Posts Tagged ‘Scott Brown’

The Angry Bear stalker defense: Dems should ignore Scott Brown’s victory…

January 31, 2010 Leave a comment

The Angry Bear blog has a different take on the question raised by the BBC: Why voters vote against their own interests? The answer given by Angry Bear is hardly more satisfying than that given by the BBC, but the conclusion adds a slight twist. To paraphrase the conclusion:

She may not be all that into you, but she is confused about what she does want, so ignore her screams.

Harsh, right?

We apologize again for being an asshole here, Maggie, but we think you need to reconsider your conclusion. Angry Bear presents some pretty compelling evidence that the voters in Massachusetts were all over the map with regard to the current attempt at health insurance reform in Washington – if reform is the correct word for what is happening. The voters seem pretty certain that health insurance is important to everyone, but believe they do not have the responsibility to assure access to insurance for everyone. They are, it is clear by the polling data, being selfish rude uncaring dicks. Which is not an all that surprising observation about Massachusetts voters, who have the uncanny ability to forget that anyone else exists once the are safely seated inside their horribly overpriced raised ranch, on their Bob’s Discount Furniture sectional, in front of their 42 inch, wide-screen, high-definition plasma television, watching American Idol.

The fact is, Massachusetts voters really are mostly selfish rude uncaring dicks.

They spend an inordinate amount of time listening to shock radio neo-Nazi Jay Severin spout on about crimnaliens, and other darker peoples of low intelligence, morals, and greater than average proclivities toward debasing society and its laws. As neighbors, they are not nice people, and, frankly, it is almost physically revolting to spend much time with them and listen to them drone on endlessly about sports scores and other inanities which seem to have near sacred import within the local culture.

That Harvard and other institutions of higher learning are co-located with them, is less an argument for Boston culture than it an argument for really good zoning laws.

Despite that, Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly sent Obama to Washington to change it. They did not know what change looked like – their vision was incoherent at best and dangerously fascistic at its worst. But, they sensed, in some dimly understood fashion short of what might be called a consciousness of themselves as a distinct social class in society irreversibly in opposition to the empire, that Washington does not function in their interests. And when the “change” Obama undertook in Washington fell short of this dimly understood sense, they sent Scott Brown to reemphasize the message.

It is a jumble – a mess – a chaotic mixture of near meaningless data which grows less meaningful when laid out in the form of exit polls and followup interviews. But, the gist of the meaning is clear: They hate Washington.*

Please, Maggie, et al. Pretend the voter is your date. You have to listen to her screams: She just not into you, and a hand over her mouth isn’t going to change that.

* Note: Okay. They may not yet be to the point where they hate Washington, but they are as deeply suspicious of the motive of Washington politicians as any of the new voters Obama brought into the process.


Plouffed: An alternative hypothesis…

January 30, 2010 2 comments

The BBC has an article which purports to explain why un-unionized working people will tend to vote against their own interest. They introduce the discussion with a shocking statistic:

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

In the BBC’s explanation,voters feel they are being taken for granted:

As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.

This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.

And when the politicians say to the people protesting: ‘But we’re doing this for you’, that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.

The argument is tempting. The writer and his sources work off the implicit assumption that Washington is busily doing what is in our interest and getting slapped for it. This assumption, however, is never substantiated.

The article also does nothing to explain the other likely scenario: that Washington is taking them for granted – treating them as if they were of marginal concern. It tries to explain the voters’ response to the snub, but not the snub itself.

Plouffed…(3) (Retracing our steps)

January 29, 2010 Leave a comment

Welcome to Wal-Mart!

As you probably guessed, the work here is usually the first take on a hypothesis. We tend to write with firm convictions, but, in reality, we are trying to make sense of this shit as much as you are. We struggle with the same question you do: How the fuck did that happen? Unlike many of you, however, we don’t believe in the explanatory power of accidents, fools, or God! If shit happens, then the conditions of society must make it both possible and, to some extent, historically necessary.

So, as we really began to think about how you were left defenseless by the absence of your own organizations a question immediately came to mind: Why does this matter? Certainly, workers at Wal-Mart seem quite satisfied with their jobs and lives – at least as satisfied as the rest of us – and, appear to believe they are not harmed in any fundamentally important way by the lack of a union.

Further up the employment food chain there is little dissent with this view.

You may argue that this view is wrong, but any hypothesis which seeks to explain why the lack of a union at Wal-Mart has been the single most important expression of the dire predicament you now face must also explain why the indifference of Wal-Mart workers to the union movement is a embedded in that predicament without relying on such external devices as misinformation, bribery, propaganda, stupidity, or tricks.

Our explanation would be that a union itself provides the necessary (but, apparently, not sufficient) condition for the development among its members of thoughts and actions consistent with their position as members of a distinct class.

To understand why consider that, separately, each Wal-Mart worker is actually in the same business as Wal-Mart: They sell commodites – goods. And, taken individually, workers have the same concerns as Wal-Mart in this regard: How much can I get for what I have to sell? Wal-Mart sells badly made shoes from China. Wal-Mart’s workers sell their physical selves for a certain period of time. There is, in theory, no difference between Wal-Mart’s view of the world and the view of the world held by its employees, insofar as they are considered only as someone with something to sell. Although both Wal-Mart and its employees are, in reality, far more complex than this simple picture of their interests would suggest, they share a common concern: If either Wal-Mart or its employees are unable to sell their goods, they die or go bankrupt.

