|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2008 07:59:15 PM · #1 |
Excerpts from "Creative Destruction" by Roger D. Hodge in the current Harper's Magazine:
***************
"Like many people, I dislike the Democratic Party. Not so much for its decadence or hypocrisy or even for taking positions I happen to disagree with. No, my problem with the Democrats is their consistent weakness as a national party. By mid- September, the largest party in the United States, with more than 53 million registered voters, and control of the United States Congress and a majority of state governments, was in danger of losing a presidential election to the most vulnerable Republican ticket in recent history.
After eight years of catastrophic Republican misruleâin the midst of economic crisis and rising unemployment, in a nation plagued by ruinous energy costs and inflation, bank failures, and staggering public and private corruptionâan eloquent, charismatic, intelligent Democratic candidate was locked in a statistical tie with a doddering old hack whose primary argument for his claim to the most powerful office on earth is that he was shot down over Vietnam and tortured for five years. Indeed, this remained the case even after McCain demonstrated beyond all doubt, in his impetuous selection of a ludicrously unsuitable vice- presidential candidate, that he lacked the good judgment that is the primary qualification for the job. If the Dem ocratic Party loses this election, then it should forever concede the presidency.
For all their corruption and civil cowardice, their timeserving and logrolling, sex scandals and infighting, check kiting and earmarking, Democrats still believe that it is enough to run as the party of demo cratic virtue and good governance. The blame cannot be laid solely at the feet of Barack Obama; we have seen this scenario many times before. The Democratsâ failure is one of comprehension. They do not understand that their theory of American politics is defective."
*********
"...Democrats continue to operate under the assumption that we live in the kind of ideal democracy imagined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. If they wish to rule, they must come to understand democracy as it was described by Joseph Schumpeter, one of the twentieth centuryâs greatest economists."
*********
"Modern democracy, Schumpeter argued, is a method of political decision in which individuals acquire the power to rule by means of a competitive struggle for the peopleâs vote. Far from being a system in which the people rule, it is best characterized as âthe rule of the politician.â The role of the people is simply to accept the leadership of the most successful politicians. Political parties, and the multitude of pressure groups they comprise, engage in a constant struggle for power, which at certain intervals becomes institutionalized and legitimated by the peopleâs vote. âActually existingâ democracy has little in common with the ideal of Enlightenment philosophes or the ancient variety practiced by Athenian slaveholders. It is no accident that democracy as we know it began to arise at the moment when the bourgeoisie was freeing itself from feudal lords and giving birth to capitalism. Just as the entrepreneur, whose innovations render older and clumsier forms of business organization obsolete, acts as the primary engine of capitalism, so too in demo cratic politics the most creatively destructive actors tend to prevail. Businesses seek profits by producing goods and attracting customers; politicians seek power by manufacturingpolicies and legislation, which in turn attract votes. And in both arenas, human emotion is the primary matĂŠriel, as advertising and marketing play on the publicâs desires and fears, exploiting its insecurities and vanities. The consumer/citizen occupies a decidedly receptive position.
Public opinion, the will of the people, is therefore not the cause but a byproduct of political struggle. It is largely the political fighters (officeholders, yes, but also the party bosses, hacks, and staffers; the lobbyists and operatives and spinners and leakers and publicists engaged each day in modern political warfare) who frame and determine the subject matter and scope of political debate, the pressing matters of national interestâthe menace of homosexual marriage or the grave and rising threat of Saddam Husseinâwhich the people dutifully discuss in their homes and offices, on the athletic field and at the bar after work. Whichever party to the political struggle best controls the terms of discussion thereby defines the boundaries of public opinion and generally ends up running the country.
