After the Future

Endless War

This is a war universe.  War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war. . . .  --William S. Burroughs

***

We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy.  Paul Harvey, 5/23/05 Commentary

That we live in a war universe seems to be axiomatic and yet it is also rather disconnected from the rather buffered lives of most educated, liberal bourgeois. This disconnect, this delusional sense that the relatively peaceable life that they live is normative and that violent conflict is aberrant, is precisely what allows the bad guys to win.

Who are the bad guys? The people throughout history who lie, murder, assassinate, liquidate, purge, cleanse, avenge, or do whatever it takes to make sure their interest group--be it family, tribe, race, party, class--nation stays on top. It's the compulsion to stay on top and to use any means necessary to achieve it that is at the root of the problem. It's called the will to power. It's what makes the world go 'round. Who are the good guys?  Those who refuse to submit to the logic of the will to power.

Wisconsin II

He [Feingold] wouldn't be the first defeated senator to stage a quick comeback as a gubernatorial candidate. Lincoln Chafee, ousted by Rhode Islanders in 2006, just won that state's governorship as an independent last fall. Lowell Weicker, vanquished by Joe Lieberman in 1988, pulled off the same feat in Connecticut two years later. Feingold shares a quirky maverick streak with both of those men. It's not that hard to see him following in their footsteps.

But will he get a chance next year? That's harder to see, mainly because Wisconsin appears to have one of the more onerous recall procedures when it comes to governors: Petitioners would need to gather signatures equivalent to 25 percent of the total number of votes cast in the previous statewide election, and they'd have only 60 days to do it. By contrast, California (where Gov. Gray Davis was successfully recalled in 2003) requires signatures equivalent to only 12 percent of the votes cast in the previous election, with a 160-day window. (Source)

I hope all those who are saying now that Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans overreached are right, but next January is far away, and public opinion is a fickle bird.  There's a good chance all this will have settled down, and, given our recent history, a good chance that there just won't be the political will to do anything about it, just as there was not the will to push back all the encroachments on civil liberties effected by Cheney/Bush. The Right has consistently proved it has the will to get it done; the Left has yet to prove it. It should be clear to anybody now that public opinion doesn't matter; political will is the only thing that matters.

But Feingold is a serious, principled guy, and he would be the ideal standard bearer for this push back, and maybe this time it will be different.  Maybe there's a will in Wisconsin that we haven't seen on the national stage. It will be an interesting test case. The important thing is that the issue not be allowed to fade in Wisconsinites' memories. That's why these senatorial recall campaigns are important. They will keep the issue alive.  A lot depends on having some successes there. This will be a fight that the Right will pull out all the stops to win.  It remains to be seen whether the Left can match the Right's intensity. (See Wisconsin I)

Quote of the Day: Mark Erlich

A generation ago, non-union workers often welcomed news of improved wages and benefits for unionized employees, recognizing that a rising tide lifts all boats. But ... at a time of sacrifice and insecurity, many would prefer to sink their neighbor's slightly bigger boat while wistfully hoping for a glance at a yacht in a gated marina. (Source)

There are people who romanticize unions and the labor movement. I don't--there's a lot about the empirical performance of organized labor that really stinks.  But we're involved in a power game, and all the power is with Big Money, and they realize that the only organized force that still has the financial resources to oppose them is the unions.

It's one thing to oppose certain policies that unions support; it's another thing to seek to destroy them. And it should be clear that the Republicans and their backers are out to destroy them. They start with the public service unions, because they're more vulnerable with regard to public opinion, and if they succeed there, they'll come after every other union.

We're in a class war, and many Americans just don't want to believe it because it sounds so "leftist" or "extremist", but it's being waged by Big Money, and Big Money is quite happy to do so without any organized opposition, and the longer most Americans think there's no war going on, the longer they'll stay unorganized.  And in the meanwhile the unions are the only organized opposition it has to deal with.

There's room for legitimate debate about particular policies that unions support, but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the larger picture.  We're involved in a war here; the time for splitting hairs is behind us, and so at a very crude level it's coming down to a fundamental question: Whose side are you on?

 

Quote of the Day: John Cole

One thing that even the dim bulbs in the media should understand by now is that there is in fact a class war going on, and it is the rich and powerful who are waging it. Anyone who does anything that empowers the little people or that threatens the wealth and power of the plutocracy must be destroyed. . . .

You have to understand the mindset--they are playing for keeps. The vast majority of the wealth isn’t enough. They want it all. Anything that gets in their way must be destroyed. . . .

And they are well financed, have a strong infrastructure, a sympathetic media, and entire organizations dedicated to running cover for them. They’ve even created their own mythical ideology in which they are superhero Galtian overlords, and this lets a few rubes who babble ignorantly about the free market get to feel like they are playing along, when they are really just being played. It’s these guys versus all of us, yet half the people being rogered (Republicans and glibertarians and hell, half the Democrats) have been convinced the other side is a bigger threat to their well being than the people with all the power, money, and resources. (Source)

When John Cole, the moderate voice of reason, says it, then maybe this class-war narrative is really almost ready for prime time, even if not in the MSM. But will a movement arise to vigorously push back rather than just whine about it?  That's the question.