friend will probably be able spend massively on serious liquor, have you over for drinks, thus reducing your (pinko whiney) sorrow : "(music)'cause that's what friends R 4 !(end music)"

Oh I'll need the list of your neighborhood friends who voted for Sego (WTF?!?) : they're messin' with big Nic's excellent 80% rate in our 'hood and need to relocate to boboland!

uno seis : mi barrio es primero !

by Guillaume on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Converting all our tax breaks into liquor should be an acceptable mitigant to yesterday's results. It might even solve peak oil, LOL!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know people in that situation, but am not in it myself.

Sometimes it is a class thing, sometimes it is assuming agreement where there is scant political discussion. The latter includes people in the opposed position, e.g. laying low among colleagues/relatives predominantly of a diferent political persuasion.

There is also an atomised-society, individualism-dooming-the-commons angle to this, which would be just right for me to expand on, but honestly I don't feel like at the moment.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:03:08 AM EST
Great diary.

Since Bush has been president, I have gotten into some extremely heated debates with close friends who are extremly conservative politically.  (e.g. one of my dearest college buddies came very close to telling me, publicly, that what I was saying was treason.)

But no matter how bad it got, I've tried firmly to keep two things in mind:

  • No matter how sure I may be about my own version of "reality", "the truth", "the facts", etc. there is always a possibility that I may be wrong -- and that the other person is right.

  • Politics are direly important.  But human relations and personal bonds, formed through shared experience and interactions, are more important, and ultimately more substantial and real than political opinions and ideologies.

So, I continue to value my friendship with the guy who almost called me a traitor, and I continue to have deep affection and respect for my French relatives who are quite far right and very strong Sarkozy supporters.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:06:38 AM EST
I'm in the rather worse situation of disagreeing with almost everyone I meet face-to-face on politics. The gap with my liberal(?) acquaintances (majority of my relatives) is already painfully big, I had a number of very heated discussions on police violence and healthcare reform. The difference is even greater to right-wing of far-right people (majority of colleagues), and when I don't awoid a squabble, the other side usually gets very emotional (especially when I dig up some statistics).

However, like you, I had no on-going (as opposed to potentially-in-the-making) personal relationships terminated due to politics.

With that said, I disagree with you on two counts.

One, I think politics is not just direly important, but it is itself about human relations and (communal) bonds, formed through shared experience and interactions, and as such not the least less substantial and real than personal relationships. At a different level, yes, less accessible to individuals, yes, more prone to misconceptions, perhaps, but just as real as both a raindrop and a storm.

The second thing may not really be a disagreement, but a matter of emphasis. I think that a political mistake is also a responsibility also applies to voters in a democracy ('only' the responsibility is spread out and spread thin). For me 'but they are decent people' is no excuse, precisely because point 1, that I think politics is just as real (and it certainly is for, say, people at the receiving end of political choices like expelled refugees). This doesn't mean the opposite of deepest respect (e.g. considering people making a wrong political choice beyond the pale), but a limited respect. As an imperfect analogy, think of the idea that even convicted criminals should be treated humanely -- e.g. no human is 100% evil or good, and may change their views, and the latter two parts deserve respect.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you've hit on something very important there, which is the idea that people believe they have no responsibility for political outcomes.

This is partly passive disaffection - it doesn't matter who you vote for, the politicians always win.

And partly active indifference - politics is something that happens on TV and in the papers. It's not something that happens day to day.

The idea that electorates have some responsibility is a completely novel one to most people. 'Who, me? How...?'

So a good first step to crafting a narrative is to recreate that political engagement.

How do you do that? Tricky...

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 11:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An old friend of mine said he used to argue to people "everything is political: my two-year old cousin is political". The debasing of politics and the propagation of the idea that ordinary people should not concern themselves with politics is a dangerous sign. Franco used to say "do like me, don't get involved in politics".

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One, I think politics is not just direly important, but it is itself about human relations and (communal) bonds, formed through shared experience and interactions, and as such not the least less substantial and real than personal relationships. At a different level, yes, less accessible to individuals, yes, more prone to misconceptions, perhaps, but just as real as both a raindrop and a storm.

