American Politics: The Basics

American Politics: The Basics

Peter Schultz

            Basically, all you need to know about American politics can be gleaned from this quote from John Ehrlichman, senior aide to Richard Nixon:

            “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war [in Vietnam] or black, but by getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about drugs? Of course we did.”

            The trick to creating an effective government, one that “works,” is to manipulate people’s passions. What can’t be done directly or visibly, e.g., making it illegal to oppose a war or to be a minority, can be done indirectly or invisibly, thereby allowing the government to operate efficiently, effectively.

            There is no need to use what has been called “the bully pulpit;” in fact, secretly instructing people is far more effective. Visionary leadership may be what a lot of people claim they want, but secretly, covertly manipulating popular passions is far more effective. In this way, as Ehrlichman says, it is possible to vilify on a daily basis those who are opposed to the government’s policies. Those opposed to the government’s wars can be demonized as druggies, “hippies,” while minorities will become in the public’s mind “super predators” ala’ Hillary Clinton or “gang bangers in a hoodie” ala’ Joe Biden.

            And basically, American politics, American political discourse, such as it is, revolves around manipulating popular passions. Which popular passions? Well, as Ehrlichman’s assertion illustrates, the passions being manipulated are those that lead to vilification and that justify government repression. Nixon, et. al., labeled this “law and order,” which is quite interesting insofar as he and his administration were the ones engaging in criminal behavior. But Nixon’s success also illustrates just how effective manipulating popular passions can be. “Law and order” is still embraced by most Americans unthinkingly. For who would or could be against “law and order?”

            As a result, an underlying consensus anchors American politics, gives our politics a definitive trajectory, and limits our political debates within very narrow confines. Those who challenge this consensus are marginalized or, as it appears to many, marginalize themselves. They are not to be taken seriously and if the people begin to rally to them, they must be made to disappear, banished, much as Socrates banished the poets near the end of the Republic.

Putin, Trump, and Liberalism

Putin, Trump, and Liberalism

Peter Schultz

Putin asked Trump if he, Trump, agreed that “Western-style liberalism” was dead. Trump, obviously out of his depth, mumbled something. But what gets me is that a lot of people don’t think Putin was correct. Seems to me that such liberalism disappeared some time ago, about the time when JFK was assassinated, followed by the murders of MLK, Malcolm X, and RFK. Or I might surmise that such liberalism died when the establishment dismantled, repressed, and subverted the promise of the 60s. LBJ, Vietnam, and Nixon killed off liberalism, which was then buried by Reagan and Clinton. And any resurrection seems extremely improbable.

Gunshot Detection Systems in Schools: Recipe for Disasters

Gunshot Detection System in Schools: Recipe for Disasters

Peter Schultz

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mass-high-school-now-equipped-with-gunshot-detection-system/ar-AADoNYy

OK. Let’s think about this development for a little while, viz., that Brockton High School in Boston got a gunshot detection system as a gift from one of its alums who sells these systems on the east coast.

The system has an alarm and detects where the shots were fired, that is, which room in the school, and within seconds alerts school officials and each and every police person in Brockton. The police are to respond as if there was “an active shooter” on the loose, not someone who is suicidal or someone who has taken hostages. The detectors are battery operated. Sounds like it is as good as it gets, especially because as the salesman said, “It takes human beings out of the situation.” So what could go wrong?

First, it is really useful to have all the police in Brockton notified, and being expected to respond? Sounds like a possible SNAFU situation to me: Situation Normal All Fucked Up. I don’t’ know how many police there are in Brockton but the possibilities for screw ups increase as the number of officers involved increase. Where would all these officers meet? Who would take charge of them and direct them effectively? How would the SWAT officers interact with the other officers?

Second, the detectors pinpoint where the shooter is, allegedly. Actually, they only pinpoint where the shot or shots were fired, not where the shooter is because shooters are capable of moving, shooting and then moving. That is, this technology creates a picture, as it were, but there is no guarantee that that picture is accurate because like all technologically generated pictures, these are only virtual pictures. Mistaking virtual pictures for real pictures could lead to some pretty terrible outcomes, like mistaking innocent students for the shooter or shooters.

That the picture is merely virtual and not real is confirmed by the fact that the police are to assume that the shooter is “active;” that is, is not suicidal and not holding hostages. But what if the shooter is suicidal or holding hostages? If that’s the case then the police will be responding to a situation that doesn’t in fact exist; they would be responding to something like a mirage, something not real. If the shooter had hostages and the police didn’t know that, the danger to the hostages would increase. And if the shooter were suicidal, not homicidal, treating her or him as homicidal could guarantee that the shooter’s “suicide” would be successful, that is, suicide by cop. In other words, these situations are far more complicated than can be conveyed by such technological tools as gunshot detection systems.

And this is what happens when humans are replaced by technology. Technological tools don’t have what humans have, namely, imagination. Without imagination, these tools are essentially blind to the situations they are allegedly assessing. Without imagination, it is extremely difficult to assess situations realistically, although because we are so enamored of technology these days we have forgotten that imagination is absolutely essential for being realistic, for being in touch with what I like to call “real reality.”

The very last thing that should be done in dealing with situations like these is to remove human beings from dealing with them, or subordinating the judgment of human beings to machines. In every situation where either of these things is done, from drone warfare to facial recognition systems, the results are eventually but always inhuman. After all, why would you expect anything else when you take the human element out of the real world? With humans taken out of our situation, only the inhuman remains. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Being Civil

Being Civil

Peter Schultz

            Joe Biden has been defending himself against charges of racism, occasioned by his work with such segregationists as Senator Eastland of Mississippi and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina in years past, by arguing that he was being “civil” and, thereby, was able to agree with these senators and get some things done in D.C.

