So, when I started this blog I wanted to keep it just about the stories. It was a nice alternate reality, and while there were politics in them in places, I actively tried not to make them or this site political.
But I'm a very political person. As had been hinted at, I went to American University in DC (living in the dorm room Andrea had if you care to figure that out) and majored in political science. I even got some jobs in politics after graduating before burnout became too real and loans came due etc. Campaigns are not known to pay well, especially to people like myself at the lower end of the totem pole.
So why am I saying all this? Well like many I've been transfixed by what's happening, and I want to share a thing or two. If you don't want to hear about politics you don't have to click "read more." Know that I'm not ready to post the rest of the epilogue, but that progress continues in fits and spurts. This update won't have anything more about that, bu if you would like to please read on.
What I studied to get my degree in political science focused mostly on campaigns, constitutional law, and democracy both in theory and practice, here and abroad. I have a deep and abiding love for democracy. Note that "small d" democracy is not the same as the "big D" Democratic Party, but a belief that government should be a reflection of the will of the people.
Small d democracy is in retreat. "Democratic autumns" have happened throughout history. The mid-late 19th century as we descended into civil war and France fell into the second Empire was a democratic autumn. As was the years after WWI where many newly democratic governments began chipping away at their foundations and sliding into dictatorship. We are in one today, as anti-democratic forces are once again ascendant. The American institutions are in some ways keeping it at bay, though in other ways they accelerate its likelihood of total democratic collapse.
I do not say this lightly, I more than most know the weight of a statement like that.
Trump has not consolidated himself fully into a dictator, but he is destroying the guardrails that prevent dictatorship and exacerbating the division that lead to it. And he is hardly the cause, there have been increasing tensions and rising anti-democratic beliefs going back to the late 70s. And even prior to that, the democracy was only held together once the north stopped fighting the south and allowed them to institute a single party dictatorship that excluded the black Americans from society. I could nearly write half a book on this, but if you want to know more the authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt did it far more cleanly than I would likely have been able to in their book How Democracies Die. And on the topic of books who cover the topic well, I'd also suggest Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein.
So what made me break my own rule to share this? Well the Democratic Primary is in full swing and I needed to share this in order to explain what I'm about to say. Please, I do not want to tell you who of them to support, but please support whoever gets through the process, and if you want a say in who that is get into the primary now. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday when more than 1/3 of Americans can vote, and another 20% vote in the next two weeks.
Because, this is a moment where it is not hyperbolic to say that if the election this November goes the wrong way, the republic may fall. If you are a Democrat, you should know why this is so important. If you are a Republican, particularly if you are a Trump supporter, please listen to this warning.
The US is one of the oldest continuous democracies (for some) on the planet, and as such dozens of new democracies have turned to America for advice on how to set up a democracy. In more than a century and a half giving advice, the US state department advises nations to never do a presidential system. When you have ideologically consistent political parties, Presidential democracies fail 14x more frequently than non-presidential democracies. We built the German and Japanese governments after WWII as an example, and we ensured that they had a parliamentary system. Electing a single leader directly, especially when that leader doesn't control the legislature, will build up escalating constitutional showdowns. This is not just Trump, when Obama created the DACA program by executive order, that was a breakdown in democracy too. Every time a President is frustrated by congress and takes another power from them, democracy gets weaker as the president's dictates become more powerful.
But while the system is failing independent of Trump, Trump is an accelerate. He has been purging the government of anyone he sees as disloyal, he quite literally claims that he can "do whatever I want" and has already used the office of the presidency to further his personal benefit at the expense of the country at large. He has the impulses of a dictator, and the longer he is in office the close he becomes to being one.
So even if you support Trump's agenda, you need to vote against him. The US has some deep structural problems that one election isn't going to fix, but if Trump is re-elected he will have years more of accelerating the slide into his authoritarian impulses.
Whoever the Democrats pick will have the Senate to deal with, where right now the side with 18 million fewer votes have the majority. They will not get done whatever worst case policy you as a conservative may fear they do. But right now, none of the Democratic front runners have shown contempt for democracy.
