No Joe Can Save Us

Picking back up on "politics", much angst surrounding Manchin's venal game, but the whole drama is just a diversion to keep Americans from noticing a disturbing little trend: democratic capitalism doesn't work. The angst should be flowing from the fact nothing can stop Capital from destroying earth's life support system. Or that millions are being sacrificed, doomed to a very unpleasant fate while others sip champagne and smoke fat cigars. Or the fact that Margaret Thatcher's little dictum is finally coming true: "there is no such thing as society". But Manchin was never going to save. Nor was the other Joe or David Brook's hypothetical perfect politician (one who embraces social conservatism and economic populism). Or any other freak who believes Capital can be coerced into a managed decline, or a "soft landing". Joe Sixpack isn't going to be much help either. The "working class", at least as it is defined by pollsters, is solidly in the resentment camp, searching for scapegoats to blame for the increasing chaos. Most angsty will be those idealistic young graduates with Environmental Studies degrees who were hoping to work for some climate non-profit funded by Build Back Better. They were all in for Bernie's "political revolution" but they thought the revolutionaries would come from the Left. Oops. Will they re-think their faith or double-down by occupying Nancy Pelosies office again? The increasingly pathetic 350.org is so outraged they are asking people to sign yet another worthless petition- this time DEMANDING that Shcumer remove Manchin from his chairman position. Or else! Yeah! Of course Trump or DiSantis or Clarence Thomas won't save us either. Not that anyone will ask them about wet-bulb temperature, but if they did they would just smile and say "It's the economy, stupid." When really it's the stupidity, economy.

So You Want To Get Elected?

In the latest issue of Democratic Left (DSA newsletter), we socialists are told that "the media makes politics confusing on purpose, but really it's simple: through politics we can weigh in on how to manage our resources." Kind of like how Joe Manchin is "weighing in" on fossil fuels or AIPAC is "weighing in" on funding Israel's military. Simple. The DSA wants "more ordinary people like me or you to get involved in politics." This is what they taught us in "government" class in sixth grade, how the government is a marvelous and unique democracy "of ,by and for the people". Simple. "The world of politics" only "APPEARS daunting, confusing or downright ugly." But if you ask Bernie or AOC you will see it's actually cool. Sure, you'll have to join the Democratic Party in order to get funding, and sure, they have a few rules you'll want to follow. You may meet a lobbyist or two who will have some suggestions on how you should vote. And a few rich people will have some advice. In a democracy there is no taxation without representation and since capital pays a lot of taxes they get a lot of reps. Also, since there are lots and lots of stupid people, they deserve lots of representation as well. All those bigots and gun'loving patriots get to be represented. Welcome to simple politics. Vote for me. My Senator, John Tester, has figured out the best way to keep the job is to represent soldiers and veterans. Just stay vaguely neutral on everything else.

Crisis of Legitimation

Yurgen Habermas wrote a book called The Crisis of Legitimation which answered a lot of questions about liberal governmentality. I found my copy left in a motel room in Jackson Montana. The thesis of the book is that liberal capitalist "democracy" is fragile and rests on a thin veneer of legitimacy. Much like the stock market, the whole ediface requires consumer confidence. To maintain legitimacy with the public, the system must appear to uphold certain norms, certain traditions should be maintained, certain expectaitions met. Hegemony (the abscence of overt coercion) rests on this constructed consensus; shelves must remain stocked, the trains should run on time. In the liberal order citizens expect to exercise certain rights and above all private proprety rights must be sacred. But of course, as times change, norms shift. To the degree that consent is manufactured, that factory has to put in increasing amounts of overtime as the intersecting crises deepen. And while I still believe a point exists at which legitimacy would be thoroughly undermined, I am less and less sure it necessarily leads to revolt. It might just be that the population collectively disassociates from reality and accepts the simulation in the place of the real thing. Or it might be that all resistance is channeled into harmless protest and eventual cynicism. Drinking is a popular option. Beyond maintaining train schedules and protecting property, a legitimate government must protect certain interests,what the constitution refers to as the "general welfare", and safeguard enough "liberty" that enough of the population will grant it the exclusive right to use force. There must be a degree of equality and safety and a political sphere in which decision making takes place in some transperant fashion. The increasingly urgent question is: how far can these norms break down before the legitimacy of power is questioned? We know people have an amazing capacity for prefering illusion over reality. The Left has a relationship to psychoanalysis ,not shared by the Right, because "rational actor" theory fails to explain so much of everyday experience, including a willingness to legitimize irrational systems and oppresive institutions. What we see on the surface is again, a tremendous ability to adapt, to revise norms and consnt to madness.