Wither are we tending?

[m berst]

"If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it."

Abraham Lincoln
The "House Divided" speech

In the many arguments here, it strikes me that people are disagreeing over not so much what the right remedy is to apply to the situation, rather people are seeing the situation itself in fundamentally different ways. Here are the ways that I think this breaks down.

Politics as Usual
"Don't quit your day job"

While the Bush administration has gone to some extremes and things are not good for liberals and progressives right now, this is just a temporary situation and there is no sense in flying off the handle. People who are sounding the alarm have over-active imaginations or are naive or ignorant. We have seen things like this before and gotten through them just fine. We should stop whining and worrying and just get to work within the system and act like adults about it. No one is in danger or at risk unless they do something stupid and bring it upon themselves. Think - 1980's.

A Time for Protest
"The times they are a changing"

The Bush administration has gone too far, and extraordinary activism will be needed to stop it. The system is more or less healthy, but it is at risk. Demonstrations and other forms of physical protest are the way to go, and are the way to bring about change. Some will be at risk or in danger, particularly if they are politically active, but we will come through it if we fight. Think - 1960's.

Extremely Perilous Times
"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed"

The situation is not stable and things will continue to escalate and get worse and worse. Notions of security and predictability are exercises in self-delusion and denial. Nothing can be depended upon, and regardless of how we would like things to be, there is no escaping very rough times. Extraordinary measures are required, and time is running out. Many, many are already, or very soon will be at extreme risk, and more and more people will be slipping into this category as time goes by regardless of what they do or don't do. Going underground, fleeing, and resistance are options to be considered, and there is no way to avoid making decisions about these options sooner or later.

[kentuck]

1. "...there is no escaping very rough times.."

The sand is sifting rapidly thru the hourglass.

[m berst]

3. a cause for the dissension here?

If people see themselves as soon to be in dire peril, would they then not be impatient with discussions about who the candidate should be in 2008?

On the other hand, people who see no big danger would have no patience with those who are advocating more extreme views.

In other words, we don't so much have differing opinions about the best cure, we differ in our diagnosis of the disease.

[everclear]

6. where is our 04 leader is our haste

time is of the essence

[kentuck]

24. Possibly , mberst...

I think I am closer to the third option. I don't see any initiative to turn the ship around and it's a very big ship...

[proudbluestater]

2. Very well put! I'm in the second category, A time for protest

But I feel that we are at the cusp of #3, Extremely Perilous Times. The reason I say that is, in February of 2003 an astounding 30 MILLION peoople throughout the WORLD protested against the invasion of Iraq and the regime did NOT bat an eye, never lost a second of sleep, never gave it a second thought, this invasion.

I think they truly need to see us out there active. Massive protests are needed. Already there is a lot of evidence that they want to invade Iran on behalf of their neocon nutcase buddies. I have enough trouble stomaching Iraq, I will NOT stand for another war sponsored by these fringe nutjobs.

Already there are anti-Iran websites popping up, at the behest of this regime. They purport to show the Iranians torture women, but the sites are in English and French ONLY. So it's impossible for the Middle Eastern countries to refute, even they are even aware this disinformation campaign (propaganda campaign) is going on.

Before the election while people were talking about "Bush will keep us safe from the terrists (!)" my greatest fear was not Bin Laden, but Bin Bush. My fear grows daily.

[m berst]

4. what would change your mind?

Hi pbs. What could happen that would move you to either the first or the third category?

[everclear]

7. * frogmarched

:hi:

[proudbluestater]

23. Hi MBerst!

With Bush in office, I will never get to category number 1, ever. He has proven already to have no regard for the law, public opinion, or morals.

To be in the third category, there a number of ways I'd move to that category

1. a draft
2. definite commitment to war in Iran
3. mental health testing for school kids
4. any further erosion of civil liberties

[m berst]

25. I don't expect this to be easy

Hi pbs!

I am noticing an odd phenomenon when I talk to people. They will say that we are not at "level 3" - tin foil, too radical, too out there - but after talking a while they will admit to all of the conditions that would be features of level 3, then turn around and say we can't be because they are afraid to say that we are. OK.... then that would mean that we in fact ARE at level 3, wouldn't it, if people are afraid to even talk about it?