We are at a break glass in case of emergency state. We need to forge a grand alliance of people who support democratic government, and at the moment that requires voting for the Democratic Party. A two party democracy doesn't work with only one party, but when that other party is enabling authoritarianism we need to put aside what divides us and unite. We need to remember that if we both believe in democracy we are not enemies, only opposition. We need to work together to beat this version of the Republican Party so that we can go back to the luxury of arguing over policy, once our systems are no longer at risk.
I personally support Warren, because she is the only candidate left who talks about what danger our democracy is in as a top priority, and has a masterful ability of explaining complex problems in simple ways. But that's me, support whoever you want, and then please, for the continuance of democracy, vote blue in November. Those of you who are American at least...
<steps off of soapbox>
Anyway, as I said I don't feel the epilogues are ready yet, but there have been fits and starts. I promise this isn't about to turn into a political blog, I wouldn't want that any more than you would. I just needed to get that off my chest. I tried to pick my words carefully, but also know it's difficult bordering on impossible to avoid all misunderstandings. So if anything I said seems like it crossed a line, I am sorry as it wasn't my intent. I wish I could give a better update on when to expect new content but can't at the moment cause I just don't know. I'm going to be going through some shifts in my life, including my job since the company I worked for has now folded. I don't know that could restore the "spark," but it hasn't quite yet (in part because I'm glued to politics to a degree that many could argue is unhealthy).
I am glad this blog isn't turning into a political one, but you needed to vent. I can respect that. Frankly, I think politics have bad habit of seeping into every thing, but that is my opinion though. I wish you good fortune in your endeavors.
ReplyDeleteWell the problem is politics already *is* in everything. Even choosing not to talk about politics is a political decision to support the status quo.
DeleteI know it can be alienating or uncomfortable, which is why I tend to leave talk of it off here since I don't want to push away potential readers who may not agree with my politics. But I feel like a cancer doctor noticing signs of cancer on a dear friend, I know how democracies die and I'm watching it happen to the country I love. If I tick off a few readers, oh well this isn't very active any more anyway. But I am at a point of wanting to write this across the sky in bold letters, it's very very important and will alter the path of human history and how free we are as people over the course of my lifetime, because without America there is no Democratic alternative to China's authoritarianism, we will just be a more authoritarian world.
Like I said I have what is likely a less than healthy attachment to the subject, I mourn like I'm losing a family member but over an idea. And I've certainly talked the ear off of everyone I already know IRL. For better or worse this is probably the biggest platform I actually have to share it with strangers. But I don't want to abuse that, so this will be a post alone (though *maybe* one more in Oct/Nov) hopefully with some content between now and then to lighten the mood with some nice sexy stories.
Kennedy tried to invade Cuba, Johnson sent troops to Vietnam, Carter supported the Shah against the iranian people, Clinton did a damn god job destroying Yugoslavia and bombed Iraq, Obama bombed Libya, putting another nail on Africa's coffin, and did his best to (re)ruin South America. Plus many economic policies detrimental to the working class, including Clinton's deregulation of Wall Street. From the outside (you have a fan in Spain ;)), the difference between dems and reps is very unclear.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I see how many fascistoid parties have popped up along Europe during this four years, often with Bannon's help. For this reason and many others I really hope that Biden (probably) kicks that orange haired asshole out of the White house.
I'm sorry if you think that I'm overstepping, but... I just don't like fascists. Also the political debate has been very intense here too this last years, and I'm a bit angry.
Now as a reader: take as many time as you need. Just please, please, not too much. :)
-Onkana
Yeah, as someone on this side of the atlantic it's not great watching the fascists slowly return to Spain. I would have though Franco would have inoculated against trying that idiocy again. Somehow even Germany's not fully immune with AfD on the rise (though I also find it interesting that AfD's greatest support comes from former East Germany).
DeleteI also am not in a great position to criticize cause I can't even name your parties (other than sadly Vox) but the two parties are very different.
There didn't used to be much difference, there would be center-left Republicans and center-right Democrats, the parties used to just be "clubs" with a tolerance for nearly any kind of ideology. But in the last 50 years the right wing have been leaving the Democrats and the left wing have been leaving the Republicans. And that's why we fight so much now and can't get anything done. Our government was designed by people who wanted there to be no ideological political parties, so the design doesn't work when parties are ideological.
