I have been following politics for many years, and enthusiasm has ebbed and flowed. After 2008 I felt like Charlie Brown. I allowed myself to buy into the whole Ad Age Marketer of the Year. That is my fault, and not that of Obama and the Democrats. I should have known better.
Bertrand Russell talked about the advantages of democracy* – from his high perch. He said that it is a given that ordinary people are unqualified to make judgments on large matters. The only real advantage of such a system is that we change rulers on a regular basis. Further, the basis for choosing a new ruler is not that he or she has a royal lineage or a large fortune. Now and then ordinary people with exceptional gifts come to power.
Politicians are second-rate people. It can be no other way. They are drawn to power. The best leaders are those who do not want power, who by definition don’t seek office. Great leaders in history, such as the Roman General Cincinnatus or our own George Washington (and apparently, if he is honest, Nelson Mandela of South Africa) are people who only took power involuntarily, and then as quickly gave it up.
It appears to me that there are several important differences between what we call our “right” and “left” (we have no such thing, but let’s pretend). At the ground level on the right, there is base stupidity. Listen to their icons, their Sarah’s, Michelle’s, Rand’s and Santorum’s – these are not ordinary people. They are fanatics, and they are very stupid.
On the “left” we have timidity – when confronted with stupidity and fanaticism, they want to be fair. This is their major defect – they think that they must share the stage with fanatics and treat them as serious people, engaging them, negotiating and compromising with them.
That’s baseline politics, and will not change. The fanatics will take control, make a huge mess of things, and then we’ll let the timid ones back in and we’ll settle down again. (Given that they are all second-rate, money will always have disproportionate influence on them. Our best hope is to turn them out on a regular basis, hoping that we accidentally benefit during the time that they are being compromised. Our best senator, for example, would be one who served one six-year term and who was then permanently pastured on a government pension.)
But there is something more going on now in this country, in my view. We are in danger of loss of our republican form of government than ever before. There’s no ebb and flow. We had eight years on fanaticism, and when we settled down again in 2008, we got the same fanatics in different costumes. We did not change leaders. They punked us.
Maybe this too shall pass – I don’t know the future. But here is the danger: In a democracy we can vote fanatics out. In a totalitarian state we cannot. By their very nature, right wing fanatics want to keep and hold power, not for a few years, but for generations. Karl Rove called it the “permanent Republican majority.” I’m wondering now if his vision included compliant Democrats as a wing of the Republican Party.
We changed parties in 2008, but not leaders or philosophy. I don’t see a way of bringing about meaningful change in the future due to the fact that we are limited to two parties, and now more than ever before, both are the same people and philosophy.
___________
*I use the terms “democratic” and “republican” government interchangeably. In the modern sense, there is little distinction or difference.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark,
Russell was a an elitist, Statist and progressive who had no conceptual restraint from justifying the wholesale slaughter of human beings that he thought were “inferior”.
I would suggest that one be wary of using his point of view on any matter of politics, least you not measure up to his standard of “human”.
Russel displays such a point of view out of your statement:
“…ordinary people are unqualified…”
where he implies there exists “extraordinary” people who are qualified.
But of course, he never offers a reasoned argument to what measure or metric makes a person “extraordinary” or if this extraordinary ability makes them qualified to judge and command the lives of other people or if the qualification is sufficient to judge “life and death of other human beings”.
In his writings, he left such arguments empty and simply suggested that he was such an extraordinary man, who at the minimum was qualified in choosing other extraordinary men, like himself, to be so qualified.
The self-circular logic you sometimes use, too, Mark. 🙂
Advantage?
No, massive disadvantage, because it creates an illusion that there does exist a ‘good’ ruler “out there”, if we exchange enough bad ones along the way…
But the system only attracts bad men, so the hope that one “worthy” of commanding your life (or your death) will “appear” is wholly “out of the odds” – (and that doesn’t even begin to argue if there ever has or will be such a man worthy of such power.)
Autocracy provides concrete evidence of the perversity of ruler-ship – it does not change other than by revolt.
But the continuing change creates a perception that “change is good” – but few realize that the argument of change equally supports a “change for the worse”.
Thus any argument for change must be expanded beyond simply “the change” – but a change based on reason and principle.
What power?
Power by Violence or the Power by Persuasion?
Who possibility do you have in mind???
Of course, Power by Violence is your measure.
Is this what made them “great” in your opinion???
Humans are resilient and relentless in their drive for freedom – thus, one can be justifiably be optimistic that those the choose evil as their method will eventually fade away.
As Gandhi observed:
It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence, (and) hate ruled us we should have become extinct long ago. And yet, the tragedy of it is that the so-called civilized men and nations conduct themselves as if the basis of society was violence.
When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.
Think of it–always.
Never happens.
Fanatics take democratic control -not based on their actions- but on their promises.
Thus, they maintain their power by continuing to bribe the people with promises and the people always will over look past evil in exchange for a “maybe this time” world that never comes.
No matter how fanatics take control, they are wrested from that control in only 1 of 2 ways:
(1) Violent overthrow
(2) Economic collapse
(1) always leads to another tyrant.
(2) allows the possibility of other options.
LikeLike
I was starting to wonder about your obsession with emerging violence in govt..
Then it all came together with Ted Rall’s piece.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=18820
Wouldn’t ya think that Christians and Tea Party types might not be the ones to pick a fight with?
LikeLike
Ingemar:
I would love a Spartacus replay.
LikeLike
Trotsky:
When you stop looking to government for “meaningful change,” then you will find it. Otherwise, dream on, little boy.
LikeLike
So you didn’t believe in the Bush Doctrine’s theory of preemptive strikes, and opposed the Iraq war? Or are you a believer in neocon ideals?
LikeLike
A republic lacking honest debate cannot find its way to the bathroom. We have lost our way. Instead of philosophy we get entertainment, instead of art we get entertainment. Instead of politics we get brainwashed.
LikeLike