I hear you.  I admit, I can envisage scenarios where I would act based on a political principle, knowing that someone I cared deeply about would cut off the relationship because they did not agree with my action for political reasons.  In this sense, I would be putting politics before people.  However, after thinking it through more, I think what I originally meant was that I hope I would never do the same to another person.  That is, no matter how severely I disagreed with their political/politically-based action, I would continue to hold out for a chance that somehow, some time, we could find some reconciliation, some mutual acceptance or forgiveness, some common point to begin reestablishing mutual understanding and sympathy.  I sense I am being very naive and unimaginative: I have never lived in a society torn apart by civil war or religious divisions or ethnic conlict or the like.  But that is the ideal I hope for.

On your second point,

For me 'but they are decent people' is no excuse, precisely because point 1, that I think politics is just as real (and it certainly is for, say, people at the receiving end of political choices like expelled refugees).

Yes, I see what you're saying.  But political principles are not mathematical principles: they are interpretive, approximate, context-sensitive, and most of all, imperfect.  Ultimately, political principles are there for us, not us for them.  Of course, by this I don't mean any arbitrary, self-serving interpretation or bending of political principles is okay.  Rather, being approximate and imperfect, inevitably they will not be able to operate perfectly in every imaginable context, and therefore where they fall short in addressing human needs and actual situations, we should always default to accomodating people before a deficient political principle.*

Also, I go back to my first point:

No matter how sure I may be about my own version of "reality", "the truth", "the facts", etc. there is always a possibility that I may be wrong -- and that the other person is right.

And the corollary, Judge not lest ye be judged.

But with this --

no human is 100% evil or good, and may change their views, and the latter two parts deserve respect.

I agree wholeheartedly.

*You bring up expelling refugees.  On this theme, Sarkozy would put politics before people in the sense that for him, the principle of following the law -- in this case, immigration law -- has priority over the livelihoods of the illegal immigrants he would expel through his circulaire last summer.  But, he might argue, in addition, that he was not only putting politics before those people, but other people before those people -- i.e. those people who are legally residing in France, particularly French citizens. -- and thus was not putting politics of people in general, but using politics in the service of people as it was intended.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 12:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to dismay you but Prodi's government is only left on the sidewalk leaflets. It does its best at times to outdo the right with rightwing bills. I am thoroughly disenchanted.
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:34:57 AM EST
Well, it is the left half of the Italian political system. But Prodi is a prestigious mainstream economist himself, so what do you expect? It's like expecting Solbes (Zapatero's economy and finance minister) to follow a "left" economic policy. Zapatero's "progressive" agenda is not on the economy.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Prodi's economic program is left by Italian standards. It would be normal, even sensible, by other nations' standards. It's probably the only thing I go along with considering the context.

On major social issues, his government passes wind. There is an involution on key issues such as freedom of the press. The handling of the Abu Omar kidnapping is scandalous, possibly a violation of European treaties. At times it appears Berlusconi's agenda is being applied by proxy.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 01:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have been thinking about this...a lot...for awhile now. But the situation here is not unlike in the US a few years, in that now we clearly see a number of issues: 1. The Right owns the media, and has gotten everyone (even the many on the Left) to believe the lies and misinformation. 2. The Right seems to know how to use the media better than the Left (a big issue here is Switzerland). 3. The Left seems to have forgotten how to talk to people in a way that shows that they understand their basic concerns, and has a plan to deal with it. Kitchen table issues, as they say. (What are the kitchen table issues now?)

If Sarkosy was such a flip-flopper, why weren't people pointing this out all the time? This does remind me of the 2004 presidential election in the US. The Left seems like they are like the Democratic Party was. Now the Democratic Party is really starting to turn things around...and largely because of pressure by the netroots...and I see a big role for us in this respect in the coming weeks, months & years. We can be a big source of energy and information...for any Center-Left who will listen to us and use our help (SP; Greens, whoever...).  

