In the spirit of the season, I want to give everyone a brief account of how Rational Nation and your intrepid Octopus made peace after years of back-and-forth backstabbing. Does this mean your intrepid Octopus has lost his touch? Turned myself into a turncoat and a traitor to the cause? Hardly! Months ago, I left this comment on Shaw’s blog (original post here):
Hyper-partisanship translates into hyper polarization. It colors how we relate to one another. It turns neighbors and normal decent folk into the “other,” the enemy, those hateful liberals or those despised conservatives. It is a function of “identity” politics whose aim is to divide persons with common economic interests into warring factions.
Hyper-partisanship colors how we think. It gives rise to ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING, where a party, a group, a person are either all black or all white with no shades of gray. Very few people in life are either all good (saints) or all evil (devils); yet hyper-partisanship demands that we think this way.
No matter what a person may achieve, the game of politics commands you to ignore the accomplishments and focus on the flaws; spin good deeds into failures or characterize all deeds as evil deeds, despite evidence to the contrary. Demonize your opponent, that is the way the game is played ... Time to break the cycle.Wedge politics, dog-whistle politics – synonyms for what Noam Chomsky calls ‘atomization’ of the electorate – are attempts to divide large and cohesive voting blocks into fragments and render them inert. For example, an overwhelming majority of the electorate wants to preserve Medicare and Social Security - more than 82% - a majority that crosses all party lines. However, if you are a Republican political operative hell bent on dismantling the social safety net, how do you divide and conquer this huge voting bloc? By stirring social resentments that pit one group against another; by exploiting all forms of bias with appeals to racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, and anti-Hispanic hysteria. When wedge politics divides large and cohesive voting blocs, people no longer talk to each other, no longer compare notes, and no longer vote their common interests.
We are living in an era of non-stop character assassination and defamation, of political hostage taking, and legislative gridlock at a time when millions of people are suffering. There are powerful corporate interests that want us to be this way – divided – so they can cash in their chips and turn us into serfs. Unless we break this cycle and say “To hell with you, I am not buying this bullshit anymore,” then they win, and our country will wither away as dry wind-blown leaves of Autumn. Sorry folks! Either we get our act together, or we will have no future at all.Apparently, these comments resonated with Rational Nation who paid me a complement by writing a dedicated post on his blog (original post here). In his own words:
Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals can and should remain true to our principles, so should modern liberals to theirs. However, it is time to back away from the wedge issues that both sides of the debate have used to polarize the nation.I admit. Bipartisan outreach has always proved difficult due to the burdens of old baggage to overcome. In the past, our community has been trolled and mocked, and our trust betrayed. What makes this outreach different? I believe RN’s motives are honest and sincere, and you gotta give him credit for patience and perseverance. I have also found that RN responds to kindness and friendship and will repay you a hundred fold, once given a chance. So RN is willing to fire the conspiracy of media pundits, hacks, operatives, K Street lobbyists, and plutocrats who connive and scheme against us. I am willing to close ranks with RN and fire them too. Shall we remain mired in a game rigged to defeat us? Or shall we take the road less traveled? To borrow lyrics from an old pop song:
In the spirit of the holiday season, I appreciate RN's initiative. So these are my two crabs worth. Heck, I’ll even throw in a scrumptious mahi-mahi sandwich with a side of chowder. Still skeptical? How about a nice Chรขteauneuf du Pape to celebrate the New Year!These little town blues, are melting away
And I'm gonna make a brand new start of it - in old New York
And if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
It's up to you …
Dear Sister,
I read our adoption post to my mother last night. She adopts you too (but no crayons on the walls, sudsy romper rooms, or water slides on the stairwell, she says). We’ve been warned.
Make it a '98 and I'm in, but the first bozo to call me a Libtard is gonna say hello to my little friend. . .
ReplyDeleteCaptain,
ReplyDeleteI am with you on the '98 and the terms of the truce, but first I need to figure out which of my symmetrical appendages is the little friend.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say certainly gets the dino stamp of approval, not that it was really needed, especially since it's a very big, unwieldy stamp.
There's an old saying about academia -- the infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small.
Politics is grander, but maybe the same insight could be adapted to suit this area: the rhetoric is so intense because so little of it has any chance of accomplishing anything.
Words get cabin fever when they're cooped up and separated too long from any outlet, any constructive action or even any plan for constructive transformation.
In general, those who reject the solutions of either party are probably on a healthy path, provided that they don't end up trapped into an even more intense form of what they rejected.
An example: if we reject Republican "conservative" ideology (at least, that's what it calls itself) and head towards the libertarian hills, we are free to stand up for some basic rights that the Grand Old Party (and not only them) has been grandly trampling on for years in the name of SECURITY, the Daddy State.
But in the end, we may become obliged to promote the myth of a free market as the solution for all things. After all, government isn't available to help, no? All that's left seems to be capitalist enterprise, and we have to ignore a few hundred years of history with that to place our full faith in such enterprise today.
