Another essay from the old days. I was apparently very annoyed back in 03. Being single at the time probably contributed to having lots of spare time to ruminate and be overly disturbed by human events. Unfortunately, my words lack any cohesive forms here. They appear to be long angry rants with more insight than is typical but disorganized brain dumps nonetheless.
There is a matter of which I find a point to discuss. It concerns the principle elements of our governance. Democracy is a fragile system, but more accurately it is a practice. It cannot become an institution of authority by this practice, but rather an institution of the mind wherein its governed are required to make decisions concerning their future governance. The most modern example of this premise is our own country and its recent engagements, both domestically and abroad. The present incarnation of the public government is made possible by practices long established and made necessary by some of those same arrangements made in a history of error or through just causes. What is of a note to concern here is the practice of democracy and freedom whilst we protest to bring it to lands abroad.
Campaign reform is a principle matter of discussion in political debate yet it is at heart not the issue of concern. The concern is the practical involvement of the general public in the processes of their rule and governance. Campaign reform is a means towards restoring this disenfranchisement, yet it is not perhaps the most effective to consider. Simply changing the rules by which the powerful maintain their power will not permit those with little or no involvement in their selection to attain more power and liberty for themselves. This is the intended goal of democracy, not to become more powerful for itself, but instead to extend the benefit of freedom to all its peoples and to establish a beneficial and peaceful society for their individual growth. Then the goal is not to simply shuffle the chairs about as though a real change was affected, but instead to bring about a real shuffle.
The premise here is to seek what means involve the populace in their public discourses. It is not quite necessary that their involvement include the participation of actual decisions, rather simply a public life in addition to that of a personal one. This is the duty of a democratic citizen to concern himself with the simple affairs of daily life and then to involve their mind and passions in a more active manner with the affairs of his state and neighbours. For many of us a simple act of volunteerism or charity, supplying to others the benefit of our time, effort and monies, suffices to explore this public life. This affects real change and creates a sort of public awareness that pervades one's life. We are forced to engage and explore those lives which are different from our own and what causes and effects are involved in their decisions and practices. Yet it is not yet full participation. No longer reach is extended, merely the practice of a good and charitable society which tends to its own needs rather than a dependence on the "charitable" efforts of its leaders.
To what ends then do men seek to involve themselves in the affairs of the state, the problems of governance and law? What shows this effort most broadly is the practice of war. Here, together with the inculcation of patriotism and a call toward defence of that freedom which is cherished if not fully practiced, we find the greatest efforts are maintained by the general public to involve their efforts in those of the governing body.
The people are enlisted in national defence or offence, and because of this intimate relationship, become at least aware of a broad dependence on their support for the existence and maintenance of the country at large. But it should not be the domestic calling of arms that unites man and state. And it is so that some among us are conceived of a mind that engages this practice on a more regular basis. This is healthy, not to practice politics, but to suffer by them and to see what deceptions are employed by the state and its institutions towards its people.
This then is what is involved in making others invest the time and effort towards the practice of liberty; that is an awareness of public sentiment and life, and an interest in seeing its improvement in some manner or respect. Our efforts on this point are not always progressive or positive; often they are restrictive or negative, as with the practice of racism or religious fanaticism. These are points established not through rational means but through an ignorance of the human condition and an acceptance of either a stereotype based on fear or the words of what we are told to believe is right. These are efforts to be offensive to many and indeed to be combated by more rational minds among us, as we are all prone to such prejudices as to do such things ourselves without the premise of reason to tell us otherwise. What is of note here is however that even these small minded persons are quite capable of mobilizing and attempting to affect the nature of law and government in their society. What was required was a rally point on which to become concerned with its nature, not a concern for the progression of the human race, but instead that of their own small community. We find today many such causes, good and bad in their turn; concern over the natural environment, the rights of historically oppressed peoples (women and non-European races, or non-Christian religion), the moral practices of things such as abortion or personal privacy rights. For some of us, the interest is broad enough to extend to other peoples and our national affairs with them, such as the bloody messes of wars in Africa or the Middle East. Whatever the reason was, it was sufficient to generate some concern that overrides the simple daily matter of which TV show to watch or the grating effects of our chosen occupation. We are not all dullards with such simple matters to occupy our time. We are in fact capable of making or at least participating in the more complex problems of our lives, those which are involved indeed the problems of others as well. This is the essence of democracy.
