Libertate made the title of this post possible. Thank you, Libertate.
Click through to see that these items aren’t really just for Libertarians. Classic American political philosophy is awesome, and so is the Gadsen flag.
Libertate made the title of this post possible. Thank you, Libertate.
Click through to see that these items aren’t really just for Libertarians. Classic American political philosophy is awesome, and so is the Gadsen flag.
A few days ago, I posted a link to this piece by Lawrence Lessig. It’s something of a
love letter to Newt Gingrich in which Lessig blames the former Speaker for most of Washington’s current dysfunction. According to Lessig, Newt was the architect of the current winner-take-all, reelection obsessed profanities posing as politics. I’m not entirely convinced by the narrative, which isn’t to say he doesn’t make salient points.
The thing is, some of this goes back to Andrew Jackson. Most of it goes back to Thomas Hobbes. It’s been chronicled by Mark Twain and in Action Comics #1 (where we also learn that populist Superman was also an isolationist in the build-up to World War II? That’s a post-and-a-half).
Has Congress ever worked? Has it Congress ever been this bad?
A few days ago, I shared this schematic and called it a “Venn Diagram for the New Revolution.”:
One reader responded thusly:
“except the statement in the middle neither says that the government has too much power nor is part of the tea party opinion pool
conclusion: the author neither understands venn diagrams nor political opinions.”
I’m glad she/he did so, because it brings up an important point I should articulate further:
The daily talking points from the Libertarian Party, which I understand is NOT the Tea Party as such but draws form the same well, tows this line: “corporations have too much power because the government has too much power.” Even though strong elements in the Tea Party believe that limited government inevitably means more real power for corporations (and crazily, they’re okay with that), I do believe that there’s an equally sizable pool that agrees with corresponding parts of OWS on the idea that both corporations and the government have too much power, and that the problem is self-sustaining. Yes, a simple diagram doesn’t get at these nuances. But it’s helpful for people who believe as do I and many readers that powerful constituencies in OWS and the TP could collaborate in meaningful ways.
Our good friend Chad alerted me to the Americans Elect project a few months ago in a comment here on The Daily Cocca. Americans Elect aims to by-pass the major parties and nominate a centrist candidate directly on the internet. I love the concept, and yesterday’s post about the Tea Party and Occupy needing to recognize common ground comes from same anxiety that motivate most third-party pushes on a popular level. Since the head’s up from Chad, I’ve been getting Americans Elect email updates and have been quietly following their presence on Twitter. We’ve all learned to be cautious about these kinds of things, and I’m far from saying that Americans Elect will be the vehicle to bring substantive change over the next decade, but it certainly could be one important piece to the puzzle of which Occupy and the Tea Party are clearly a part.
In addition to having an outstanding name, Doyle McManus has a piece up about Americans Elect in today’s LA Times. An excerpt:
Americans Elect is a collection of Republicans, Democrats and independents who say they’re fed up with the polarization that has poisoned American politics. Some of its backers have previously contributed to Obama, Romney or other candidates. Several are fans of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has flirted with the idea of running as a third-party centrist. The group’s central figure is Peter Ackerman, a wealthy investor and former banker who considers himself an independent and who was active four years ago in a similar effort called Unity08.
Chad’s friend Buddy Roemer even gets a shout out. Chad asked yesterday if I still have hope about 2012 being different. I said that the election may not be (I hope it is), but the year must be, and the year after that. We can’t have another 1992 fizzling into another 1996 (at least not politically. I still miss you, The 90’s). We need to think of efforts like Americans Elect or the drives toward unity between disaffected groups less as “third-party” movements and more as logical responses to the truth that the entrenched parties are ridiculous and don’t really speak for most of us at the national level. Why is it that in 2011, I have no one to the left of Obama to consider no one in the GOP field besides Ron Paul that’s worth my time? And why no unity tickets, no great American middle, no options that make real sense to most of us? Are we free or aren’t we?
