February 06, 2004
Decisions Are Made By The People Who Show Up
I've spent a lot of time the last few days getting ready for the state caucuses happening tomorrow morning. I'm a little anxious about it, for obvious reasons, but I still believe Dean has a good chance here and we're working hard for him.
This article was written by a reporter who attended a Dean event in New Hampshire (one of the times I've been able to hear him myself, by coincidence), and it just disappoints me that too many people seem to only know him through the distorted press coverage of a week before Iowa on. He's great in person, very warm, endearingly plainspoken.
Now the story is of the great debt the party owes him for bringing important issues back to the race and giving the Democrats a good spine stiffening. Which says a lot about the party, why it was in such a sorry state to begin with, and an essential character to which I hope we won't revert. If we end up with a nominee who looks like he's always on the verge of breaking out in apologetics for being a Democrat, I'll worry. A lot. Even though Bush looks weaker by the day.
Since Iowa and New Hampshire, I've done a lot of thinking about what this campaign has meant to me and what can be learned from it. After much consideration, and keeping in mind that I utterly despise the bulk of the Democratic party leadership, this is where I am right now:
- If everybody who cares about reforming the party gives it up in disgust after the first close encounter, then it will be left to the same useless tossers who've lost us the trifecta, as Bush would say. They're not getting the satisfaction of chasing me off.
- When we choose a nominee (and thank god Lieberman has called it quits) I'll do my bit to make sure that we don't all go to sleep as happened when Clinton was in office. We can make the nominee act like a damn Democrat, whether they want to or not. And as far as I'm concerned, not even Dean should get a free pass. Two words: Merciless hounding.
- Bush is going back to Crawford, Texas. Even if I can't stand the sight of our nominee, we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world.
- While I consider it a good investment of time to hound Democrats about walking the walk, it's even more important to shatter the false image the Republicans project. Their politicians are fiscally irresponsible, socially vindictive, ideologically unconcerned with outcomes, corrupt, and authoritarian. They must be beaten back, and dislodged from their undeserved perch as our national guardians of morality.
- The press lost Dean half his approval rating in the space of a week. While most members of the press are decent people who need paychecks and whose bosses have the final say over their work, collectively, they're a menace. Due to the power and influence of our country, and their control over our political debate, I don't believe it's a stretch to call them a menace to civilization as we know it. You don't have to be a Dean supporter to know that they have too much power over public figures, and not in a good having-the-public-interest-at-heart way. What we choose to do about it will define our character as citizens, because we're the only ones who are in a position to press the matter.
And this, in case you missed it, was Dean's commentary on Hardball about media consolidation. A not unremarked tipping point in the coverage slant of the campaign, and a reason why he stands out above every other candidate to me for the way he frames issues:
MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.
What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. I don’t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.
DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.
MATTHEWS: How-how far would you go in terms of public policy?
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: This is not-what you describe is not laissez-faire. It’s not capitalism.
DEAN: It is capitalism.
MATTHEWS: How would you-what would you call it?
DEAN: I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity.
But the essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands, it always baffles me-is, you got to have some rules. Imagine a hockey game with no rules. ...
Dean was right on target. And with those words, probably became one. But on a cheerier note, I got a chuckle out of this article about our pragmatic primary. It closes as follows:
The process the Democrats are putting themselves through resembles John Maynard Keynes' famous description of the stock market. The game isn't to figure out which stocks are most likely to do well, but to figure out which stocks other investors think are most likely to do well. And these other investors are thinking of other investors and so on. Keynes thought this helped to explain the volatility of stock price. Your judgment about other people's judgment, let alone other people's judgment about other people's judgment, is inherently less certain and more subject to breezes of false or true insight and information than your judgment about your own judgment.
Something similar may be going on in the Democratic primaries. But the analogy breaks down, because only the Democrats are intent on figuring out what other people want. Republicans know what they want.
Anyway, bottom line, show yourself up at the caucuses. Or polls. Or whatever you have in your state when it's your turn. Even if you're disappointed over what's become of your candidate, sure that they're going to win, or even if you're ticked off and don't like any of them. Let our politicians know that they're being watched now, and will be held accountable later.
Posted by natasha at February 6, 2004 05:29 PM | TrackBackGreat post, Natasha. One other comment is, if you don't decide, you have decided to let the other guys make the decision.
Posted by: Mary on February 6, 2004 08:13 PMAnd I shall be showing up at my caucus and standing for Dean tomorrow.
MKK
Posted by: Mary Kay on February 6, 2004 10:07 PMDEAN: "I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity."