It seems to this dinosaur that we're pretty much stuck with something like a "mixed economy" and "mixed gov./private enterprise" as our model. Only so much can be done within this framework, which is why those who advocate more intensive transformations often find themselves so frustrated, as if they've reached the point of aporia, not knowing whitherwards to go.
And of course if you move in what you hope will be a genuinely "leftward" direction, you've got to confront the simple fact that though America (as writers like Howard Zinn have chronicled) has a tradition of fairly radical thought and even action, on the whole our country isn't very favorable to what it perceives as "lefty-ism." There isn't the support structure in place to make real change, and I don't know if the people en masse would favor it. OWS is interesting in this light, perhaps, but I don't know what will come of it. Serious banking reform and tax-structure reform would be great, and so would keeping the corruption of the political process at bay -- but that process has obviously gone very far, so I don't know. Garlic and rosary beads and magical formulae may be necessary to ward it off at this late date.
Dino,
ReplyDelete"as if they've reached the point of aporia, not knowing whitherwards to go."
Aporia - le mot juste here or maybe just the mot, I don't know.
It's another word that doesn't seem to be used the way it used to, but in the sense of "I don't know whether Social Security is really a Ponzi Scheme" or "I don't know which party I identify with" feigned doubt is often like the mark of Cain and more like the mark of the covert Troll.
Silver bullets and wooden stakes? I dunno. Just more a ya aporia.
Capt.,
ReplyDeleteI think I mean it in the high-aesthetic deconstructive line, a la the 1980s-90s. It's a classical rhetoric term, too.
Dino,
ReplyDeleteI take a page from an old mentor and business sponsor, Walter Wriston, the legendary banker. What I remember about him, his two closest personal friends were Isaac Asimov and a prominent French Communist Party politician, Pierre Juquin. How ironic! An arch-capitalist with close person ties to a communist, Wriston was a true intellectual and a leading conservative voice by any standard, past or present. Wriston also made huge mistakes. He is best known as chief architect of the third-world sovereign debt crisis and an early voice advocating the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
He valued my services to the bank and offered me the business opportunity of a lifetime. Whether I agreed with him or not, he was a powerful influence on me - not for his politics but for his intellect.
Captain,
ReplyDeleteYou are always a hoot, and that is why we love you. I also understand your point. Stealth-and-guile trolls will prey on any seeming ‘aporia,’ a situation mirrored by our cable news networks that pit one talking head against another to achieve a sense of false balance - while making no attempt to discover the veracity behind competing claims.
Within the current context, I think RN has transcended at least one ‘aporia’ by saying in essence: “I see bullshit too and reject it.” He is not asking us to change our stripes, nor do we have the right to expect the same of him. All he is asking, I surmise, is to find common cause where we can - of a kind that is realistic and delimited in scope. A fair and reasonable proposition, I think.
Octo, I first must tip my hat to you, my cephalopod friend. For in as much as I endeavored to create an environment at Rational Nation USA where individuals of divergent views might gather I sadly failed. The responsibility for this is totally mine.
ReplyDeleteNow general comments for all: I have been accused of being an introspective person almost to a fault. I will accept that criticism. If indeed that is what it was intended to be. I’m comfortable in my own bipod skin.
I wish to I assure the fine community here at The Swash Zone I am not about coming here to criticize, deride, malign, belittle, call anyone a libtard, or otherwise question your integrity and values. I am NOT a troll. Indeed, nor a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have integrity. I am, for you cynics, forever grateful to our mutual cephalopod friend for recognizing this.
I come here to learn. No, you are not experiencing cyber static. You heard right. I come here to LEARN!
Does that mean I will agree with (in my classical liberal view) all the positions you all may espouse? I shall give you the respect you deserve to not answer my own question.
Whenever I find myself in a room with individuals possessing intellect beyond my own I find it most advisable to listen rather than to speak. Such is my purpose in visiting g the Swash Zone.
At my stage in life (let us refer it as the 6th decade) my goal, purpose, and reason for being is to achieve wisdom. Which is, I’m very sure you all recognize is not the same as raw intellect.
In the spirit of finding common mutual ground I humbly ask all the fine contributors here at the Swash Zone to accept my (honorable) attempt in reaching across the aisle (so to speak ) so we might grow together and find value in compromise at works and benefits all.
I especially thank Sheria for her understanding and insight. May I be so bold to ask if you Sheria if you would consider “adopting” a older man without a political home?
You said Octo, "Within the current context, I think RN has transcended at least one ‘aporia’ by saying in essence: “I see bullshit too and reject it.” He is not asking us to change our stripes, nor do we have the right to expect the same of him. All he is asking, I surmise, is to find common cause where we can - of a kind that is realistic and delimited in scope. A fair and reasonable proposition, I think."
ReplyDeleteThank you my fine and honorable cephalopod for that. You do understand this conservative libertarian and classical liberal bi-pod. I tip my hat to you and shall forever be grateful.
Damn, I thought I had thoroughly proof read my prior contents. Once again I expose my own deficiency.
