A question about navigating Libertarian waters

            Aren’t we all trying to make sense of the world?  Libertarianism is one way and I have to say at the start that at least they are thinking for themselves and making an effort.  Off the top of my head, at the very best, they have some really good ideas.  And please let it be considered that I refer to some, hopefully not too vague, composite of the range of libertarian thought.

            However, that they can think for themselves – that they have available time and have venues to express themselves – is an artifact of our current society.  What is the most basic foundation for anyone to be able to speak freely?  For me there is the burgeoning fact of economics as Richard Wolff has put into layperson’s terms.  And as Andrew Bacevich references: namely, that our freedoms are directly connected to abundance/material well-being.  (It is almost as though every purchase self-referentially celebrates this fact – if this understanding is correct then perhaps the Ancestral Puebloan’s pottery breaking parties were a manifestation of this in a previous era.)  More wealth meant more people (read: Irish, Italians, African-Americans, women, gays and lesbians) could enjoy what once were the rights of a few, land/slave-owning revolutionaries.

            Freedoms have increased coeval with a rise in wages . . . until the 1970’s.  With gay marriage even being on the table we see progress in the quest for rights of previously excluded groups.  However, the slices of pie are getting smaller.  James Howard Kunstler envisions a return to more patriarchal ways of life.  This will occur with what he sees as the inevitable contraction due to super-high oil prices.  Also occurring in his view is conflict and a perhaps non-new age archaic revival.

            So against this backdrop we have groups that question the foundations of the existing system.  Many groups from different perspectives based on religion, way of life, ideology, philosophy, etc.  All for the good.  Even better is if the questions being asked are legitimate . . . oh, uh-oh – here is where things get tricky, there being many different truths after all.  And every group believes its criteria for truth (which each group itself invariably meets) are the most sound.  As with Christian fundamentalists, neo-liberals, atheists, Mormons and Ghost Adventurers, so too with Libertarians.  And, lo!, how often are these fundamental truths among different groups contradictory?

            So why do I talk of Libertarians?  Okay, to come clean: I do favor a few of their ideas, only the credence I have allowed them recently has waned.  The core of my attraction is the Libertarian view of responsibility: Let me do what I want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  Put more eloquently: My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins.  You do your thing and I’ll do mine and when we socially or commercially let this too be conducted respectfully as adults.  Who this view helps: those that think for themselves; those that are mature; those that feel everyone should have access to what makes them, individually, uniquely happy, barring infringing on the rights of others.  Those who the Libertarian world view is not so much for: those that wish to be subservient; those that want others to make decisions for them; those that are immature; those that need to be coerced into correct behavior because on their own they would willfully malign others.

            These opposing camps give shape to my critique of Libertarianism: alas, would that not be an ideal world populated solely with responsible adults?  My conclusion is that this manifestly is not such a world, the second, immature, group – for whatever reasons – necessitating some type of governmental control.  The freedom of Libertarians to espouse libertarian views is dependent on there being a form of government imposed stability.  If many of our government institutions were destroyed there might be fertile group for experiments in libertarian manner.  I guess it is a difference in wanting a world where your views can be put place and living a world where your ideas must remain hypothetical.

Thoughts on the (so-called?) Imperial Presidency

            So what is all this talk of the imperial presidency?  Haven’t heard about it?  I have recently, becoming familiar with a concept established in the 1960s.  The argument goes that since WWII the President of the United States has been growing more and more powerful: more staff on hand, more ability to control the path of government, more ability to act out when it comes to starting wars.  Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote the book and Andrew Bacevich brought me up to speed on the idea. 

            Hopefully avoiding spuriousness, there has been a rise in government spending – controlling for inflation of course – that has been concomitant with the ascendancy of our purported imperial president.  So with the rise in prez-power there is also a rise in folks that need the government around to stay employed.  To play ball, the prez must address the needs of this powerful and close-to-home bloc.  I would say that, although there is more power/agency in the hands of one man + coterie, the prez effectively is like a mascot for the government.