I didn't mean to pin people down on this, rather to offer a new perspective for discussion. I suspect that many people are wrestling with this, and that the indecision about it underlies much of the arguments and disagreements between members here. Where are we and where are we headed, and what response is appropriate now?

Do you think the four things on your list are fairly likely to happen?

[T Town Jake]

5. I agree. Things look...

...pretty fucking grim right now. But these things come - and go - in cycles. All I heard from one of my Repuke relatives after the '92 election, when Democrats controlled all branches of government like the GOP does now, was hysterical doom and gloom. We got eight years of Peace & Prosperity out of it, so what the hell. The tide will reverse back from what it is now, and we'll be cheering and smiling once again. If American History has taught us anything, it's that no member of either current victorious political party is rejoicing for long over time.
Our time will come again. I just hope it's damn soon. Here's to that day, and hope: :toast:

[m berst]

8. so you would say...

...politics as usual?

[T Town Jake]

9. My head says that...

...but my heart says I'm pissed off. :nuke:

I don't know where I'm at, to be honest. It's been a sorry month on the political front, and it's not getting any better as the reality starts to set in.

[everclear]

10. worse

than usual... hello

[Carolab]

14. BIG difference between then and now

no one was trying to shred the constitution.

The radical Christian right wasn't as powerful and infiltrated as it is now into the White House.

[m berst]

15. so you think category 3?

The main difference between category 3 and categories one and two, is the relative stability of the situation. Category 3 means that the problems won't go away, but will get worse and that we should guard against complacency and be questioning everything. My sense is that the Bush administration is just getting started and will keep pushing us into inevitable crisis.

[hfojvt]

11. A war with Iran

would certainly make me think we are in the 3rd category, but it depends on how much of the Bush legislative agenda gets passed. Patriot II, tax "reform", social security privatization. I could almost think politics as normal if Republicans break ranks on this or Demos filibuster them to death.
As far as whining and worrying, that is about all we can do until 2006. Lots of athletes sit and cry when they lose a stupid play-off game, I think we deserve a little mourning time considering that alot more is at stake. Also, it is quite dismaying what he was able to get away with - tax cuts that wipe out the surplus, the first President to lose jobs since Hoover, a war that kills 1000s of Americans and finds no WMD. It is mind-boggling. WTF does it take to stop these people before they kill again?

[everclear]

12. i read the news today, oh boy...

http://GlobalFreePress.com - beta ;->

[m berst]

13. your site?

Welcome to DU, everclear.

[m berst]

16. my guess is that most people...

...are in category two and are very reluctant to think in terms of moving to either one or three. The first category seems naive to many people, and the third seems too radical and drastic to others. This has caused much indecision and uncertainty, and it is erupting in a lot of arguments at DU where it is masked to some extent and difficult to see. The arguments about Bev Harris, about LIHOP and MIHOP, about the election irregularities, about the Democratic party and the leadership - all of these arguments have two sides, each of which are correct depending on which situation that people think, or hope, we are in. So the MIHOP person is saying "we are in category three" while the "what do we need to do in 2008?" person is saying that the current situation is described in the first category.

[Lexingtonian]

17. you're right

A lot of people here now think that this is somehow a civil war of sorts. Well, they think it has suddenly become one.

I'm a little more jaded and, well, to me the truth of the matter is that it's been a war of the kind for between 12 and 15 years now. (It escalated slowly; some even put the beginnings at the Bork non-confirmation, in 1987.) To me we're in fact closer, much closer, to the end of the unabashed psychological violence in the political arena than its beginning. I don't think The Other Side really has that much more left and is definitely becoming more and more fragile. Our side is more unified and determined, relevant, and sharp than it has been since FDR's day.