ReplyDeleteWedge politics, dog-whistle politics – synonyms for what Noam Chomsky calls ‘atomization’ of the electorate – are attempts to divide large and cohesive voting blocks into fragments and render them inert.
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly said dear brother!
The old cliche of divide and conquer continues to work amazingly well.
I'm glad that your mother approves of the adoption; however, I confess that I have been known to use my crayons on the wall on occasion. However, I will curb the habit when I visit!
Rational, thank you for your kind words and the adoption offer is tempting. However, I warn you that my maternal instincts tend to be fleeting!
I find it very refreshing when two people with different political ideologies can come together to “disagree with dignity” and I’m proud of Octo and Les. (I always knew they had it in them, just a bit stubborn, those two!) ;-)
ReplyDeleteI know I’ve said it somewhere in the blogosphere before, I enjoy conversing with people who have differing opinions than mine because it makes me think and, as Les mentioned, I can learn something from those who have opposing views than me. It’s when we go through life with our eyes and ears shut that we become a hindrance, not only to ourselves, but our party, as well.
I’m not out to change anyone’s mind or opinion. I just want to state mine in a respectful manner and have it accepted and responded to in the same way. No one has to agree with me, quite the opposite in fact. But leave the nastiness for the trolls and tactless people. We need to come together as individuals with our own unique opinions, but equal and state out differences but support our commonalities, one of which is seeing our country and mankind survive and thrive.
Great piece, Octo Bravo!
I'm in.
ReplyDeleteNeed any seashells?
Clams casino?
Love ya,
S
Suzan - Clams casino? One of my favorites!
ReplyDeleteThat's a hopeful sentiment, but you left something out (I'll ID it with asterisks).
ReplyDelete"However, if you are a **Republican** political strategist hell bent on dismantling the social safety net, how do you divide and conquer this huge voting bloc? By stirring social resentments that pit one group against another; by exploiting all forms of bias with appeals to racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, and anti-Hispanic hysteria."
You'll never get Republicans to forsake wedge issues in this lifetime. The reason is simple. On issue after issue, polls consistently show most Americans prefer the Democrats' policy positions. Republicans have strong support among the wealthy, big-business interests, civil rights resenters and gun fanatics — together, a minority of the population.
Inflaming passions over wedge issues is Republicans' equalizer. Republicans have proven that by demonizing liberals/progressives/Democrats as people who are weak on national security, want to take people's guns away, "like abortion," hate religion and are hellbent on destroying traditional marriage while generating class warfare, Republicans can raise lots of money and win elections — despite the fact most Americans are in tune with Democrats on most issues.
You might as well try to talk a bankster out of an obscene bonus as ask Republicans to give up their wedge issues.
And BTW, when it comes to people active in politics, hyperpartisanship goes hand in hand with the stern discipline Republicans exercise on those who step out of line. Ex-Sens. Lincoln Chaffee and Arlen Specter could tell you how that works, and probably Chuck Hagel, too.
SW,
ReplyDeleteI added the word **Republican** per your suggestion. Your point is well taken: “You'll never get Republicans to forsake wedge issues in this lifetime.”
Nevertheless, liberal bloggers have an ethical responsibility to discuss these issues in our posts and comments with the goal of raising public awareness. Eventually, readers of various persuasions will get the message, recognize the tactic, and hopefully indemnify themselves. What else can we do? Capitulation is no option.
Pamela - Perhaps finding common ground sometimes means at the end of the you simply agree to respectfully disagree. Then re-check your premis
ReplyDeleteI think you may have mentioned this to me once. And once again you would be right.
Rational Nation wrote, "Perhaps finding common ground sometimes means at the end of the you simply agree to respectfully disagree. Then re-check your premis"
ReplyDeleteThat's an enlightened, thoroughly decent position to take. I'd be surprised if anyone here would take issue with it. I wish I could say the same for political-right blogs, but I've been to enough of them to think otherwise.
Octopus, I in no way support capitulation. It's just that now and for the foreseeable future, anyone who wears rose-colored glasses can expect to spend some time sweeping up rose-colored pieces of broken glass.
ReplyDeleteI agree to disagree
ReplyDeletecommon ground be damned
somethings are unacceptable
it's simply out of hand
there are certain issues
where both sides can not agree
if we sought out common ground
then slaves would not be free
I do believe in compromise
on issues where we can meet
unfortunately on the other side
the world's a one way street
that's why I love The Swash Zone
you guys don't miss a beat
and I know you're just like me
you hate that one way street
Hoping you all have a Happy New Year!!
Oh, and thanks for one of the most insightful and interesting blogs on the net you guys Rock!!
Well S.W. there are, as with most concerns, exceptions. As a right leaning blogger I try to be that exception. I believe there are others. The Oracular Opinion comes to mind as another of the exceptions. There certainly must be more.
ReplyDeleteAt least I like to think there are. If not, what's that you said about rose colored classes...
RN, I'm sure there are exceptions. One belief I hold to firmly is that it's a mistake to say of any family, group, race or nation of people that they're all alike.
ReplyDelete