Electing the first non-white president speed this up to hyper-drive. Think of how the Syrian migrants have messed with Europe's politics, now imagine a Syrian was in charge of the EU for a few years how much worse Vox or AfD etc would be. Trump is part of that white backlash, but in a polarized environment with only two parties like the US there is nothing to stop him from being a dictator if he wanted. Thankfully he's too dumb to make a plan to become one, but a few more years of him eating away at democracy and it could crumble, and as long as Democrats are out of power most Republicans won't care.
It's a dangerous time, and while I feel better seeing high turnout (which means excitement) I'm probably going to have a perma-stomach ache till he's physically removed from that building.
100% agree.
ReplyDeleteI haven't the slightest issue with you talking about this, I find it interesting, especially as it's coming from someone that is actually qualified in understanding what's happening. Then again, I'm from across the pond, and we have our own catastrophic vote result to deal with, and our own feckless leader at the helm that I'm just aghast managed to get elected.
ReplyDeleteI still don't actually know how the American elections work - I hear that this past Tuesday was one of the most important dates, and I'm looking at results but can't make head nor tail of them or what they mean.
Please, by all means, blog away!
Basically, the party nominates someone at a national convention, but who gets to be a voting member of that convention is decided by primaries. Convention delegate seats are handed out proportionally between anyone who did better than 15%. Think of it like a very large parliament but each state divides the seats among the candidates statewide. States vote on different days so campaigns don't have to try to be in every state at once.
DeleteThis last Tuesday, "Super Tuesday," had 14 states including the two largest of California and Texas hold elections about who will get those seats at the convention. It's the biggest single day of voting in the primaries, 40% of all delegates are awarded. Biden did much better than polls predicted because (a) turnout was higher than people thought it would be from 40-60 year olds in the suburbs who tend to be moderate, (b) youth turnout was down from what people expected and (c) several moderates ran out of money and dropped out just a few days before voting, semi-consolidating the moderate vote.
A week ago people assumed Bernie would have a lead of a few hundred seats because he's done very well with young voters and Hispanic voters, Texas and California are perfect for that coalition. But Because Biden did so much better than expected among voters over 40 and black voters, he got more seats. The next few states may give Bernie some chance to catch up but unless turnout or voting patterns change Biden has the much larger coalition.
A candidate needs 1,991 total seats at the convention to win, and Biden is only ahead by about 90, but the two most likely outcomes at this point are Biden either gets all the seats he needs or he falls slightly short of a majority but still has more than anyone else (so that's when negotiations with other candidate's supporters happen to try to form a majority). But with how fast things are capable of changing who knows. By the end of March, 70% of all seats are given out, if Bernie can't catch him up this month he will have a hard time ever doing so.
Like I had said, I preferred Warren and am still a little sad she's dropped out. It's that frustration of seeing the more qualified woman passed over for their less qualified male colleague, but beating Trump is too important to be sad about it for too long. And Biden's ability to get the suburbs to turn out at record numbers makes me feel at least a little at peace that maybe we got this.
Wow, kudos on the analysis. Frankly, whoever comes into office will be breath of fresh air, but hopefully, they will be a good middle ground (I guess in terms of reporting) for the country.
DeleteThanks for the insights.
ReplyDeleteIf it's any consolation, this is exactly the political alignment I predicted from the story's setting, the way you treat your characters and the way they react to their setting, so apparently one really can't leave their political commitments completely out of their creative endeavours (even when the creative endeavours are sex stories).
ReplyDeleteThough less consoling (to us, at least, opinion might vary), I'm now entirely persuaded Trump will be reelected. People vote (or don't vote) systematically. This is what makes them somewhat predictable, and it is also what makes appealing to particular people to vote inefficacious. These appeals can't penetrate into the generalized behaviour of groups of people in a determinate historical moment. I don't think enough people can be guilt-tripped into voting for Biden, and I don't think he will offer anything substantive to them, and even if he did he's very vulnerable to attacks on both his record and his person. Perhaps Make America Normal Again will motivate some suburban voters, but my baseless suspicion is that, for these reasons, they won't be enough to offset those who find the choice impossible to make.