I look at the present situation and it reminds me of the judgment of a Confederate historian about what decided the Civil War: the North had more men throughout and started off with far worse leadership in the field. Much of the war involved the North finding its best generals and getting them put in charge. But once the North had its generals, it took them most of the remainder of the war to match the South in number of men willing to fight to the death for their Cause- into 1865. Until then- February/March 1865- the Civil War seemed permanently undecided and fated to default in the favor of the South. But once the North proved it had an equal or greater number of such men in the field The End came very rapidly, in a matter of months or weeks, in some cases days- the attitude seemed to be contagious once found.

Our side is still some distance from matching The Other Side and right now 'our' activists are behaving rather like Union soldiers whose enlistments were up at the end of 1864.
People are making up their minds whether to walk away from the fight in one form or another (a few will desert to the enemy, others will go AWOL, some will be too wounded/damaged from the last campaign, quite a few feel burned out), or unhappily and morosely reenlist without faith in the outcome or the leaders, or reenlist with trust (in one leader or another) that victory lies near enough to make it all worth another round of exertion and risks taken and suffering. Some will reenlist simply because the killing is somehow worth being part of. In the end the logic of the best fighting soldiers about reenlistment and fighting late in a war is a matter of their thinking and conviction and trust: whether they can accept that their friends killed in it have died in vain, or not. The War Dead and Memory force wars to their conclusion when the Living can't find any other motivation left.

For myself and, I suspect, most Democrats, we'll be wavering between your first and your second categories. Our war is one of nerves, where the side that snaps and goes psychotic and violent is the losing one, the one that disqualifies itself from rule. (Our side can handle neuroticism and hysterics, obviously, due to long experience- provided it's not too prolonged a period of it.) It's best for most people to go about their daily lives and keep their private lives as intact and psychologically and materially secure as possible, to prepare for the next Big Push. And when the time comes and stepping out on the streets matters, or sending money, and casting votes, and all the rest- I think we'll all be there, realize the moment for what it is. Civilization is what we want, on the whole, and civilized is what the means to that end must also be with few exceptions.

Of course, this regime makes victims and needs to make victims. Some of them will be deserving, or at least desiring, of the fate- no one joins Al Qaeda with plans for a long and creative life. Most will, though, be innocent of actual crimes. I can't tell people what the true level of danger to them is, but I can say what I believe it is. As I see it, the people that run things don't concern themselves with people who have no real power in the least. But if you have real power relative to them, even an amount that seems small to you, it engages their jealousy and fear to a degree proportionate to the amount.

Remember, their side has to be maximally efficient in maintaining its political support- just about perfect. They can't afford excesses- either ignoring what they promised, or going too far. These two manners are, however, really the only ways they know of operating. I'm inclined to believe that after one or two public debacles they'll greatly prefer to err on the side of doing nothing of substance and blowing smoke up their supporters' butts. If you're made a target we probably can't get you to the status quo ante again, yet, but I feel sure you'll get a good amount of help with the basics. Better days will come, that I am most sure of, not as far off as people presently imagine.

[m berst]

19. excellent

Very good post, and I especially like the analogy to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Union and Confederate armies.

You make a good case for category one, with some category two actions as needed. My only reservation about that is that there are GLBT people, artists and other creative people, minority people and poor people who are feeling so alienated and at risk now that life is already intolerable. The fear there is that they will become part of the acceptable casualties as we ride this out and hope for a rebirth of the party and a restoration of a civil democratic society. Are they - we - expendable as sacrifices for the greater good in the larger picture? My observation is that the "move on and work for 2006 and 2008" people seem to also be the ones who marginalize and trivialize the suffering of the least among us. If those marginalized people are ignored now by the influential people in the Democratic party, how much more will that be the case should the party strategy of compromise and incremental progress be successful? This leads some of us to wonder if we are being asked to wait longer than we can for a future - that may never come - and that may be an illusion in any case.

[Lexingtonian]

20. Hmmm

I guess it doesn't come across clearly, but as I say: I can't assess the danger of any other group of Democrats, well, any better than my own. I'm only speaking about people like myself probably finding the first two categories the place where we begin in 2005.