            A figurehead?  Surely one man cannot be the source of all conservative pundits’ ire?  The relationship of the president to the other gov’t branches and the relationship of all of these to the press and the American populace are complex, inchoate.  But what a good job the president does in taking flak for bad policies and whatever else people lay at his feet.  If we believe that the prez has gone all imperial then we justify focusing our criticism on him.

            Some (me) believe that the prez is beholden to special interests: doesn’t this limit his power?  Turning this idea on its head, I think that protecting special interests is more of a job requirement, something that a successful candidate is capable of doing.  Let’s not separate the president from this role: being beholden is not an obstacle to action but is actually part of the job.

            In this sense, Obama is doing his job if he is successfully aiding government workers and special interests instead of the American people.  Sure he has legitimately championed some important social issues – but these prove to be relatively superficial.  Could you imagine a national dialogue that recognized the role of corporations (or the role of the American populace’s lack of knowledge/interest in the business realm’s role) in American politics?  Sadly, the first thing that comes to mind is the dwindling of Occupy’s flame.

Vague questions pertaining to Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class

            Even if I get his ideas wrong let that serve as a catalyst for expressing my own.  Thorstein Veblen has been an ever present theorist, his views relating to early 20^th century America being brought to bear on all times afterward.  Conspicuous consumption is employed to show one’s status according to his Theory of the Leisure Class.  To demonstrate your riches you buy luxury goods which is effectively like flipping off those you have beaten in the race to riches – Thomas Frank covers this ground in his book Pity the Billionaire.

            Was there a shift from wanting to emulate the rich at rest to emulating the rich at work?  This is an abstract question, hopefully interesting enough.  Does some, perhaps nonexistent, average person look to hard working traits of the rich since they have grown unfamiliar with rich people’s leisure (“pleasure in other people’s leisure”)?  My response is that, with an increase in people working over the last 40 years, people would start to emulate the traits of people that earn money.  Check out Prof. Richard Wolff’s excellent summation here.  We focus more on putting in the hours instead of some supposed leisure time.  The only time we drive the luxury vehicle is to and from work.

            A failure in this line of thinking is that the reason we work is for the accumulation of material objects which is, in many cases I would argue, conspicuous consumption.  If we emulate the rich who work then we still emulate a supposed ideal of using that money to buy things.  But hark!  Perhaps my argument is saved if you consider that most of what we buy is only faux luxury items.  The world of the rich – its structures and the actual power that the rich wield – is obscured to us, our knowledge limited to salacious gossip presented in tabloids.  Like so much else we buy into simulacra. 

            So, yeah, why not?  I’m of the perspective that acquiring things just for the sake of showing up others is a false way of living so why not describe everything within this social mechanism as being illusory?  However it plays out people are working towards false ideals.  Thorstein Veblen updated post-millennium.

Victor Davis Hanson, Robert G. Kaiser, and the bizarre worlds of other people

            I found this Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) rebuttal to an eloquent conspiracy theorist rather interesting: “With all due respect you and I live in different worlds that are not reconcilable.  There would be no value for me to try and go into your world because I think it would be too bizarre for me to even begin to address those issues.”  Bam!  I agree that some conspiracy theorist folks go too far – at least in their presentation to the uninitiated - e.g., the caller to VDH.  Keep in mind Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and eminent conservative voice, a serious person that writes for the National Review.  The caller could have asked VDH about topics that perhaps bridge both of their worlds, the intersection of two sets in a Venn diagram.  Hopefully there is a common ground to be reached.

            I think it is fair to say that VDH’s “bizarre” doesn’t just mean things that are different – no, VDH actively engages (so-called?) liberal worldviews.  Indeed, to “go into their world”, as VDH says involves a world that is fundamentally different. But where exactly are the lines between worlds drawn?

            I would say that, popularly, the bounds are tighter, more constrained, than those delineated by VDH.  An educated man, he can at least attempt to put voice to the other side.  I say popularly this line is drawn close-around most people because even the liberal side of things, to an average conservative-American (which I ain’t), is the realm of dark-dealings and occulted intentions; i.e. the realm of conspiracy.