            And that makes this a good time to think about the idea that being civil is the best way to do politics. Biden – and others too – tend to think that being civil is what we should all aspire to in our politics, but this is far from clear, for at least the following reasons.

            First, civility privileges the reigning political arrangement. That is, the powers that be, whether they be segregationist or capitalist, are put in a privileged position when people are being civil or thinking that civility is the only way to be properly political. Biden, by being civil in working with segregationists, could not challenge the prevailing racist political and social order in existence at that time. All he could accomplish at most would be to modify the prevailing racist order without undermining it or overturning it. Thereby, his actions would implicitly fortify the legitimacy of the prevailing racist system. And just as surely his actions would lead to civil unrest, incivility on the part of those who thought, as any thinking person would, that a racist political and social order is fundamentally flawed and should be overturned.

Second, as the above implies, being civil is not being just. When a person is being civil, justice becomes a subordinate, a decidedly secondary concern. “Why can’t we all just get along,” although a seemingly heartfelt and common sense appeal, ignores that we can’t all just get along because some are being treated unjustly, even inhumanely, in a segregated or racist society. Behaving civilly is not behaving justly and civility alone does not lead to justice or a just society. In the face of racism, the kind of racism that existed when Senator Eastland and Senator Thurmond were alive almost demands that people concerned with justice behave uncivilly; that is, demands sit-ins, marches, and organizations dedicated to black power. To tell those acting in these ways to behave civilly is to tell them to accept the injustices they are being subjected to, to tell them that the racist political and social order that exists is legitimate.

By reminding us that he acted civilly, Biden is then reminding us that he was, at least then, quite content to accept and legitimate a racist political and social order. In my neighborhood, that makes Biden a racist.

Is Trump the Democrats' Target?

Is Trump the Democrats’ Target?

P. Schultz

            Frank Bruni has written an article in the NY Times entitled “Donald Trump Will Pick the Democratic Nominee” in which he argues that the Democrats are so focused on defeating Trump that even if Trump loses his “DNA will linger.” And he argues that “Trump gets credit for the Democratic primary’s defining aspect, which is the sheer number of candidates — 23.” This has little to do with the clashes within the Democratic Party and everything to do with “his underwhelming approval rating [so] that if ever a sitting president looked vulnerable and if any year appeared ripe for a Democratic takeover, that president is Trump and that year is 2020.”

            Seems to make a lot of sense except for the fact that the Democratic Party is in the midst of an uprising by “insurgents” like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and even Mike Gravel. And as Bruni unintentionally points out, so much of what is happening may be seen as the result of the mainstream Democrats like Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden trying to hold on to their control of the party. To wit:

“… the congested field is suffocating qualified aspirants who would otherwise find oxygen. It’s putting an extra premium on viral moments and supersize conceits. It’s privileging celebrity. All of that will factor into who prevails, and all of that is because of Trump.”  

            Moreover, Joe Biden, apparently the leading Democrat for the nomination, is talking like all he wants to do is restore “the good old days” in the party: “the essence of Biden’s strategy and message . . . boil[s] down to this: Electing me would mean that the past four years were a bad dream, like that kooky season of the 1970s television series “Dallas.” It would restore Obama (in absentia), resume the arc and renounce this dance with the devil, who could no more drain the swamp than tell the truth. Nostalgia is the new revolution.”

            So, it may be said, as Bruni says, that the Democrats’ behavior is suffocating “qualified aspirants,” read “insurgents,” and their leading contestant for the nomination wants a restoration. A restoration based on what? Nostalgia. And it is worthwhile to ask: Is this behavior aimed at Trump, who of course presents no threat to the rule of Pelosi, Schumer, et. al., or is it aimed at those like Bernie, et. al., who would, if successful, take control of the Democratic Party? For me, it is the latter that makes the most sense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/donald-trump-will-pick-the-democratic-nominee/ar-AACQk9t

American Politicians: The Good? The Bad? The Ugly?

American Politicians; The Good? The Bad? The Ugly? 

Do most Americans have any conception how despicable, how ugly their politicians are and have been? In what is called “the Age of Trump” reminders are needed.

Here’s what happened after Ted Kennedy drive off a bridge near Martha’s Vineyard and let a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne drown: “The Kennedy political operation went into high gear, spiriting the party attendees off the island before reporters could find them, and forming a hedge around Kennedy himself. He secluded himself at the family compound in Hyannis Port while an army of advisers and lawyers spent days plotting how to respond.” [Camelot’s End, p. 69]

Then Kennedy addressed the nation and made himself out to be the victim: “I was overcome, I’m frank to say, by a jumble of emotions: grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion, and shock.” Poor guy! “All kinds of scrambled thoughts - all of them confused, some of them irrational, many of them which I cannot recall, and some of which I would not have seriously entertained under normal circumstances - went through my mind during this period.”

Thoughts, many thoughts, he can’t recall but knows he had! All his thoughts “confused”! Some “irrational!” Poor guy! So victimized by letting a young woman drown! Has Trump ever surpassed this sniveling, whining, self-pitying statement by Ted Kennedy? He probably has. But let no one say Trump, although thoroughly despicable, was our first major politician to be so.

Americans, like other human beings, can turn away from how ugly their society has become. So it is good to remind them of this ugliness, to remind them there is nothing, absolutely nothing extraordinary or exceptional about them or their society.