Americans Elect should have a presence at every Tea Party event and every Occupation. I said yesterday that we all need to work together to move beyond the b.s. status quo. Most of us hate it. Most of us have grown up hating it. We’ve allowed ourselves to divorce the faithful execution of our other civic virtues from the basic failure that is our federal government. We might be good neighbors and community leaders, but as long as we let slash-and-burning sycophants set the national agenda, we enable false choices and division and we give away our power. Enough of that, already.
I remember learning as a child that Athens had a system of direct democracy, and that one day, maybe one day, with advancements in technology, maybe the US could do the same. The Tea Party and Occupy are analog versions of this kind of shift. Is Americans Elect the technical piece that helps us with real change? Doesn’t that depend on us?
In the relatively short course of my 31 years, I’ve learned quite a few things from John Cusack. Just now, via Twitter, he turned me on to a new piece by Cornel West in yesterday’s New York Times: Martin Luther King Jr. Would Want a Revolution, Not a Memorial .
About 95% of this resonated with me. I paused here:
“In concrete terms, this means…extensive community and media organizing; civil disobedience; and life and death confrontations with the powers that be. Like King, we need to put on our cemetery clothes and be coffin-ready for the next great democratic battle.”
Is being, in West’s words, “coffin-ready,” a condition for participation in this kind of revolution? It’s true we’re talking about life and death stakes: healthcare, poverty, justice, peace — every day, people live or die in this country and abroad because of policy decisions around these issues. People live and die because of campaign donations, kickbacks, deals. West is calling for civil disobedience while telling us, like King before him, that even the most civil of disobedience could get free people killed right here in America. That’s chilling, sobering, and believable, isn’t it?
West is a masterful communicator and rhetorician. For that reason, I wish he’d been more clear about those “life and death confrontations with the powers that be” required in the “next great democratic battle.” It’s clear to me that in West’s view, the threat of violent force in these struggles is from the side of established Power. I hope we’re all reading that the same way.
“King’s response to our crisis can be put in one word: revolution. A revolution in our priorities, a re-evaluation of our values, a reinvigoration of our public life and a fundamental transformation of our way of thinking and living that promotes a transfer of power from oligarchs and plutocrats to everyday people and ordinary citizens.”
The 12th chapter of the Apostle Paul’s letter to Roman Christians in the first century CE deals with similar themes of transformative agency. In Pauline terms, the renewal of our minds transforms our inner lives an enables us to test and see the will of God in and for our communities. “Do not conformed to the pattern of this world,” Paul tells the Roman community, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. ” The “pattern of the world” (also translated as “age”) in first century Rome was one of anti-Judaism at the highest imperial levels. Jewish Christians, who had established the city’s earliest Christian gatherings, had been exiled along with all other Jewish people by the Emperor Claudius, and by the time of Paul’s writing had only recently been able to return under Nero. Leadership tensions seem to have risen up between the returning Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians who’d assumed responsibility for the community during the Jewish exile. In a larger historical context, the persecution of Jews in Alexandria as attested by Philo occurred just 20 years before the writing of this missive, and the persecution of Christians under Nero in Rome on the horizon. Issues of justice, access, and economics are pressing.
For Paul and West, the alternative to transformative renewal is continued conformity to dominant social paradigms, and it’s no coincidence that in both cases, the call is from these destructive patterns and to new ways of being, thinking, doing. West says “King weeps from his grave. He never confused substance with symbolism. He never conflated a flesh and blood sacrifice with a stone and mortar edifice. We rightly celebrate his substance and sacrifice because he loved us all so deeply. Let us not remain satisfied with symbolism because we too often fear the challenge he embraced.” Paul said “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”
In his own way, Paul continually challenges the Church to be “coffin-ready.” We are to present ourselves as living sacrifices. To live, Paul says, “is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21). “Dying to self” is one of the most revisited Christian tropes across denominations, precisely because it’s what we believe Christ modeled in his ministry and teaching. Dr. West, like Dr. King, draws from the deep well of Christian tradition, pulling succor from a source that has been used in other hands to poison.