To be consoling (but not really) again, I suspect the US republic will survive largely because it's structured in a way that is adequate to the established interests that could pursue that kind of project if it was to their benefit. I don't see which systemic force would have an interest in overturning a system that has proven to be hilariously reliable in securing the compliance of the governed and in pursuing projects (national and international) almost exclusively to the benefit of these classes. There are no serious institutional barriers to the pursuit of their interests at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of people, and you don't need to start a grand journey when you're already at your destination.
If I could offer some optimism now several weeks removed, I think you're confusing your disappointment for national disappointment. People aren't being "guilt-tripped" into voting for Biden, the genuinely want him. Turnout is way up, and it's up among the kind of voters that are over-represented in the electoral college.
DeleteCompletly absent from your analysis is the black community that are voting overwhelmingly for him. You're also deeply diminishing the power of those suburbs, they doubled turnout in many states and they are enough to flip Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
And more importantly, if you're looking at this systemically, that should give you even more optimism for the case. Hillary, despite everything, was 70,000 votes from winning and got 3 million more votes. Even if you presume Biden will be "Hillary 2.0" that's more than enough to win. 4 years of demographic changes alone mean Hillary in 2020 would have won as 4 years of old Trump supporters die and 4 years of young Democrats become more and more likely to vote. There are more Democrats than there are Republicans. If you want to speak for the "vast majority of people" you need a candidate who can speak for more than a subset minority of one party.
I want progressive government, but Bernie is a terrible politician and is the architect of his own defeat. In mid February he was the frontrunner, all he had to do was pivot to try to be more inclusive of those voters who were not already on his side. After his Nevada win he even started doing that, but then the next day he was back to bashing any Democrats to his right as basically no different from Republicans, like you are suggesting here. He needed to reach beyond the 35-40% who back him so he could get a 50% majority, all he had to do was stop attacking the 60% who weren't already behind him. He couldn't bring himself to do that most simple and rudimentary part of politics, he wasn't willing to build a coalition.
When not if AOC runs, she will do that. She had been begging Bernie to try to reach out to non-progressives, to try to build a majority coalition, but he wouldn't. Hell, she had to reach out to Bernie last year since Bernie wasn't reaching out to her for her endorsement. That's why I backed Warren, because she actually knew it wasn't enough to preach to the choir.
But if you think the Republic will survive because of some class nonsense, you don't understand how democracies die. Democracy is a very unnatural form of government. It requires both sides to agree the other side is acceptable. It requires no sides use power to bend the outcome in their favor. Democracies don't die because there is interest in "overturning the system," they die once one side decides they would rather rule in an undemocratic system than be let the other side rule in a democratic system.
I'm sorry to have unwittingly frustrated you. I'm not disappointed. I've been apathetic about electoral politics for more than a decade and this far things have been going the way I've been expecting them to go (which is my consolation prize given they aren't going very well). Of course I'm not an oracle, and inductive certainty isn't strict, so perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.
DeleteI think a structural problem the democratic party is facing is exactly that it's not as ideologically coherent as the GOP, and this is a strategic defect during periods of increasing polarization along party lines. I think this is why we see a generalized effort to get people to "vote blue no matter who". This would not be necessary unless there were serious divisions within the party. Voter consolidation should not be so precarious. Instead you can see that there is bidirectional resentment between supporters of different candidates, even when they are proximate (this is apparent even in our exchange --and we're united by the power of a shared taste in adult media!). So my point is not that there aren't many people that are enthusiastic about Biden, but that the same thing that enthuses one part of the party, alienates another part of it, and as you observed in the Clinton case, that part doesn't have to be big to cause serious issues in the general election. We have some scientific evidence that around 60% of disgruntled primary losers who claim they won't vote for a nominee go on to not actually vote for the nominee. We all understand this could be catastrophic, so we try to ameliorate things by calling on people to vote and shaming prospective non-voters (in light of the circumstances), but, again, I don't think our calls can penetrate to the generalized behaviour of voters. We need to be able to not alienate them in the first place. Now, I'm not at all certain any candidate could reliably salvage the situation. It's possible that this is checkmate for the foreseeable future. The worst case scenario is that the only way you can appeal to some groups of voters alienates other groups of democratic-leaning voters. Consider how you appeal to a higher turnout of young democrats. We can't take young democrats -of whom around 15% support Biden- for granted (to vote simply on partisan lines that obscure manifest political division) and just appeal to everyone else, because in doing so we might be leaking traditional dem voters that constitute an integral component of a winning coalition. But even if it is possible to navigate this, I think Biden's vulnerabilities will not work to his favour and I doubt he will make substantive concessions (even in terms of policy that the majority of democratic voters, including his own voters, otherwise approve) to jury-rig a semi-functional coalition. This, of course, remains to be seen.