That's "right on target"? Sure, capitalism provides strong incentives for certain kinds of productivity, but it also makes it impossible to give the appropriate weighting to vital factors beyond the immediate bottom line (such as environmental and social issues). It also results in terrible waste through duplicated or pointless effort, and allocates a wildly disproportionate share of wealth to a tiny elite. It doesn't just take advantage of bad traits, it strongly encourages them by turning them in to necessary qualities for success. Surely we can do better than a system reliant on greed and fear that by its very nature ensures that the rich always get richer?
Posted by: felice on February 9, 2004 09:36 PMIt also results in terrible waste through duplicated or pointless effort, and allocates a wildly disproportionate share of wealth to a tiny elite.
It may, but in places like w. Europe or Canada, does very well WRT to income distribution.
Surely we can do better than a system reliant on greed and fear that by its very nature ensures that the rich always get richer?
Market economies do not rely on greed and fear. Greed and fear are human traits, and a market economy functions when they are present. But it is emphatically not true to say that they are required. All that is required is that people have incentives.
You could design airplanes based on the assumption that plaster of paris is as good a structural material as carbon fiber or aluminum, but I certainly wouldn't want to board it. Humans have negative traits and you'd better factor them in your plans, like the friability of plaster!
Posted by: James R MacLean on February 10, 2004 06:55 PMEurope and Canada are generally less capitalist than the US, since they put more constraints on the free operation of the market. But in Canada, in 1991 the top 10% of households earned nearly 20 times as much as the bottom 10% - _after_ extensive non-capitalist wealth redistribution. That's doing "very well WRT to income distribution" by capitalist standards?
The fear of unemployment, and consequent lack of access to food, shelter, and medical care is a fundamental aspect of a capitalist society. Even when someone is not actively fearing for their job, knowledge of the possibility of losing it constrains their options.
The capitalist system rewards greed by giving those in power great freedom to increase their wealth, and punishes those who are not greedy as more ruthless competition can put companies with a social conscience out of business. The powerless masses are constantly presented with unattainable (for the vast majority) images of extreme wealth to lust for, and must be pressured to constantly consume to keep the economy going.
Yes, factor the existence of negative traits in to your plans, but don't make plans that encourage them! An airplane that relied on the squishyness of passengers' luggage to provide suspension might work, but wouldn't be worth the damage to the luggage.
Posted by: felice on February 10, 2004 09:40 PMThe capitalist system rewards greed by giving those in power great freedom to increase their wealth,
Sorry, that is a universal social problem.
...and punishes those who are not greedy as more ruthless competition can put companies with a social conscience out of business.
Sorry, I disagree. Business managers exercise their social conscience by being efficient managers. The fact that Walmart is such a horrible organization is due to the fact that political leaders allowed it to have a monopsony in the labor market. That's the result of horrible political management.
The powerless masses are constantly presented with unattainable (for the vast majority) images of extreme wealth to lust for, and must be pressured to constantly consume to keep the economy going.
I'm in a quandary here; while I'm in the business of trying to encourage change and reform, I run the risk of being tarred as a defender of everything wrong in the world. But having said this, I think your outlook is borne of despair. The term "powerless masses" is an abstraction which doesn't contribute much insight. If the "masses" are so powerless that presenting an image of extreme wealth cause them to lose all self control, then you have no hope--you're a curmudgeon, not a revolutionary!
Pressure is not the same thing as compulsion, and television adverts can be ignored--or better, avoided. It seems to me that the thing that bothers you is not any system, but human nature.
Europe and Canada are generally less capitalist than the US, since they put more constraints on the free operation of the market.
That doesn't make them less capitalist. I admit this is an arcane aspect of economics, and it's really unreasonable to push the matter, but European nations tend to behave more like firms; the market adjustments occur internationally or between industries. There's another matter to consider; the difficulty of sustaining the social contracts they have as their economies mature and consumption catches up with that of the USA. It's happening.
But in Canada, in 1991 the top 10% of households earned nearly 20 times as much as the bottom 10% - _after_ extensive non-capitalist wealth redistribution.
I agree, this is too much. But compared to the alternatives observed to date, it is not that bad. The concentration for income in, say, the PR of China is much greater even within single provinces; similarly, income distribution in the USSR after 1980 or so was extremely concentrated, chiefly by region. And when that economy pressured you, you were powerless to resist.
This is not push aside your concerns--far from it. "Thinking of something better" is the entire reason I took up economics, and it's the allure of the field. But I think the capitalism-socialism (or what ever else there might be) is a false lead. I think you might like to read this chapter from Theory of the Leisure Class, which explains a major component of income concentration.
Amicalement
Posted by: James R MacLean on February 11, 2004 03:04 AM> Sorry, that is a universal social problem.
Not universal to all possible social systems, and certainly not to the same extent. IMAO there should be a single wage for all jobs, and no private ownership of investments or inheritance of wealth.
> Sorry, I disagree. Business managers exercise
> their social conscience by being efficient
> managers.
How do you define efficient? Maximising profit is the fundamental goal of any business manager, and a social conscience can't be allowed to impact that.
