Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 08-04-2007, 08:13 AM

referring to bushworld as a dictatorship seems a bit hysterical.
i have followed the devolution of this administration pretty closely and the simple facts of the matter are that the authoritarian tendencies in their collective outlook have been obvious since around 9/12/2001 and that we in general were in far more monolithic a political space between then and last november. now we find ourselves in a particularly delightful paralysis at a time when paralysis is among the worst possible options--nothing in particular has changed about the collective outlook of the bush people--but the situation around them has changed and as a result you are seeing more explicitly than before just what these people are in political terms.

but the fact is that the administration does not have the political support to be able to go much further than they have and the sense that one gets of the country at large is that any move to consolidate the kind of dictatorial position that REMAINS IMPLICIT at this point would not work. i suppose a coup is always possible, but there hasn't been one.

as for the topic of the thread--for 20 years american mass party politics has been converging on the "center" which is defined as the ever-shrinking gap that separates the tactical claims of the two main parties. when things were a bit less fucked up, i recall pan (for example) cheerleading for this drift--now it is a problem. the whole "cant we all just get along" refrain is of a piece with supporting the convergence of political lines.

the consequence of this planned convergence (planned in the sense of being an aspect of power relations within the democratic party, the rise of the moderate-to-reactionary dlc and all it entailed) is that if one is to participate at all in this pseudo-democratic system of faction rotation, one is reduced to tactical voting. and like others have said, the alternative is to opt out such that you render yourself entirely irrelevant--where by voting you render yourself individually irrelevant, but nonetheless you can retain the illusion (or not illusion) that your particular tactical choices are made by many others such that a less foul outcome may result--rather than a more foul outcome. at this point, i cannot see how anyone who is not a committed conservative will not understand the republican party---particularly the right wing of the republican party--to be a less desirable alternative than any other. so we are in a position of voting against a foul alternative. personally, i have felt like this has been all there is to us-style pseduo-democracy for many years.

i also do not understand at this point--you know, in 2007--why folk still want to see in the major political parties something on the order of a church that expresses an entire belief system. but perhaps it is just this desire for political party as analogy of a church that explains why, once upon a time, there were lots of conservative faithful. but it seems to me that having such a party is not a whle lot better than not having one--worse even in the sense that having such a party would tend to exempt you from having to think too much for yourself about questions political: you'd just vote straight ticket, not really having to know what the fuck was at stake---the party and the el jeffe for which it stands will take care of you. in that is already the roots of populist support for dictatorship. all that really matters is whether your politics happen to coincide with those of the Dear Leader: if no, Problem. if yes: what are you talking about?

we loose either way.

seems to me that this is a good time for folk to begin thinking in strategic terms about organization building on lines not controlled by the two parties.
this does not necessarily mean changing voting patterns in the immediate run--rather do something unamerican and think longer-term.

08-04-2007, 08:13 AM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	referring to bushworld as a dictatorship seems a bit hysterical. i have followed the devolution of this administration pretty closely and the simple facts of the matter are that the authoritarian tendencies in their collective outlook have been obvious since around 9/12/2001 and that we in general were in far more monolithic a political space between then and last november. now we find ourselves in a particularly delightful paralysis at a time when paralysis is among the worst possible options--nothing in particular has changed about the collective outlook of the bush people--but the situation around them has changed and as a result you are seeing more explicitly than before just what these people are in political terms. but the fact is that the administration does not have the political support to be able to go much further than they have and the sense that one gets of the country at large is that any move to consolidate the kind of dictatorial position that REMAINS IMPLICIT at this point would not work. i suppose a coup is always possible, but there hasn't been one. as for the topic of the thread--for 20 years american mass party politics has been converging on the "center" which is defined as the ever-shrinking gap that separates the tactical claims of the two main parties. when things were a bit less fucked up, i recall pan (for example) cheerleading for this drift--now it is a problem. the whole "cant we all just get along" refrain is of a piece with supporting the convergence of political lines. the consequence of this planned convergence (planned in the sense of being an aspect of power relations within the democratic party, the rise of the moderate-to-reactionary dlc and all it entailed) is that if one is to participate at all in this pseudo-democratic system of faction rotation, one is reduced to tactical voting. and like others have said, the alternative is to opt out such that you render yourself entirely irrelevant--where by voting you render yourself individually irrelevant, but nonetheless you can retain the illusion (or not illusion) that your particular tactical choices are made by many others such that a less foul outcome may result--rather than a more foul outcome. at this point, i cannot see how anyone who is not a committed conservative will not understand the republican party---particularly the right wing of the republican party--to be a less desirable alternative than any other. so we are in a position of voting against a foul alternative. personally, i have felt like this has been all there is to us-style pseduo-democracy for many years. i also do not understand at this point--you know, in 2007--why folk still want to see in the major political parties something on the order of a church that expresses an entire belief system. but perhaps it is just this desire for political party as analogy of a church that explains why, once upon a time, there were lots of conservative faithful. but it seems to me that having such a party is not a whle lot better than not having one--worse even in the sense that having such a party would tend to exempt you from having to think too much for yourself about questions political: you'd just vote straight ticket, not really having to know what the fuck was at stake---the party and the el jeffe for which it stands will take care of you. in that is already the roots of populist support for dictatorship. all that really matters is whether your politics happen to coincide with those of the Dear Leader: if no, Problem. if yes: what are you talking about? we loose either way. seems to me that this is a good time for folk to begin thinking in strategic terms about organization building on lines not controlled by the two parties. this does not necessarily mean changing voting patterns in the immediate run--rather do something unamerican and think longer-term. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-04-2007 at 08:16 AM..