What enables transformation? For Paul and West, the process beings somewhere near renewal. West calls us to re-evaluate, re-align, and re-prioritize. Paul says that the ability to so will come by the grace given to us, and that we might start on our end by reorienting ourselves towards others: “Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.” The Apostle prefaces this charge with an important recognition: “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought…” The reorientation of self vis-a-vis the Other, or what West calls “a fundamental transformation of our way of thinking and living,” follows grace. As Chapter 12 progresses, Paul claims that any giftedness any of us have is afforded to us only by God’s grace. It must also be true that the ability to be transformed by the renewing of the mind starts, itself, with grace, and it is grace that invites us to see and treat each other graciously.
Transformation and renewal, of our minds and of our bodies politic, start and end with the kind of good will we can’t earn. We must lean into already-present grace, and it’s only by grace that we begin to see past the end of our own lives and to locate grace in others. Grace, as Paul would have it, follows grace. “Twas grace,” the great American spiritual says, “that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears reliev’d.” It is grace in us that sees grace in others. It is goodness in us that finds goodness in others. It is God in us who recognizes God in others, who makes us care about the lives and fates of others, who never stops trying to wash the word “others” from our renewal-needing, imperfectly transformed minds and points of view.
If grace is, like Paul suggests, the starting point for personal and communal transformation, how are we to live graciously in the midst of revolution, should it come? Paul offers a provisional ethic of life within the hostile empire of his day, to the very people in its center:
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
That’s a fairly civil, and maybe even holy, disobedience. It turns out that grace isn’t just the author and perfecter of our transformations, but is also the essential Christian ethic in crisis and upheaval. How fitting, then, that Romans 12 came up as a lectionary reading for millions of Christians across the world last Sunday and that in the days before and since, Christians from all perspectives and experiences have wrestled with it. I can’t know for sure that Romans 12 was part of Dr. West’s Christian practice Sunday past, but I’m glad John Cusack got me thinking about it.
Last week’s post, “How Broken are OurPolitics? Will Gen-X Save the World?” generated a lot of discussion and creativity. A good friend of mine, one of those Boomers who do amazing things for their communities and in the lives of people, suggested (via Facebook) a new political model based on the communal virtues of JRR Tolkien’s Hobbits:
Here’s an idea: why not pool say, 5 candidates (of differing political philosophies) randomly every 2 years, have them write an essay about what needs to be done in DC, vote on them, and send the winner to DC for a non re-electable 2 year term, repeating the process every 2 years. Those who wield power best are those who don’t seek it. It’s why hobbits carried the seductive ring of power better than all others. We need hobbit rule. (Btw, this won’t happen bc those who love power (our elected reps ie Sauron) would have to amend the constitution and voluntarily relinquish power. One can dream, though).
Yes. We all can dream. Which reminds me when some people dream, amazing things happen. Today, the public gets its first glimpse of the new Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial on the National Mall in Washington. It stands between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials and is, to paraphrase one observer, the only monument on the Mall to a man of color and a man of peace.
Think about that. All of our other monuments are to men who have administered wars. Observing that is not to disparage them, (there are other reasons for that in most cases) but to recognize King’s unique voice and prophetic place as an American leader committed to waging change by waging peace. The centerpiece of the MLK memorial is his form on the “Stone of Hope,” and I hope his memory will stand there on the Mall as an indictment of a system that has long since given up on the work entrusted to it. I hope it stands there like a scandal, preaching peace to national bodies who tear our body politic apart with their addictions to power, their allegiances to lobbies, their cynical crocodile patriotism and two-party no-choice horseshit rodeo.
As the Arab Spring becomes, even as I type, the Late Summer of Gaddafi, I wonder what we’ll do a year from now. Will we be in the process of nominating, again, two clowns from two circus parties to pantomime a contest between competing visions for the future? Will someone from the left have come to save us from Obama? Will a libertarian deliver us from Perry? Will we, the pissed-off Middle, flock to our party primaries and rummage through that discount bin again? God help us. Can Spring 2012 please be something different? Can we start planning now our own little process of renewal? We have free speech and the freedom to assemble. We have the right to demand better options, better leaders, better people. An American Spring would cost us nothing, but what might it accomplish? What would it look like? Who would even show?