However, the circumstance each faces is actually unequal in this regard: If the employee is unable to sell her good – her physical self – she will die, but Wal-Mart probably will continue. The reverse case does not hold: If Wal-Mart is no longer able to sell its good, the employee will be unable to sell hers – and, thus, she will die anyway. The sale of her good is dependent on the sale of Wal-Mart’s goods, but the sale of Wal-Mart’s goods is not dependent on the sale of her good. Strictly considered only from the standpoint of Wal-Mart and its employee as simple sellers of a commodity, the interest of the employee is that Wal-Mart flourishes so that she might be able to continue selling her commodity to it. The initial premise of her thought and action is not, therefore, rooted in her definite social position as a worker, but in her position as a commodity seller.

Should she, or a co-worker, get into their head that a union might make things a little less intolerable at Wal-Mart, the first thought that comes to mind is the possibility she might lose the opportunity to sell her commodity as a result. The most important function a union provides is not that of an instrument to engage capital in the struggle over wages and working conditions, but to make it possible for the worker to develop an independent consciousness of herself as a member of a class through those struggles. Without it, that consciousness cannot easily develop.

What you saw on the chart we produced – the decline in union membership since 1948 – is, most importantly, a decline in the capacity of an entire class to think for itself, act on its own behalf and in its own interest, even as a relentless war was being waged against it.

(As an aside: If we wanted to stunt the growth of unions among service sector workers in this country, we would probably pick and capitalize a small retailer in a backward right-to-work state like Arkansas to take nation wide. We would also deliberately expand it, first, in places marked by lower wages and income and minimal unionization. Just a thought.)

The victory of Scott Brown…

January 20, 2010 Leave a comment

Somebody is going to get the blame for what’s happening right now to the American public. They’re incredibly angry and incredibly frustrated. And somebody’s going to get credit for trying to turn it around. And right now, we’re getting the blame and we’re not getting the credit and that formula has to change.”

–Coakley Pollster Celinda Lake

This is the typical schematic of the ideological spectrum as accepted by most politically astute people:

As you can see, in this simple schematic, political ideologies – radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary – are arranged along a horizontal axis that implicitly defines their relationship to a centrist (moderate) ideological position.

In the schematic below, this arbitrary positioning is expanded and defined with greater granularity:

At the poles are the so-called totalitarian ideologies. Closer to the middle, we find variants of socialism (on the left) and libertarianism (on the right). Still closer to the moderate center are the standard American party identifications: liberal and conservative. Liberalism is, therefore, a pale, limited expression of the totalitarian of communism, while conservatives are simply moderate fascists.

The Wiki has this to say about this schematic:

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[8] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien régime (“old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic, royal and clerical interests, while “The Left” implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.[1] At that time, support for socialism and liberalism were regarded as being on the left. The earlier “left-wing” politicians were advocates of laissez faire capitalism[citation needed] and the “right-wing” politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of socialism.

We have a problem with the Wiki on this issue and with those creators of the above schematics. It is a problem, which, we think, completely rearranges the schematics we showed you previously.

First, notice in the above schematics, how the spectrum is based on the alleged location of each ideology from some imagined moderate or centrist ideology – the left emerges from this moderate center as liberalism, and gradually becomes increasingly communistic. The right emerges from the moderate center as conservatism, and becomes increasingly fascistic.

The moderate center, it seems, is some sort of lightly applied communifascism, or, perhaps, fascimunism – Mao ZeDong and Mussolini meet in the middle and agree to play nice, we suppose.

Anyway, you get the idea: The original spectrum of political thought was subtly redefined and disconnected from its historical precedent in the practice of the French Legislature dating back to 18th Century. We don’t know when this happened – probably after World War II – and we don’t know who redefined it, but it has since gained general acceptance.

It is wrong.

Return now to the Wiki definition:

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien régime (“old order”).

According to the Wiki, then, the spectrum was one of support or opposition to the Monarchy, which emerged while this form of government was still in place. The question then becomes, why wasn’t the Monarchy placed in the center, as is our own variant of this spectrum?

The answer is simple: The Monarchy was as far right as you could go – it was the existing order of things. It had not yet become the old order. It was the political expression of the state of society as it then existed. As the political expression of the state of society, the question on the agenda at the time was: “Where do you stand in relation to the present government?”

Those who were in favor of the status quo stood on the right with the King, and those who opposed the status quo to varying degrees, arranged themselves to its left – the distance from the right indicating their opposition to the existing order of things – their opposition to the government.

Today, the existing order of things is the Washington-Wall Street Axis, and each political viewpoint should be judged by how far it is willing to distance itself from that axis.

Washington doesn’t want you to think in these terms, which is why its defenders introduced the new and improved political spectrum – a spectrum that set the Washington-Wall Street axis in the middle, and divided its opposition into an incoherent chaos arranged along the spectrum on either side.

Today, that opposition is just a little less incoherent. It has repudiated the Obama election, and the existing order in Washington. As such, it clearly must be located on the left of the classical political spectrum.

Scott Brown’s victory is big – not Brown himself, perhaps, but his victory certainly.