What the problem herein is the repression of unpopular opinion, even those of negative matters. While they can be repressed through reason where they are unreasonable, they should not be repressed simply because of their separatory effects. The unpopular point of view of pacifism is not unpatriotic, but offers a broad view that the understanding that all human life is inherently valuable, not merely those of our own country, and that our understanding of freedoms is to allow the populace to make some choices for themselves, perhaps even when it is unwanted for them to do so. This is inconsistent with the practice of statecraft and the requisite necessity of warfare on some matters, and therefore somewhat unfounded on reason. But it contains a badge of merit for it forces certain qualifications upon our actions, and demands more prominently a reasonable explanation of our foreign entanglements. Therefore, its subsequent repression and its portrayal as an unpatriotic act are foolhardy at best. It is difficult for any man to risk his livelihood and his very life when he does not understand the reason for it. Indeed the more patriotic act is to exercise our freedom of speech and speak on matters which contend our mind, rather than simply to follow the crowd or the government where it should lead.
The problem of repression of unpopular factors is not a limited scope. It is a development of our institutional practices. Our educational system is seemingly designed to encourage agreement and discipline, not encourage thought and therefore disagreement. The premise is that disagreement leads to conflict, violent oftener than not. In fact, the pretense of agreement leads to greater confusion, and in some ways leads towards a path of intensified conflict with those who would disagree. Whereas the pretense of disagreement requires one to find reason and cause that they should live in violation of the practices of others. Where there can be found no reason, then there should be no cause, such as murdering a fellow man. The very nature of disagreement requires one to learn to live with it as a function of being, that all of us are inherently drawn to different ideas as a result of our experiences in life. And therefore, that change in those ideas is a function of disagreement as well. Whereas the function of agreement is to create peace, a useful premise for an orderly society, it is by itself useless. Where it is created through the pacification of its people's vigorous spirit and by repressing their unique opinions on life and living, it is now control, not order. Agreement is only half of the equation therefore, as on certain points we should find it for the establishment of order and for the function of society; it should be not made at the removal of people's free exercise in thought. Disagreement, where it is taught as a natural function of society, and as taught as a thing to be treated with discussion and attempts at solvency and compromise, instead of hostility and intemperance, is also a useful natural education. Discipline is in fact the agreement between those in control and those not, that those in control are correct, and doing what is instructed of you is the only correct course of your action. Disagreement on this point is impossible as it is enforced through rule. While this is an effective means of governing a body of people, it is dependent entirely on the agreement between the two opposed forces, that of power, and that of liberty.
These two forces are in constant opposition and constantly battle over the nature of government, most particularly in a democratic system. The need for order, safety, and security for society to function is often a claim for those of power to abuse their rights over those without. The cloak and guise of protection is a new system for such abuses, similar to that used by religious figures over all of history to abuse their power to contract horrible vices upon those of competing views. The need for creativity, arts, and free lives lived in even simple ways is a natural element of human beings. It is required of us that we should explore it, and if we are not ever shown it, how are we to know of it, to practice it. If we are never encouraged to think and decide on the more complex matters, the matters of state or law and order, then how are we to make such decisions with interest and vigor. If we are instead simply encouraged to be obedient, we will not create a functional society of individual power, but instead a functional society of someone else's power. The practices of many conglomerates of industry is to enrich not necessarily the 'worker-drone', but the people at the top, who are enriched by the service of diligent workers who work without question and innovate and toil with ever increasing efficiency. The practice of governments is as with any other institution, to enrich itself, only in this instance, with greater matters of control over its subjects.