I don't think Biden would be Hillary 2.0. I think in many respects they are very different politicians that (with two notable exceptions) have different things going for and against them. I think Clinton is a very competent and efficient political functionary, that would probably have won in 2016 if not for the sexism penalty, or if she made a couple of more reconciliatory choices to offset it, despite some of her vulnerabilities re her political record. I can't quantify how motivating "Make America Normal Again" is going to be, but if it falters, I don't think Biden is on her level, so I'm having difficulty imagining what he could even begin to do to navigate the situation.
>all he had to do was pivot to try to be more inclusive of those voters who were not already on his side.
I agree. I think there was a point where, strategically, he should have dropped the underdog rhetoric and started speaking for the party. After all, he is vying to express its general will.
>bashing any Democrats to his right as basically no different from Republicans, like you are suggesting here.
DeleteI'm not suggesting this. I think there are right-wing democrats, not just in the sense that they are the right wing of the democratic party, but that they are right wing by any reasonable standard. But they represent a different kind of right than the republican party (which itself unites a diversity of right wing perspectives), that is, for the greatest part, manifestly to its left. My background is in political philosophy so I don't say this lightly or intend it as an out of hand dismissal of their politics. I emphatically reject their politics, of course, but only on due reflection.
>But if you think the Republic will survive because of some class nonsense
There are different approaches to understanding the succesful development of fascist movements and the transition to totalitarian government, and the most influential (e.g. Paxton's five stage model) make explicit reference to "some class nonsense". But besides this, it's subject to reasonable disagreement how democratic and inclusive US political institutions are (I know of some work to the tune of "not all that much") and it's not controversial macrosociological analysis to consider the reasons why particular social groups in the position to effectively undermine democratic institutions might have any interest in doing this. The juxtaposition between the failure of the green shirts in France and the success of their counterparts in Germany and Italy exactly in light of the trust of financial elites in the regulative efficiency of the french state and the loyalty of the french political elite to their interests should be fairly illuminating on this point.
So I appreciate that your view is that democratic political institutions are fragile and essentially held together by the personal commitment of their functionaries to something like political liberalism, but I would prefer if we didn't present this as the final word on how democracies die. The question is open, and there is no consensus. My suspicion is that Trump's reelection would further embolden and radicalize the wrong people, will facilitate the development of trends (that have existed and have been escalating from the beginning) towards authoritarian, illiberal and inegalitarian legislation and government, and promote a SC that would reduce the scope of constitutional invalidation and judicial oversight of administrative decisions. But these things can and will happen through the existing political institutions, and I'm not sure the interests republicans represent want to risk the turmoil of something as grand as the fall of the republic (and the response this would provoke from the body politic, even in its current state) in light of their present access to political institutions. So on this point, I'll retain my optimism that the american republic, for what it's worth, will stick around through our descent to, like, eco-fascism.
Well I can assure you that you I'm not frustrated, so no need to apologize.
DeleteHowever, the key point I want to respond to is why you seem to think democracy failed in German and Italy but not France. The green shirts didn't "fail" because the brown/black shirts are not why democracy fell. Mussolini was invited by the conservative party to be part of their coalition. It was a choice the conservatives made, that they would rather side with an anti-democratic conservative than a pro-democratic liberal. And because of Italy's somewhat unique electoral system where you form alliances before the election, Mussolini was quite literally invited into power.
The same thing can be said for Germany. There the proportional representation system enacted after the war made for a very dysfunctional government, no one party could ever get a majority even fringe parties got a seat at the table. There were enough seats to form a grand coalition government without Hitler, but it would mean the conservatives would have to put aside their policy priorities to preserve democracy. But they had become so polarized they viewed the other side as enemy not opposition, and so the conservatives would sooner side with fascists than social democrats.