How about families with their kids? How about college students? How about the homeless, uninsured, and unemployed? How about conservatives, progressives and libertarians who, it will have turned out, are united around the issues of government reform more than they’ve been driven apart by nonsense party lines and structures? How about people of all faiths and people of no faith all committed to being people of goodwill? How about veterans and pacifists? How about immigrants?
Imagine meeting at the Mall at the great scandal of a monument. Imagine finding poetic, sublime irony in the fact that yes, it’s made from Chinese granite, and that yes, the oppressive Chinese government, eager to own us all, financed part of its construction. Oh confused and frustrated body politic, oh 20-45 demographic, take your place, for God’s sake! And for your children’s.
A good friend engaged me about this via email this week. I think it’s just about beyond question that our national political structures are utterly, fundamentally broken at the macro level. A broad survey leaves little to the imagination: special interests, Big Whatever…in too many ways our politicians are not our own and are accountable first to their fundraisers and donors. There are exceptions. There are micro-level organizations of integrity, there are good candidates and great public servants. But the system itself exists for itself in perpetuity. Don’t believe me? Try running for Super Congress.
Are our politics broken beyond repair, or can they be fixed according to the rules they’re governed by now?
How anxious are you? If you’re between 18 and 100, are tech-savvy and engaged, your answer should be very. If you’re between 30 and, say, 45 (the Upper Cusack Limit), you might also consider the total refusal of anyone to move a sane agenda forward as an unprecedented opportunity to lead.
Babyboomers, heel-graspers that they’ve been, have been uncannily quiet in all of this at the national level. Sure, they’ve been the public face of so much chicanery since the Clinton Administration, but they’re not seizing any real opportunities to create something new or leave us with much. Barack Obama, young Boomer that he is, out to be the virile head of some great movement. Alas, there is nothing. If I’m being fair, and I do want to be fair, Obama has lead on a few key policy issues, but the wither, blister, burn, and peel of support from the progressive base is not news. It happened for reasons.
We, the USA Network demographic, don’t trust national Republicans or Democrats. We love the idea of hope and change and progressive causes but we don’t believe in attendant hype or machines. We like the idea of populist movements but have seen them be hijacked by agendas that couldn’t be further from our ideals.
We are displeased. What to do? (If you’re picturing Billy Zane as an evil tycoon who doesn’t give a shit, good. We’re being taunted, everyday, by people who will never want for anything, people we’ve put in power, many of whom are apathetic at best toward our well-being or future.)
One impulse is to turn local, and I believe that localism, rightly channeled in all of its healthy forms, will go a long way toward changing our communities in radically sustainable ways. But that won’t happen without you, Generation X. You who are parents, you who are holding down jobs, paying bills, paying taxes, you great middle class getting screwed. I’m asking you to do more. I know, I know. The good news is that in places like Allentown, PA, and, I imagine, its analogs everywhere, there are indeed many Boomers doing great things and looking for help. Your vested interest is your children’s future. Determined as you are to make damned sure the world they inherit is better than the shit-storm left you, you don’t really have much of a choice. If you’re not already, please get connected. Please make a difference. Please build communities.
But we haven’t forgotten about you, Great National Mess. You are Das Nichtige, the unchosen nothing, the aggregate mass of political sin, of omission, of shirking, of all that is wrong with our government, our economy, our budget, our laws. You are our misplaced priorities. Your time is over, we cannot sustain you, but your enablers have said that you’re too big to fail, too big to move.
But you’re not. We know your coordinates. You thrive at the intersection of political parties and the military industrial complex. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, two Citizen-Generals, warned us of you, but we were too busy moving west, killing Indians, too busy moving west, building suburbs, to listen. We’re listening now. We won’t support your national campaigns or your friends in Big Anything. We don’t want Monsanto or Super Congress. We don’t want your labels, your symbols, your platforms. We want clean water, clean air, and safe food. We want safety nets and renewable energy. Sustainability is our ideology, our children are our constituents, and our political leaders will answer to us.
And who will they be if not us?