One of the frustrations of watching Democrats in action is the frustration of watching Democrats thinking they are in action. But it doesn’t hurt to step back and take the long view. Democrats are, after all, just people, subject to illusion and delusion. I too am a people with my own set of I&D’s that are hard to even identify much less root out. So I will do what I do best – identify the failings of others.

My focus is Montana Democrats, but it is no different in Colorado. This is about Senator Jon Tester, but Colorado Democrats recently elected or re-elected Senator Michael Bennet, Congressman Jared Polis, and Governor John Hickenlooper, all of them corporate whores, just like Tester. But Colorado blogs are not active in the manner of Montana’s, or I have not come across them yet, so I focus my attention on my life-long home state, Montana.

I doubt that Tester is going to survive the next election, as his opponent, Congressman Dennis Rehberg, will be as well-funded even in spite of Tester’s continuing whoring. Rehberg is also, in my view, more representative of Montana’s self-image – cowboy go-it-alone independent thinkers, all an illusion, of course. Also, Tester’s need to appeal to his base will be a detriment as he at the same time seeks to appeal to the right wing.

Keep in mind that each man either supports or is forced to support the same agenda, so that we are really only talking about perceptions.

Tester insulted a significant percentage of his base when he called people who opposed his “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” as “extremist.” But that is not unusual – Democrats in office are usually free to spit on all or part of their base, since they do not fear a backlash. But that particular comment might hurt him in the end, as the ones he insulted are smart and dedicated, and so will not pull his lever if they see that doing so makes no discernible difference.

The Democratic base is less attune to environmental issues, and frankly less attune in general. They are rallying around Tester now, and claiming that those who are not going to pull his lever are purists, selfish, and unable to see the big picture, or even to compromise.

Are they right? No. Not even close. The ones I know who are opposing Tester are not only able to see big, but are also willing to compromise when compromise is needed to achieve a larger goal. (“Compromise,” as the term is used by Democrats, entails giving up objectives before entering negotiations.) “Selfish”? That’s a personal trait that has no place in politics. “Purists”? Maybe. I prefer to use the term “dedicated.” They are not mealy about what they want and fight hard. That by itself separates them from regular Democrats, who do not understand dedication to an idea over a man.

Being a Democrat and supporting Tester is really the path of least resistance. It does not require attention to detail or dedication to ideas. But it is more than laziness – it is something far more common among us, lazy and energetic alike: Democrats suffer from the illusion of control.

Supporting their man through thick and thin, writing to thank him when he does something right, defending him when he is wrong – it is all part of the need to be in control of events. Indeed, those who will not pull his lever even if it means electing someone supposedly worse are told that they are fools for effectively putting Dennis Rehberg in office. That’s self-delusion – elections where differences between candidates are insignificant don’t much matter anyway. The principled ideas are still there, and those who fought for them against Tester will continue to fight for them against Rehberg. Success is never guaranteed, in fact, in our corporate oligarchy, success is usually a long shot. Those damned “extremists” do not suffer from the illusion of control, however, and so work hard for their idea no matter the candidate.

Voting itself is an illusion of control, and I have too often run to the polls to choose the lesser of evils. But I suffered from another illusion – that I could actually identify the lesser evil. Lately I’ve come to believe that the best office holder is the one that rallies the base. In Montana, from January of 2013 forward, that man will be Dennis Rehberg. He will do what Tester could not. He will rally the Democratic base, and Democrats and environmentalists and all the other Montana activists will again be united in their pursuits.

Do you believe in democratic governance? Ayn Rand didn’t. Her followers don’t. They are not unique in that regard, but I want to focus on them. Given that central fact, we might be able to predict that if they succeed in the electoral process, they will quickly set that process aside and rule according to their own dictates. Godwin be damned, didn’t Hitler behave that way?

OK, I apologize for that. It’s not an unwarranted comparison, but might serve to confuse the issue. Let’s focus on Scott Walker in Wisconsin – he’s doing everything in his power to institute “reforms” that are wildly unpopular and for which he never explicitly campaigned. That’s true to form for a follower of Rand – the opinions of the majority of people might be interesting, but are irrelevant. Randians might pander to majority opinion as they seek power but otherwise have no use for democratic processes.

Do I believe in democracy? Not really, I suppose. I don’t seek power, and think it important to be able to remove tyrants from office by peaceful means. But I don’t have any great respect for the intelligence of the average voter. C’mon now – says what is real! It’s a stupid country. Here in the U.S., and probably in other places too, we are seriously lacking in critical thinking capacity and are far too easily manipulated by propaganda.

So it appears that our choices are rule by tyrants, or rule by idiots. False dichotomy? I hope so. My thinking does not go much deeper on this subject, so I’ll defer to Bertrand Russell:

Democracy was invented as a device for reconciling government with liberty. It is clear that government is necessary if anything worthy to be called civilization is to exist, but all history shows that any set of men entrusted with power over another set will abuse their power if they can do so with impunity. Democracy is intended to make men’s tenure of power temporary and dependent upon popular approval. Insofar as it achieves this it prevents the worst abuses of power. (Unpopular Essays, 1959).

We are right to be horrified by Stalin’s ruthlessness, but we are wholly mistaken if we think that, given opportunity, we should be any better. It is only democracy that makes us better. While the English upper class had a monopoly of political power, it was just as bad as Stalin. Democracy is to be valued because it prevents such large-scale atrocities. This is its first and greatest merit.