If we wish to create such a fascist state, then by all means we should learn how to live in one. You will live in fear, abject terror, at the mercy not merely of foreign powers who will be shown through media propaganda to terrorize and strike at our state and allies, but also at the mercy of the organs of the state. You will practice, as when we were children writing names on the board, turning in the villains of society, turning any suspicion into an institutional function of paranoia towards any deviant behaviors, casting our personal vendettas into public practices, turning on each other with reckless abandonment of any moral conscience. The simple methods that we are employed on occasion to relieve our stresses and pains as effects of our toil at work and home, could be construed as potent deviancy. Drink, drugs, sex, smoking, these are stress management functions for a great majority who know not how to change their condition in life in more meaningful and positive ways, merely how to control their internal sufferings. These are portrayed as vices not because they are inherently evil, but rather that our dependency on them is. Any state exercising such direct control as to cow its people into paranoia and vigilant support of its dominance is liable to target any personal activity it chooses to strike from its allowable lifestyle. Personal spirituality could be targeted and stricken systematically, preferring instead a ritual obedience to the state. Personal liberty could be curtailed to the point of service to such a state.
This cannot be a preferred method of life for people. There is a point in between such an extreme and that of anarchy. We are not prepared yet for such freedom as to govern ourselves. Not all of us are capable of obeying basic rules necessary for society to function without the premise of fear, at the tyranny of the state punishment system. We are dependent on the existence of a system for public order, as we are, in our private investments, still wicked and selfish. Yet, in this necessary practice, we should not consent to be governed by a system that debases our individual freedoms. This is a careful war of necessity. In our constitution are the frameworks for this battle; it was fought vigorously then. What we should consider is that it is a continuous battle, one in which those who control the elements of power in society will not willingly submit to allow others to subvert some or all of that potency, and one in which those without power will try to resume their own authority.
Thus we are brought back to the point at hand. Participation and enfranchisement are the keys to a proper democratic state. These interests, when taken up by its people, practiced with fervor and an eye towards debated conflict solution, are instrumental in a functional society and perform the function of allowing the general public to combat its rulers and powerful authority figures with questions and scrutiny towards their motives. It would occur that their motives could only remain shared with those of their people, and their outlook toward the common defence and permitting general prosperity of its people the only truest sensible political view. Simply reforming the present manner in which campaigns are run, while they are indeed showing inherent forms of corruption, will not change the nature and interest in democracy which has waned dramatically over the past generations. The alternative does not bear thinking about, a police state with overarching control and influence over the daily lives of its citizenry has already happened numerous times in history; none of them is remembered with great fondness nor their exercise in control emulated by any rational society.
It remains then to name a proposal to inculcate the people into the practice of freedom and its spiritual home in a democratic state. Simply cleaning up the campaigns is not a solution here, while it appears a necessary thing. What is needed is a spawning of interest in both the leaders and their agendas. We as people are not generally disposed to do a great deal of contemplation of the complex matter of running a country in an orderly fashion. To create laws and to establish principles on which we are agreed, there is a fashionable means to appoint leaders and representatives to express our concerns. At least on paper this sounds sensible. In practice, those leaders and representatives are people of their own accord, vulnerable to the same elements of greed or self-interest as any other. The institution that is the governing body of this country has its trappings of power and the influence it sways over the daily business in this country attracts the word and mind of a variety of suitors. The most powerful of these is the great industries and firms of business based in this country. Here a great deal of influence is used, and therefore is a minimal viewpoint, unexpressed are often the views of the great masses who work in the factories and offices. It remains for them to find views and issues on which they have opinions and to seek out people to express them or to express themselves. We are not encouraged this practice beyond the principle means of protest, which is looked upon as annoying at best. So then what attracts our attention are issues on which people have organized into groups to greater gain political leverage and express their outlook on various candidates and how various laws and issues would effect their primary concerns in life. Here the great work of research and public harassment is done by another representative, whose views are very clearly shared and to whom we would lend greater support, but instead to merely express our concerns rather than to legislate for them.