That's my thoughts on it...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 01:33:12 PM EST
I imagine it's easier to not know anyone who voted for 'them' in the US or Poland than it is in France. The French don't have the 'what's the matter with Kansas' voters or their urban affluent counterparts the 'what's the matter with the Upper West Side' types - no culture wars - Repub candidates here in the city have to express their undying devotion to abortion and gay rights to signal to the upper middle class whites that they're not one of 'them' - i.e. the fundy Christians. Plus geographic divides aren't as stark (Kerry won 86.3% in my CD, 86.1 in the neighbouring one, 89.7 where I used to live in Manhattan.) Even the couple neocon socio-economically right wing types I know tended to lean against Bush. In Poland  left-right just don't track socio-economic policy    at all.
by MarekNYC on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 01:48:43 PM EST
I have at least 2 friends who voted for Balkenende (and my bro voted for Rouvoet (no he's not a fundy, but Rouvoet had some camp appeal going for him). Then again, I also know some people who voted for the Dierenpartij. And, pushing the fringe, one of my German friends is a regular APPD voter. The last time I debated politics with my friends in a way that really goes beyond coffee chatter was in the era of Fortuyn, though (tried to tell people that he was a wrong-headed populist, but I don't think I really influenced many).

P.S. The pendulum will swing back. In France, you can start pushing back in June already.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:26:46 PM EST
This line, part joke part truth, has been around for a long time.  The first time I heard it was the 1984 2nd term election for Reagan, versus Walter Mondale.  Reagan won in a true landslide.  He carried 49 of the 50 states--the only state going for Mondale was his home state of Minnesota.

The story was of a Manhattan high society woman who purportedly said this line to a friend about Reagan's victory: "I don't know anyone who voted for him", and of course she didn't.

It's of course due to sampling bias, as described here.  If you want to see another example, look at the May 3rd vote on ET, where 62% of ET voters predicted a Royal victory, despite no reputable polls showing the election being close.

by wchurchill on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 06:21:19 PM EST
At the night grocery, located in a popular and somewhat beur district of Toulouse, on Friday evening (2 days before the election), my colleague and I launched a survey. We tried to be casual/neutral/factual about it, to encourage clients to participate. Responses were something like 90% "Ségolène", 1% "blank", and 9% "No thanks, I don't wish to participate in this survey / My car's engine is running / etc".
by glomp on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 10:07:55 PM EST
When you think about it, it could be anywhere.

That exactly happened to me twice. First in Serbia when Milosevic has been wining those elections continuously and I couldn't believe my eyes. Last election, as we were politically very active we were controlling/counting electoral votes (literally and personally as members of different commissions for our opposition party). And yes, he won that election ...I left country in 1994 totally disappointed after that election.
Also last election here in Australia. Howard and his band won again, even if it was SOOO obvious where he is going. He actually told the electorate "honestly" where he is going to lead them and they still voted for him. I was astonished.

While we ask ourselves how it could possibly happen that so many people could be induced to vote against their own best interests.

That was exactly my question last time here in Australia. Are people generally STUPID?

Well...we do not know how people voted. People lie about how they voted...would you believe it? They lie their friends! Cause they feel they made something wrong...but they for some reason believed that it's going to be good for them.
My point is IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANY NATION ! Even if (about) half of people that voted ( not half of the population) do not want some leader or government they may win. And yes they can do all the nasty things to you and your children ,strip you of your rights and even your freedom ,  they can take you to wars that you never wanted to go and they can make you be hated around the globe. And yes it can happen to western democracies as well as communist dictatorships. No one is immune. Look at the Americans ...they can't get rid of Bush even if his approval rates are about 28%. He can take them to another wars, he can veto what ever their representatives deliver in Congress and Senate...OK it is presidential democracy but look at Australia...

if we are increasingly associating with people "like ourselves,"

In a way we are. Geographically we live in areas where we and our neighbors can afford to live...we work with people of similar financial situation...

Because we can't change anybody's mind about how they should vote if we don't talk to them,

It's no use, believe me! It's waste of power and time. People can learn only on their own. When they lose benefits and rights they'll learn fast. But it needs to hit them hard. It's only one bitter medicine that those crooks use against logic. It's patriotism! This is exactly what Milosevic (Balkan wars) and Bush (9/11 and war on "terra") and all the others on the right are using...but eventually it has an end...after a lot of damage done...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 03:02:37 AM EST
Great article, thank you! It has inspired very interesting discussion...and more is needed too. I would like to see us identify more of what are the key concerns that everyday people have, and be talking about progressive ways to address them.

Excellent, tsp!

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Tue May 8th, 2007 at 03:47:59 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]