Where there is no democracy, if any large section is discontented, it has no remedy except rebellion. Democracy gives a legal method of redressing grievances, and makes possible a respect for law which can hardly exist in an autocracy. (Fact and Fiction, 1961)

Democracy is desirable, not because the ordinary voter has any political wisdom, but because any section of mankind which has a monopoly of power is sure to invent theories designed to prove that the rest of mankind had better do without the good things of life. This is one of the least amiable traits of human nature, but history shows there is no adequate protection against it except the just distribution of political power throughout all classes and both sexes. (Mortals and Others, 1975)

Enough of that – Russell wrote so much that others were able to condense his writings by subject, and I only needed to refer to “democracy” in an index of his selected writings. I don’t want to pretend some great scholarship here. I only put up those words to show that our current environment is not new – nothing ever is. All of the right wing, the followers of Rand, the “Objectivists” and “Libertarians” and whatever else they call themselves, have done what Russell says they always do: They have set out to convince us that most of us are better off doing without the good things of life. Those things should be reserved for “them,” and part of the beauty of Rand was her ability to convince the most mediocre minds and limited achievers among us that they are deserving of the good things that the rest of us should not have.

Take one important aspect of our lives, access to health care: What do Rand and her minions tell us? It’s not a right. We don’t deserve it unless, and by their standards, we are worthy of it. The vast majority of us want access, and do not want to deal with the power brokers who have roped off the health care system and charge extortion and royalty for entrance. We have tried to change that by voting, but the ruling monopoly, which controls “both” of our outlets for democratic governance, the two parties, is denying us. They leave us but one choice – rebellion.

The United States is not a democratic republic. It is not a republican democracy. It’s a country ruled by a monopoly – we call them by names like “the wealthy”, “the oligarchy,” “the corporations,” and the “upper classes.” The intelligentsia are merely the “bought priesthood.” The economists, the think tanks, the financial class, are mere servants of wealth. The Randians, objectivists, libertarians – those who really believe that philosophy, are the useful idiots.

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. (Sinclair Lewis)

I had a nasty thought over the weekend, and cannot make it go away.

Once in a college history class in open discussion, I was so foolish as to say that ideas are not so important as actions. I doubted that Napoleon or Stalin gave a damn about the underlying ideology that led them to power. Having power was all they cared about.

I was quickly put in my place by both fellow students and professor. Of what importance was, say Karl Marx and his ideas? Marxism became a virus, and that virus opened the door for Stalin and Mao and Ceaușescu and others. And indeed the idea did not matter to those thugs, but it was their gateway to power. Marxism became a scourge, and it took 75 years and countless lives to break free of it. It also allowed the United States to sit atop a perch and claim its faux-capitalism to be the antidote. Now we see that the antidote is worse than the poison itself.

Right now in the state of Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder is using his new-found powers given him by a Tea Party legislature to shut down democratic governance in one lone Michigan town, Benton Harbor. He has appointed a local dictator. He can do it once or a hundred times. The law does not limit him. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker has the advantage over his opponents of not having to play by rules. He can freelance his way through his self-generated “crisis” to change state government to his liking. He does not seem to care about the rule of law, or even rules of fair play. He will do anything to win.

These are not “evil” men in the sense that they want to hurt people. But they are dangerous in the Machiavellian sense that they believe their ends so just that their means are acceptable. So too might Marx have approved of the events in Russia, not having the foresight to see how power corrupts ordinary people makes ordinary psychopaths into historical tyrants.

This disease, the idea that is the gateway to power for the Walkers and Snyders is not Marxism, but is equally dangerous. It is called Randiansim, Objectivism, Libertarianism, and is all done in the name of freedom. The spear-chuckers are true beleivers, and are so certain they are right that anything they do to advance their cause is justified. In so doing, they will open the door for a Stalin or Ceaușescu. Remember that the people behind the actors are not ideologues, but rather cold and calculating power-seekers. It is the bane of civilization, perhaps our ultimate undoing, that power cedes to those who want power. Our best leaders are those who do not want power for its own sake, and they don’t run.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a a poison, a disease that is working its way through our society. Like smoking, people inhale Rand when they are young, and the less thoughtful do not discard her as they mature. It takes a wise person to see that an ideology imposed on us by force, and this is what Walker and Snyder are doing, cannot give birth to freedom. Imagine behind Walker a Cheney, for instance, waiting in the wings, ready to take power and impose his will without the annoyance of legislatures and courts and voters. Every move by the extreme right these days in some way undermines democratic governance. It is no accident, and when the tyrant comes to power, we will have no tools left to unseat him.

That was the nasty thought I had this weekend – it took 75 years to dislodge the meme called Marxism, and might take that long to dislodge Randianism. And, at what cost?
_______________
PS: How, you might ask, do I know that Walker and Snyder are Randians? Fair question. Answer: I don’t know it. I just know it.

PPS: Just for chuckles read here how Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare as she died from lung cancer (believing the scare tactics about tobacco was government propaganda).

After giving a speech this week in which he sounded surprisingly progressive, Obama was caught off-microphone in Chicago saying

“I said, ‘You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We’ll have that debate. You’re not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we’re stupid?’ … Put it in a separate bill. We’ll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don’t try to sneak this through.” … “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he’s just being America’s accountant … This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill — but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.”

Taken as a whole, the two events – the speech, and then the “candid” comments “accidentally” picked up at a stump speech, and it is plain to see that Obama needs progressives to get elected. The question is, are they dumb enough to fall for words when there have been no actions in over two years?

Of course they are. Of course they are.