Walmart is the result of the natural progression of a capitalist economy. Big companies are more efficient than small companies, so companies tend to grow, merge, or fail. Expecting political management to prevent this is unrealistic, and totally at odds with a capitalist viewpoint.
The masses are powerless within the capitalist system; they do, in theory, have the power to _change_ the system. What bothers me is the way the system manipulates human nature.
Yes, the social contract situation in Europe is deteriorating as their capitalist economies mature. Capitalism has a finite lifespan; it requires continual growth and concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority, and when there is no more room for growth, it will die. Hopefully we can replace it with a more sustainable system before that happens.
> I agree, this is too much.
And that's _good_ by capitalist standards. It will only get worse as capitalism continues.
> compared to the alternatives observed to date,
> it is not that bad.
No, I certainly wouldn't advocate any of the alternatives observed to date. Totalitarian states are much worse than capitalism at its current stage. What I would like to see is a fully democratic cooperative economy, as opposed to the "free" competitive economy of capitalism or the elite-controlled economies of the USSR or China.
Have you suceeded in thinking of anything better yourself? Interesting chapter, albeit somewhat sexist. I think it has some good points, but I don't entirely agree with it, and I certainly don't think the social behaviour described is unalterable.
Posted by: felice on February 11, 2004 04:58 PMYes, Veblen lived 1858-1929 IIRC. Friend of my patron saint, J.A. Hobson (1859-1940). About the sexism: if I read the chapter correctly, I think Veblen was talking about the construction of gender roles through pecuniary emulation.
I think the thing that you're opposed to is really imperialism, not market economies. A market economy is an abstraction and a term of art; it's like socialism--a useful concept, but it's never actually been observed in an industrial economy. "Capitalism" is used as an approximation, but it's not a very good one. Capitalist societies vary a great deal from each other--state capitalism, for example, is more commonly called "Communism," which IMO is inaccurate. Partly this differentiation is caused by imperialism and how individual communities stand in an imperialist world order.
Notice I said "communities", not "countries"; so if we're talking about, say, racism then I'd call that "imperialism turned inward," i.e. exploitation of one community by another. Capitalism is really a process of transforming effort into productive material culture, and Dean used the word to describe something else--viz., competition (as opposed to monopoly). Holding conservatives up to their own standards has been on of the ways in which Dean has sought to separate out "markets" (a GOP talking point) from neo-imperialism (a word Dean cannot use in public since people associate it with the KCNA).
Since I, certainly, have decided that it's imperialism and not capitalism which is the issue, I think it was a very good thing that Dean tried to outline the difference. Imperialism is a means of using state violence to expropriate rents from weaker communities, and it's important to not trivialize it--it's not the same thing as communities in different stages of development engaging in commerce. It's not the absence of socialism; it's not some other social vice, like pornography or bad TV, or the absence of adequate pollution controls, or what-have-you; it's something specific.
The link to Hobson above is to my "Hobson page," with tons of links and an essay in progress about imperialism. Enjoy!
Posted by: James R MacLean on February 11, 2004 06:37 PM> I think the thing that you're opposed to is
> really imperialism, not market economies.
No, I'm opposed to market economies. Imperialism is a natural outcome of a market economy, but it's far from the only problem with them. A market economy would work just fine given the mythical perfect knowledge, but without that, it provides strong incentives to act against the overall good and produces severe economic insecurity. And a capitalist market allows the wealthy to steal a large portion of the product of workers' labour.
Personally I think "totalitarian socialism" is a better label than "state capitalism". Democratic socialism has not yet been observed in an industrial economy, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.
> I, certainly, have decided that it's imperialism
> and not capitalism which is the issue
So what's the solution? Why does Imperialism happen? Is is ok to expropriate rents from weaker communities as long as you can achieve it without resorting to actual violence? A capitalist economy needs to expand; how does it do so without imperialism?
Posted by: on February 11, 2004 09:51 PM> I think the thing that you're opposed to is
> really imperialism, not market economies.
No, I'm opposed to market economies. Imperialism is a natural outcome of a market economy, but it's far from the only problem with them. A market economy would work just fine given the mythical perfect knowledge, but without that, it provides strong incentives to act against the overall good and produces severe economic insecurity. And a capitalist market allows the wealthy to steal a large portion of the product of workers' labour.
Personally I think "totalitarian socialism" is a better label than "state capitalism". Democratic socialism has not yet been observed in an industrial economy, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.
> I, certainly, have decided that it's imperialism
> and not capitalism which is the issue
So what's the solution? Why does Imperialism happen? Is is ok to expropriate rents from weaker communities as long as you can achieve it without resorting to actual violence? A capitalist economy needs to expand; how does it do so without imperialism?
Posted by: felice on February 11, 2004 09:51 PM