            Currently this is typified by the unwillingness to “reach across the aisle” that has come with a shift from wanting to make policy to just playing politics in Congress.  Robert G. Kaiser takes this on in his new book Act of Congress: How America’s Essential Institution Works, and How it Doesn’t.  Kaiser has done good work here as he has done in his previous work So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government.  Lobbying and Congress being complimentary subjects, of course.

            The behavior of our Congresspersons simply caters to a public incapable or unwilling to think outside of their own narrow worldview.  In public opinion, Democrats (which I ain’t one neither) now consider Republicans to inhabit a bizarre world and vice versa.

            I have recently written about how similar Republicans and Democrats are in a big-picture view of things, in a broader world where the lines are more loosely drawn.  (Andrew Bacevich speaks well about this.)  What is scary is if actions start to match rhetoric and force becomes the only way to reconcile these supposed disparate worlds.

Thoughts on Mad Men, a television show I have never watched

            Have been on a quest to understand the show Mad Men as well as other shows of its kind.  What is its kind?  Long running, serial television shows that can run for 10, 20, 30 hours or more.  But more specifically I think of these shows in terms of the critical acclaim that they garner.  This acclaim makes it seem okay to sit and watch and love all those hours of television viewing – okay for smart people, that is.  There you go, a little flattery to soften the blows of my critique.

            In a few of my more and more infrequent dalliances with NPR I have heard these particular shows praised.  The Sopranos and The Wire.  Breaking Bad and Mad Men.  Critics come on say what it is they like about the shows – invariably good/great writing and cleverness are invokes.  Terry Gross has talked to the creators and actors of these shows to gain more insight – talented actors are needed to flesh out the terrific scripts.  NPR stamps its imprimatur on these shows and latte-loving liberals like me have no worries talking about a TV show.

            I found an article in the Wall Street Journal’s Speakeasy section called “Why serious people watch ‘Mad Men’” which provides some reasons, had some good references re: the cultural phenomenon of such shows.  More “subtlety and nuance” are allowed for but long form serials compared to other art forms – a good point that for me goes a long way in explaining such shows.  The characters may perhaps be more fully developed, etc. 

            In the comments of this article I found a number of critiques.  One Jack Bennett considers the show to be like an animatronic Pirates of the Caribbean for the sixties – this is the kernel for my critique of historical novels and movies in general: however amazing the recreation of the past in whatever medium it is still ersatz, still, as responder to the article called Anonymous wrote, “a glimpse back into a refracted glass”.  This commenter also said a show should be appreciated for its style, which he/she cede Mad Men has, even while understanding the representations to be flawed.

            So, am I missing out?  In all honesty I have not watched a movie in a theater since (am I revealing too much about myself?) the wonderful Prometheus, almost a year ago.  I have lost my desire to see fictional portrayals on screen.  I think my dislike stems from watching History Channel shows on whatever historical period – ancient Egypt, ancient Rome – where little vignettes are presented to (unnecessarily) accompany what the narrator is saying.  These little vignettes are so fake, so phony (e.g. – an actor portraying Caesar leering at an actress portraying Cleopatra) that I think they started a crack in my suspension of disbelief re: acting and now that crack has allowed the wall to crumble.  I have not been reading much fiction either. Scary.

            It is perhaps unfair to lump shows like Mad Men in with cheaply produced and lousy historical vignettes but still . . . 

Bacevich, Chomsky, Wolff and . . . Dr. Steven Greer? More on metaphor and conspiracy

            Have to say I am out of the conspiracy zone aided in no small part by reading/listening to Andrew Bacevich, Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff (BCW).  While conspiracists seek to unveil machinations behind the scenes I feel that BCW highlight concepts that stand in the open but are easily brushed aside or not given popular attention.  They – BCW – highlight concepts that require a little introspection: heck, even require just being less of a consumer (go ahead and say it).  They provide analysis of the foundation of the American way of life be it the economic, political or moral aspect.

