The security of the herd

I have often written here and elsewhere that “Democrats are the problem.” If it were that simple, of course, then Republicans would be a logical alternative. Alas, neither party offers much in the way of hope or change. And it is not so much the failings of individuals, even well-intended ones, as it is herd behavior. People simply do not think their own thoughts, and desire to be led by others. Democrats would reflexively oppose a nominal member of the other party who assassinated American citizens, mandated purchase of private health insurance, extended tax cuts for the wealthy, ran a prison dedicated to indefinite detention and torture, arbitrarily attacked other countries and even attacked a country after Congress voted against allowing him to do that.

Alas, Obama has done all of this, and for this garners high praise from his own party. He is, after all, a Democrat, so it must be the right way to go.

It’s not a failure of leadership either, as the system mandates that those who occupy leadership positions first accept private bribes to gain access to those positions. For a man or woman to accept bribes and then turn on the benefactor is political suicide – there are many ways to remove such a person from office, as Nixon, Spitzer, Kucinich, Feinstein and so many others know. So the idea of changing the system by participation in the system, or to “get active,” as Thom Hartmann says is our patriotic duty, makes no sense. If the only way to affect meaningful change is to join the Democratic Party, then it is time to resign citizenship.

I’ve been shown the example of the “Tea Party” as a way that individuals got active and made change happen. If only. These people, mostly addled by the incessant agitprop of the last ten years, had no more sense or direction than the Jonestown congregation. They were tools, and as hard as it was to see at the time, were used to create the illusion that Obama, a right-winger, was some kind of socialist. There is no reason to believe such nonsense, but the herd says otherwise. The Tea Party would not have gained widespread media exposure, had its own TV network and been provided buses to attend their rallies without a larger purpose provided by others. It is an interesting spectacle.

I have had arguments at other places, notably with the Kaily clan, about the essential stupidity of party members. But as Kay rightly points out above, it is not individual stupidity. It is the essential need to belong to a group. It is a need for personal validation, identity. Democrats are not thinking about selling out to AHIP or the illegality of aggressive war or constitutional issues surrounding targeted assassinations of American citizens – they are thinking about winning elections. They want to be part of the winning group. That will not change. It is not “she” or “he” that are the problem. It is “they.” Herd behavior is the problem, and it will not change.

Consequently, the only way to bring about meaningful change is to find a smarter herd. (That’s a joke! As the Montana Wilderness Association has shown us, even small groups of very smart people can be led off a cliff – that group supports Montana Senator Jon Tester’s “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” for no better reason than it being proposed by Jon Tester instead of former Senator Conrad Burns. I belonged to that group when it was smaller, had much less money, and was far more effective.)

Individuals can make a difference, but small groups of smart, dedicated individuals can make a huge difference. Wikileaks and Julian Assange have made a huge difference, as have those calling themselves “Anonymous” – so effective are they that the Obama Administration has found it necessary to infiltrate them. Bradley Manning made such a difference that he had to be tortured to deter others from doing as he did – telling us government secrets that should not be kept secret. The word “activists” is often used to describe those who work on causes, “party activists” for those who want to affect elections. As Obama has shown us, elections do not bring about meaningful change. Hence, being a party activist is pointless.

The Democratic Party is presented to us as the “alternative” to the party of greed and wealth, war and lawless behavior. If the purpose of the Democratic Party is oppose the ideals of the other party, it is an utter failure. If the purpose of that party is to marshal its people into a futile herd going nowhere, then the party is extremely effective. Obama, after all, absorbed all of the angst of eight years of Bush, and made sure that we got no hope and no change.

The Democratic Party is very effective. That is why Democrats are the problem. As Thom Hartmann might say if he had half a brain, get out there, get active, but first, quit the Party.

Otherwise, you’re wasting your energy.