We are free, of course, to deplore the character of our system, but as with a hurricane or a stampede, mere disapproval does little to change its reality. Certainly we can work for reforms, support better candidates, and struggle to make the system more responsive to the authentic needs of citizens. No amount of tinkering, however, will change the fact that it has always been possible to stir up a mob in America, whether to lynch a black man or to conquer a small country. In our mass-market politics we have rarely strayed far from the psychology of the angry crowd, even in the days of movable type and the slow post road. Most people, we all recognize, pay little or no attention to the substance of national and international affairs. Politics occupies far less importance in their mental economy than does a football team or a television sitcom, and the underlying truth of a vigorous attack matters less than the conviction with which it is delivered (see Sarah Palin)."
******
For whatever that's worth :-) There's a lot more...
R. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:51:31 PM · #2 |
Pretty dismal picture.
"For all their corruption and civil cowardice, their timeserving and logrolling, sex scandals and infighting, check kiting and earmarking..."
A good deal of the article such as that above segment could be leveled in the other direction...Exactly as written or with some tweaking you could substitute The Republican Party where it says Democrat.
"The role of the people is simply to accept the leadership of the most successful politicians. Political parties, and the multitude of pressure groups they comprise"
If that statement's true we might as well role over and die now.
I'm not on board with the whole thing though there seems to be a good deal of honest truth to it.
I'm not sure why but I'm a little more hopeful.
Message edited by author 2008-10-20 20:52:14. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 09:13:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... some tweaking you could substitute The Republican Party where it says Democrat... |
Probably. I believe Schumpeter's expectations are higher for the the Democratic Party than for the Republicans. His hope, and consequently his disappointment, is with the first. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 10:51:03 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... some tweaking you could substitute The Republican Party where it says Democrat... |
Probably. I believe Schumpeter's expectations are higher for the the Democratic Party than for the Republicans. His hope, and consequently his disappointment, is with the first. |
Exactly the point of the unabridged article; he IS a democrat, and he is disappointed in the party. He is not singling it our for opprobrium, he thinks the Republicans have been an absolute disaster...
R. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 10:54:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
"The role of the people is simply to accept the leadership of the most successful politicians. Political parties, and the multitude of pressure groups they comprise"
If that statement's true we might as well role over and die now. |
IMO this statement is pretty much right on the mark; this IS democracy as it is practiced now in the USA, and it bears only a passing resemblance to the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people". And "rolling over and dying" is close to what we're doing, at this instant in our history.
R. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 11:11:21 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... "rolling over and dying" is close to what we're doing, at this instant in our history... |
Until, by some great stroke of luck, one of us offer his candidacy at the right time, so that the people can recognize him among the pretenders. And that he have it in him to inspire possibilities thus far unrealized. And if the time is right, with the people ready, there may be grounds for an idea to take root and consolidate diversity. I mean, it's happened before in history. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 07:42:33 PM · #7 |
| I personally think that if this is the condition of our political system it is because of the people by the people and in spite of some of the people. We have no one to blame but ourselves. |
|
|
|
10/25/2008 05:13:07 PM · #8 |
Thank you Bear. (Harper's is one of the more to the point publications).
As to dponlyme's "We have no one to blame but ourselves:" yes and no. The yes is almost too easy, too broad; but yes, ultimately each of us bears responsibility in a sense more profound than that of a group, country or organization. But by the same token those with political clout have a greater responsibility precisely BECAUSE our system invests them with power and the public trust which should go with it.
Systems arise. Shit happens. There is no system that will guarantee that bad things will never happen again - one of the most noxious fantasies of our times. But accountability does not change. |
|
|
|
10/25/2008 05:27:19 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Excerpts from "Creative Destruction" by Roger D. Hodge in the current Harper's Magazine:
"It is largely the political fighters ... who frame and determine the subject matter and scope of political debate, the pressing matters of national interest ... which the people dutifully discuss .... Whichever party... best controls the terms of discussion thereby defines the boundaries of public opinion and generally ends up running the country.[/i] |
I'm not opposing that view, but it sure is dark. I also find it fascinating that "Most people... pay little or no attention to the substance of national and international affairs" (which makes them easy to sway), yet it seems we are inundated with politics in the U.S. and have been for the past 18 months. So does this lead us back to the question of media integrity? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 12:22:43 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 12:22:43 PM EDT.
|