            It is as though conspiracy guys know this – they know something ain’t right and in some cases have documents to back up what they say.  Unfortunately, the veil they pull aside is a self-made one, not the one woven by corporate-capitalist propaganda.  Listening to or even reading Chomsky for five minutes will provide a person with enough shocking, hidden-in-plain-view facts to perhaps permanently alter their perception.  His facts are grounded in reality: which will always seem quotidian held up against x-files which he doesn’t dabble in.

            What of pioneering and intelligent Dr. Steven Greer?  An extra-terrestrial audience was present to view the first moon landing?  There you go: he said this.  He does have sources but often they are off the record.  However, a lot of his quotes are from testimony and many of his testifiers have legit provenance.

            His take – that suppliers of traditional forms of energy do not want a free, clean energy to become available even though it could be made available – is definitely far-out when considered from an everyday person’s perspective.  The examples (for free energy) he brings out seem like they are the products of scammers if for any reason than they countervail scientific orthodoxy (which has shored up its defenses most solidly).  Greer states that one man’s invention was covered up, the inventor killed.  Greer and others often refer to Tesla.

            Used as a though experiment, yes, if we had free, clean, sustainable energy, we should switch to it – if we listen first to counterarguments for its restriction.  It seems a safer choice – free energy vs. climate change-inducing petroleum – but consequences so often prove to be unseen.

            For the thought experiment though, let’s be fortune tellers and say it will live up to its promise and provide energy for everyone which has the effect of greatly reducing suffering around the globe while even mitigating global warming.  Are corporations – say Exxon-Mobil, BP, General Electric, etc. – so evil that they would perpetrate a cover-up of a thing that would put them out of business?  Dang it if I want to say yes.

            Taken as a thought experiment, Greer’s take on things reveals a venal group of people that do have very great power.  In the end the concept of free energy may be taken as a metaphor for seeing the need to change the way we live on earth but wanting to keep our level of material well-being while also removing first-world guilt by letting everyone else join our club.

            The real cure is harder.  We listen to Chomsky and Wolff and recognize the need for collective, popular demonstration/action.  Even Bacevich would appreciate this.  But then Occupy, as a significant, visible actor is on hiatus.  But still, the United States has a history of people organizing and fighting hard to stand up for themselves.

            I think, though, of what Chomsky calls the new spirit of the times: people being selfish and living in a way that embodies the consumer ethos.  Bacevich understands this to a fault saying that morality may only mean working hard and being a good family member – no involvement in mass social movements required.  Ah, what to do?

Bacevichian theater and our reality

To listen to Republicans talk about Democrats, to listen to Democrats talk about Republicans, if you take their rhetoric at face value you would reach the conclusion that these two parties are polar opposites, that they believe in fundamentally different things.  But most of that is theater.  The truth is that the similarities between Republicans and Democrats on very important issues are far more important in determining the substance of our politics than the differences.  And in that sense the two-party system really becomes a one-party system. 

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                      - Andrew Bacevich

 

            Re: The theater of elections (see minute 6 of Bacevich talking with Lawrence R. Velvel): perhaps we/politicians spend so much money on elections because, at the national level for sure or for sure in states more populated than Idaho, we/politicians are creating our reality.  How much higher stake in the outcome of some event can one have?  Masters of reality.  Politicians and the media create a dream state that we live in: we are paying well or having money spent on us in order to weave this fantasy.  Even if one says that any reality can find its own justification, you must agree the amount of money spent speaks of the immensity of the task. 

            May I try and convince you to vote in a system that you know has serious flaws? – that is the question that successful election campaigns must answer.  At stake, to state it summarily, is the corporate-backed, consumerist, money-making world.  Actors from this quarter are pumping money in and keeping the system alive because it seems to be a successful way to extend and legitimate our/their reality.

            By competing against, say, an incumbent, the challenger may speak of problems, of areas where he could do better.  But in the realm of Republican versus Democrat the field of combat is narrowly constrained and third party voices are rarely heard.  This is Bacevich’s Incumbent Party, the Republicans and the Democrats different wings of a single party/reality.