The key element as I see it is that the populace finds strength in organization where it cannot find it individually. Here also views are clearly expressed and explained at length. Questions on a variety of pertinent subjects can be found answered with a modicum of personal efforts. What this implies is that the present political system as it functions now is insufficient to fully represent the people. The vast millions who inhabit this nation are diverse in culture, language, religion, and indeed opinions. On these opinions there are a various number of subjects to which we have no interest or a great deal personally invested. So what would work more effectively to represent this is in fact a coalitional government. In a place such as Europe or Asia, there are not two parties; there are generally two major coalitions backed by a number of related issue-based parties. We in America have a greater amount of diverse interests, and indeed, if you examine closely the two parties, you will find the actual members of each party have varied interests, even if the party platform itself is relatively inflexible and inexpressive of these concerns. We are disconnected from the process of government because our views are not hailed by any official means of recognition. We feel ignored. Therefore I humbly suggest that the principle means of saving our democracy is to invest a good deal of interest in fracturing the present two-party system and forcing the populace to seek out those interests on which they have opinions of merit, and to back them. The second part is already done in many respects; many of us belong to unions or some public forum, perhaps as a volunteer or as an active philanthropist. What has not been done is fracture the present political parties into more expressive and therefore more flexible elements. The principal unity could remain as a general platform for two basic coalitions, whose strength and influence would be measured by the basic construct of the various separate parts. The two parties at present are also inexpressive on another point in that neither represents at current a great difference of opinion on any great matter in the order of the country. Perhaps certain moral points are argued; abortion for example. But the overall ability of the government as it stands now to abolish stogy institutions of government or at least to greatly enhance or even change at all, is limited by the scope that neither party is of great difference of opinion on the necessity of such things.
As it appears to an outsider, the politics of Washington appear to surround passing as many things as you care to get passed, and then not so much following up to see how these programs are working. Or if they are followed up, then it would appear that strengthening the new infrastructure of this institution is always in order. We learn early on in life what trash is, and usually if something doesn't work, and can't be fixed, you throw it out, and you don't play with it afterwards. Not so with political programs. If it isn't working, it would appear that you can always throw more at it and pretend that fixes things, i.e. public education. All institutions are limited by their budgets and staffs to begin with. If both can be strengthened, then the institution is stronger by definition. But this has nothing to do with representing the views of the people. It has nothing to do with resolving the disunion which occurs over a great matter. It has the appearance of it, because an agency exists, surely it is engaged in the salvation of a particular issue and the people concerned with it. Yet with all living things, the agency's primary objective is self-preservation. What it does, it will do of necessity, and not necessarily of response to problems. The matter of control by the government is to ensure that a necessary function is performed, either regulations obeyed by industries, or hazards cleaned, etc. Thus the basic function of electing officials at the moment is essentially to serve as board members on the largest business in the world, engaged in so many various functions as to confound the depths of individual reason. Such power is corruptive and wasted. It is indeed possible that most government functions are indeed largely permanent ones, yet at least they should react even occasionally to rational and well-founded concerns of its people.
So herein, if there are in fact various board members who are somewhat pliable to the people they represent, we would find a more flexible government, able to take interest on a variety of subjects. As it is, we use a committee system for this. This is however flawed since the commissions are again, simply oversight boards. The commissions can bury any fresh idea on a subject which they feel is unimportant or which they do not approve of. No laws on topics which are against the interest of the government, and perhaps in the favor of the people at large are likely to seek an audience here. The great churches and religions of the world would not soon survive it was discovered that the proper spiritual relationship was in fact a personal one, and did not involve or even at all require the great institutions and clergy who have interposed themselves on it. Government functions in much the same way. It interposes itself on our lives, expressing the various concerns of daily life, ensuring a sense of order where there might not be otherwise. But in fact, the commission of order and otherwise good citizenry is a personal matter. It is something to which we are obliged by society's inherent organization to practice and to promulgate. We are obliged to treat the great teaming mass of humanity as a massive extended family. We are not obliged to always get along, but we are invested in getting along when we are to disagree. We as individuals are inherently based on the mission of government. That is to say, we should, in order to create a better society for us and for our progeny, be learning to govern and take care of ourselves, without always the need for the fear of a swift hand of justice coming from the law. The commission of righteousness is a practice to which we should devote our lives, rather than simply accepting the fear of penalties in our wickedness. Herein the current necessity of government takes its power, and it will continue to menace us with authority so long as people need its function to maintain themselves properly.
Posts