The street thugs had almost nothing to do with either of them coming to power. Their most useful function while democracy still stood was as an organizing group to rally votes.
And while we all know Germany/Italy, not many people know the counterexample of Belgium. There in the 30s was a fascist party with a leader who modeled himself after Hitler. After a particulalry bad election for the conservatives and a good election for the fascists, the conservatives were considering an alliance with the fascists much like happened in Germany. Then the King summoned the prime minister and the head of several center-left parties together and he told them in no uncertain terms that democracy is more important than their political differences. He was a figurehead king, he had no real power to force them, but that meeting went on for several days and by the end the conservatives had formed a grand coalition with the democratic left.
Nothing about the class structures in Belgium were any different than Germany, the difference was that the leaders of the party committees to each other that while they disagree they are not enemies of democracy.
And this pattern becomes a lot more clear when you universalize your view and not just look at Europe as the be all end all of what makes a democracy work. When you look at what democracies thrive and which fail, there is no commonality in class. The greatest commonality (aside from a few electoral-mechanical trends) is the legitimization of the other and increasing "constitutional hardball."
It is tempting to say every problem comes down to a single source, but the facts are stubborn things, they don't agree. The only way to justify that democratic breakdown is class based is to work backwards from that assumption and ignore a whole bunch of contradicting information.
I will also agree with you on one thing, Biden is not as good as Hillary. Women have to work twice as hard and still get told they're shrill. Warren was basically what would happen if Bernie did the homework, and she was crushed by him. Sexism is so deeply rooted in society that it's almost impossible to compare a man and woman at the same professional level because of all the hoops she will have had to jump through that he never would have. If Pete were a woman he may never have made the debate stage. But the fact is Biden is winning bigger than Hillary or Bernie, and he's actually getting new people to turnout. He *doubled* turnout in Virginia and first time primary voters chose him by 70%. The wave that brought us the 2018 election is choosing Biden, I don't see how you can still worry he doesn't have enthusiasm.
It is well understood that Hitler and Mussolini, and their parties, formed an alliance with conservative political elites (and also received the support of national financial elites) in order to acquire power. The main problem that the various (three, four, five) stage theories of fascism try to explain is exactly why this happened in various cases, but not in others. Specifically, what interests historians is how the original groups of "dissident intellectuals" of the right manage to transition to an active movement, and secondly how that active movement is legitimized and introduced succesfully to the national political systems, as these are the two main points that make or break, so to speak, a fascist movement, and also the main points where their stated policy objectives shift radically, e.g. all the way from syndicalism to corporatism (a problem that has caused significant grief over many years of research for scientists working on the conceptual delineation of fascist movements).
DeleteNow, one theory is that, well, perhaps the conservative elites in question were just not feeling the democracy any more, and that was enough. But intellectual historians record a manifest disdain for process-egalitarian norms (such as democratic norms) among conservatives in an extraordinary amount of contexts where democracy persists. The existence of ideologically coherent conservative parties with a (let us say) lackluster enthusiasm for democracy almost certainly underdetermines institutional failure and the slide to autocratic government in these circumstances.
When historians did try to understand the principle behind the success of this second main transition they discovered that the activity of the street thugs in question was, in fact, extremely relevant. Specifically, we invariably find fascist (and reactionary more generally) movements responding to progressive popular mobilization. In all three of the examples we have been discussing this far, the variously-coloured-shirts were mobilized to respond to, and directly attempting to suppress, agrarian insurrections. In all of these cases there are established relations between them and financial elites (especially landowners, but also -notoriously- industrialists) before they gain any access to mainstream political institutions. In both the cases of Germany and Italy, they actually did manage to suppress the popular movements in question, which is the event that immediately preceded their embrace by the conservatives and their transition to succesful political parties. Conversely, the french green-shirts failed to suppress the french peasant riots and were, instead, driven out of these areas completely. Not only did they fail in this, but the french state, under a progressive government, no less, managed to suppress the popular movement in question. These twin events resulted in an immediate consolidation of financial elites behind the traditional institutions of the french state, and the complete marginalization of the green shirts who failed to receive any of the financial and political support necessary to transition to a succesful political party (something which we know they were trying to do). Were the politicians here more democratic, while suppressing a popular revolt and shutting its demands out of politics, or were they persuaded that there was no use in upsetting institutions that succesfully served the interests they represented? At the very least this is underdetermined.