It's not that we should not help people who are feeling threatened or on the verge of the paranoid. But until concrete things start happening, things that are interpretable though not necessarily unambiguous, it's hard to define a proper response beyond that. It's important to be sufficiently prepared, which means: for something pretty bad, of course. I'm not sure how you can warrent going further than serious planning and reversible preparations for both groups you are talking about. Individuals should of course do as they feel called to do.

[m berst]

21. the dividing line

I imagine that people's view as to the situation the country is in has a lot to do with their own relative ease and comfort. No doubt those who advocate working toward the next election find things to be more or less OK in their own personal lives, and may even look at their less fortunate neighbors as not so clever.

I would say that it is a very small portion of our population enjoying relative ease and comfort, and that their number is growing smaller. I would also say that there is an increasing gap between people's comfort and security as they state it and as it appears when looked at clearly and objectively. Many seem to be hanging by a thread, living lives of terrible stress and unhappiness, yet that isn't connected to politics in their mind. The two seem disconnected. Personal misfortune people blame themselves for - this of course is the Republican notion of "individual responsibility" that has been pounded into us for two decades. "Individual self-blame" would be more accurate.

A few who are doing well control the discussion - I can't help but think of the DNC people rolling in the dough and living the privileged life regardless of whether they win or lose. Many more accept and have internalized the idea that the fact that a few are doing well means that things are OK, even though they may personally be living in a hellish world of stress and anxiety. They think "perhaps something is wrong with me" and take the Democratic party leaders' confident air and reassuring words as evidence that all is more or less right with the world.

Even Republicans say to me "if what you are saying about the Bush administration is correct, then why aren't any of the Democratic party leaders talking about it?" Why, indeed. Even these Republicans are looking to the Democratic leadership for reassurance that we are not in dire peril, and even Republicans sense that we in fact are. They, and Democrats as well, are looking to the opposition leaders to be the picket line - the distant early warning system.

At the far end of this "things are more or less OK" fantasy there are people who are genuinely and obviously suffering - and they are suffering in such overt ways that no one can deny it. That overt and obvious suffering seems to me to be creeping closer and closer to all of our lives.

[Lexingtonian]

22. I'm not sure it's like that

I tell people that the literary description of what the Republican idea of the normal, in the present, exists. It's James Jones's 1953 tome set in Hawaii of 1941, From Here To Eternity. The title is beautiful, cleverly concealing its origin from 'damned from here to eternity'.

When I was a kid in the Seventies, growing up in a working class suburb, I was surprised at what people put up with as quality of life (well, more the lack thereof) and still held onto a morbid optimism. I read Jones's book a few years ago, to the extent that can be done anyway, and that's generally the kind of world my parents' generation, born just prior to the War, considered normal. These days they and the first half of the Boomers, as the white people in the socioeconomic middle or bottom half and the voters...they still consider that condition the baseline, the 'normal'. Call it the Normal Pathological.

So there isn't much of a groundswell in the electorate against the way things are- half consider the present condition more or less normal in its vileness. (Check out the book for what the norm was like in 1941- Jones's critics called his book a masterpiece for capturing it.) The country had a senseless and wealth-devouring fight in Vietnam in the course of our long fight (~75 years, 1918-1992) against the Russian/Chinese/Japanese version of the Asian Menace, and it involved senseless domestic harassment of 'Communists', We're now in a senseless and wealth-devouring fight in Iraq in the course of our long (but on the whole lesser) fight with the Islamic Threat, aka our neo-Crusade, which arguably began for us in 1945 or 1948, and it means a senseless domestic harassment of violaters of Crusader Christianity. The white Eurocentric people who consider the U.S. the epitome of Europe, whose elites have run it for 350 years, still want to resolve Europe's historical conflicts with its neighboring continents in its favor before the U.S. fades out as a European society transplanted onto a different continent, before it becomes genuinely American. It's an alien world at present to 50% of Americans because we feel enlisted in global conflicts that we don't see as ours as historical business. But 50% do think and argue that it is, it should be, at least for a while yet.

Btw, Vietnam was a war fought about 45 years in the first struggle and lasted 12-15 years before being given up to The Communists. Iraq is a war in two parts, the first part of which was ~45 years in on the second struggle and has now lasted about 14 years and is on the verge of being given up too, to the Shi'ite ayatollahs.