This is not about class structure (because, of course, as you point out, the class structure of all industrial capitalist states at that time is more or less identical, even in their specific variation of pre-fordist organization of industrial production). But it is (also) about class (the accusation of class reductionism is easy to make, but this is not what's defended here), insofar as there are very clear class interests involved in peasant insurrections and their suppression, quid pro quos with industrialists and latifundia owners and their representatives in government etc (and these factors do differ between different cases that progressed differently). I agree that facts are stubborn things, but they paint a much more complex image of social history than the (somewhat elitist) theory that attributes all these considerable social perturbations simply to the personal attachments of various great men(and isn't *this* the kind of tempting single source which you rightly urge that we avoid?). The politicians, apart from the influence of their commitments, are also responding to these developments and to systemic pressures when they decide whether to make a deal with fascists or not. Does the Belgium case show that what we need to avert institutional failure is an enlightened political functionary to seat people down and lecture them on the merits of mutual acceptance? Or would a more careful look at its history show different systemic factors at play, that permitted the conservatives to be reassured that the usual functioning of the state remained reliable? That permitted established interests to be reassured they are not under serious threat? Which of these was going on when the coalition in question was negotiated? Again, at the very least underdetermined by the stubborn facts.
DeleteThere is, of course, an understanding stretching back at least to the discourses on Livy that the civic virtue and the ability of the body politic to check the power of the sovereign, not the personal commitments of the sovereign (in the way that enlightened absolutists would suggest) is the crucial element of succesful republican institutions, so my analysis is not entirely innovative on this point. Constitutional lockdown, which you mention, is definitely also an important factor (recognized emphatically by these theories) in setting the stage for these developments through the delegitimation of potential judicial means of mediating the conflict.
The final image painted is one of a constitutional and political lockdown, with popular movements on the rise which threaten established interests that no longer trust the traditional state to suppress them, even though they themselves are not powerful enough to force a political resolution. This is not what we encounter here. Exactly the opposite in fact. The conservatives, for the first time in a long time, are salivating over the possibility of a clearly conservative supreme court. There are no currently active popular movements that can really threaten established interests. Even the possibility of defense through strike has been systematically undermined over a period of decades. Economic elites trust the state to defend and promote their interests without so much as minor concessions. We've already been served, docile on a plate, to the wolves, and you're worrying that they might decide to take the time and cook us. I don't think they care if we're well done. How's that for optimism!
Other than all of this (I'm sorry for my wordliness), agreed completely about sexism, and I guess we'll see about Biden.
You're diagnoses of when democracies fail is still far far too centered on Germany and Italy. Democracy does not always fall into fascism, it sometimes just falls into a more generalized dictatorship. And we don't need to stretch back 80 years to see it, look at modern day Hungary or Poland. They were countries with free and fair elections, until the ruling power began practicing "consitutional hardball" like stacking the courts, changing election elegability laws, restricting political coverage by opposition figures.
DeleteThere was no popular movement in Hungary or Poland that threatened the wealthy. Democracy failed there while persisting in nearly identical countries around them.
And all those steps that degrade democracy, Republicans have been doing them for decades, Trump (and in another way Obama) have simply accelerated the breakdown. And it's clear why, conservatism is less popular and the white Christian voting base is proportionally shrinking in importance. Democrats have received more votes for President in 7 of the last 8 elections, a streak no US party has had before. The 47 Democrats in the Senate received 15 million more votes than the 53 who control the chamber. And the reason the value the courts so much is they know that they are in the minority but would rather courts strike down the majority will than to accept the ideological opposition to win. 3 of the 4 parts of the Federal Government are currently governed by the party who got fewer votes, and you think they have no reason to distrust democracy.
Fascism can be said to be a counter-reaction by the wealthy to a perceived threat of the left. But democratic collapse is not automatically fascism. It certainly isn't in Venezuela for example, where a left-wing dictator abolished all democratic guardrails that might limit his power. And nothing regarding class or class movements can be said about Hungary which can not also be said about Romania or Slovakia.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have no clue what you were going to say, but I hope you are alright and safe with this coronavirus floating around.