I'm not sure the Democratic leadership sees things on the terms I use, and it's improbable, but they do know that something neurotic-depressive is going on in the society. On both sides. What it means operationally is that people can't be rallied to new causes, only into agonized defenses of things that can be defended, for the time being. It also means that the Other Side has almost run out of a sense of historical calling, our side in turn is agonizing over how to understand our historical role and function for what it really is- trying to get at what the essential element is and what the calling to it is.

We are indeed living in a Normal Pathological. We thought it was all going to be small, linear, progress without relapses. But it's really turning out to be serial problem solving of all the genuine problems we've inherited- we resolve one social or economic or foreign problem, a trickier one we want to keep on putting off is rolled out. All the dishonest and limited solutions to our many problems fail as we dig all the dirty laundry out. It's an awful family spat in which a lot of the housewares are being broken, but many of the real and hidden resentments and failures are being told and settled.

If you're telling me about the current particularly strong sense of external or internal destruction in the gay community, I did have a look at that Larry Kramer speech at Cooper Union posted two or three days ago. And while I lived in downtowns in cities in California and Canada and the East Coast during the Nineties I did have a lot to do socially and incidentally with the gay communities there, a lot more than I do now out in suburbia. I think Kramer doesn't put all the elements together properly, but on the whole he's right that things are grim internally. As I understand it, and it's consistent with my experience, the younger half of gay men are politically passive and unorganized as a group, the older half appears to be in some sort of enabled selfdestruction and gross despair and being out of a purpose. The energy and determination and political activism seem to be almost exclusively on the lesbian side, and it's fundamentally motivated by their sense of responsibility toward their children. Maybe winning Lawrence v Texas took the raison d'etre out of the movement on the men's side, by meeting highest hopes there was nowhere to go other than full private acceptance- which isn't going to happen for the older generation, their peer group is too bigoted and they are individually quite damaged by the world they've endured on hope alone, leaving the road that's being taken at them moment the most open one. It's only a guess, and a sad one. As for the gay marriage effort, well, there's still quite some distance to go on that and ultimately the 14th Amendment disables all the efforts to bar it.

No important war for change ends without a horrible battle in which the opposition musters every last reserve into a maximal concentration of all the power and determination and animal strengths they truly have left. But it comes when they realize things have just tipped, ever so slightly, to their losing the war. Nonetheless, they discover they are too late and can only up the price.

I'm sorry if this is seemingly not much of a consolation. It's an attempt at an explanation as best as I can muster one and it has to keep some unbalanced sense of score, admit losses to our side that seem inevitable and remain unable to account for the losses the Other Side has to take. Our country is in a struggle for Renewal, not mere reform, and in that kind of a fight the old die or are toppled, all of them, and the just-emerging are the focus of hope while the Living inhabit a wasteland that seems only to be expanding. The wasteland is real, it is a truthful understanding, and yet: it is not the whole, the Truth of our situation. Life still is, not Death, what our faith must (as ever) reside in. 'This day you stand before the choice between life and death: Choose life' is the way someone put it a long time ago as a Divine demand on his chosen/beloved. I don't know whether the Democratic leadership can offer a guarantee that is more credible an assertion or approach or reason to hope and trust.

I continue to believe the present conservative Coueism about controlling and redesigning the future has a short political life and will be contented with gestures and symbols for the most part. The true fight is for power over the distribution of wealth and a desire for vaingloriousness and nonresponsibility and noncompetition by the Other Side- when that's at stake the little stuff in their eyes, the happiness or misery of gay folks who refuse to assimilate to the Mayberry ideal/From Here To Eternity realities they like, isn't worth any pursuit.

[KlatooBNikto]

18. I think America is going through what John Le Carre has called one

of its periodic bouts of madness.It will change when the Moment of Revulsion that hit this country collectively during the Army-McCarthy hearings arrives.So, I have hope that the seeds of that revulsion have already been sown by the Republican excesses and it is going to sprout one fine day.I hope for the best, not just for myself but for my children and grandchildren.