DeleteWhat can I say that you haven't said better? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteBut at least USA has one thing that we in Latam do not: as long as you keep swiming (as Dory would sing), in time all those lost notions and values and parties will rebuild themselves. It may take a while, but the pieces can fall back into place because the "place" itself is well consolidated. They're not destroyed, just.. vacated.
Yeah it hurts to watch some of this unfold. People (a lot of people) need to learn how to separate Values form Interests, and really play the long Game.
Btw, I wouldn't mind to see this turn into a political blog. I love the way your mind works and would like to read more whether it's kinky or not. But as with everything, there's a time and a place, and this one might not be it ;)
For what it's worth, if you want to read more the two works I find best lays out a lot of what I'm talking about are "How Democracies Die" by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, and for something a little more American focused, "Why We're Polarized" by Ezra Kline does a good job talking about the systems that led to where we are.
DeleteI very much believe in systems, that it's rare that something is shaped more by individual people than by the systems and societies those people are in. Not that people play no part, but that people generally act in the rational way based on the system and society they live in. McConnell is sadly acting rationally, based on the incentive structures we have created. McConnell is rewarded when he breaks democracy, why would he stop doing the thing he keeps getting rewarded for doing? I find probably that's what might set me most apart, I'm less sold by personal narrative arcs and more by the systems and reward structures.
So, you see how they act within the system rather than believe what is repeated on the news? Or rather, how the system works as it stands? When I think of rewards structure, I keep on thinking about the whole insider trading that appears to go on unabated in Congress where as if it was any of us in this comment section, we would get investigated, arrested, and throw in jail. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
Delete"I'm less sold by personal narrative arcs and more by the systems and reward structures" I believe everybody is, at least outside of fiction, even when they aren't aware of it. Yes they ask and cheer for a Messiah, and cry and cringe on an underdog story, but push comes to 'vote' and it's about personal gain, not values. That's why all free world is ridden with "I support X person even though I disagree with his agenda on 99% of cases", because that 1% is money (or the promise of) to one's pocket. X is completely interchangable: down with one, there's a thousand to take it's place.
DeleteAs literature goes, I enjoyed "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. 10/10 applies to LatAm as a whole.
If it's just about money, why do the poor of Kansas vote Republican and the wealthy of San Francisco vote Democrat?
DeleteMoney is the least important thing people consider when voting, identity is what ties them together and it's why they vote the way they do. It makes us uncomfortable, because identity politics has become a dirty word, but it can better predict how someone would vote.
If I told you someone worked minimum wage but not where they live or any other identifying information, there would be no way of knowing who they voted for. If I told you someone else was white and lives in rural Kentucky but I won't tell you their income, you can much better predict their voting habits.
Okay, not "always" always is money, but also I didn't meant "rich votes this and poor votes that". It's not about how much money they HAVE, but how much they BELIEVE they have to GAIN.
DeleteIdentity is just a way of setting the norm. Of making one's way the "correct" way. They vote for identity because they take something out of it, out of making 'one of their own' run things. And what they take isn't usually to prosper as a society, but simply to prosper.
(it's easier to go up if you're the norm)
I guess what I mean is... for example, no one votes for a guy they believe will be worse for the economy just to fight for someone else's right for an abortion.
Or vote for the one worse just because they want to prevent the right for abortion.
Abortion becomes inconsequential. They'll vote for their pockets believing "he won't really push that abortion bill like that" or something. Mental ginastics on Olimpics tier.
Or I'm the medalist, who knows? ;p
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am going to give kudos on everyone here on a having a very civil conversation. Hurrahs all around. :)
ReplyDeleteSo, how is everyone doing?
ReplyDeleteSo sad you could not continue your beautiful tale
ReplyDeleteDid something happen to her?
DeleteElection year. My guess is she must be swamped at work. My hope is that too
DeleteHopefully, that is case, but I wonder if she is truly alright. Also, if she is reading this, don't stress out and give up. (Some of) a dying man's last words was "It could be worse."
ReplyDeleteI meant don't give up. (Facepalms)
Delete