Many
The idea of many is contextually subjective, and therefore easily manipulated. I happened to recall, the other day, an anthropologists' joke about the wisdom of certain tribal cultures that count one, two, three, many.
More realistically, what are the raw numbers? Even a handful equaling a few thousands would count as many, but this isn't really what one means when claiming, as our neighbor has, that, "Many people feel that the two political parties have become one party at the level of leadership; ruling elite, due to the impact of big money on the political process."
We're probably talking numbers in the millions, but it is also a recursive, market-reinforced notion. Functionally, it makes about as much sense as the process whereby a Republican policy screws up society, Republicans complain that government just doesn't work, and voters re-elect them in sympathy with the complaint. And there we go; we're talking about Kansas, or Iowa on a desperate day―if the parties really were one and the same, Iowa voters would have sent the Democrat to the Senate because he, at the very least, is competent. But it's not all the same to them; they sent Joni Ernst, because she put an (R) after her name. In the end, with Kansas re-electing Brownback and Iowa choosing Ernst, the lament that it doesn't make a difference because the two parties are pretty much the same would be a fallback excuse. You know, like maybe they should have elected Davis in Kansas and Braley in Iowa, but, you know, it wouldn't make a difference; they would screw up all the same, because, you know, the two parties are pretty much the same.
And, you know, Republicans like comparing the government to a business, so let us consider an analogy:
Just sayin'.
It's true that there are a lot of people who say the parties are the same; it is also true many of those claims are based on irrational outlooks. And it's true, I could say the same thing and stand defiantly and insistently out to the left of everything, refusing to take part, and blaming everyone else for not letting me take part, but it really does seem futile.
I get why some communists hold out; it's an issue of serious contention, with Lenin denouncing Sylvia Pankhurst in a 1920 pamphlet titled, 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder↱. Holdouts like Pankhurst have a philosophical and political reason; functionally, the Revolution "must come to them", as such, and the realist knows it probably won't be their own personal self, but a future generation. Societies move leftward, generally, only when they perceive no other options. A proper communist revolution will not be top-down. All of that.
In the meantime, it's also true that I can observe measurable differences in quality of life according to which of the two parties gets their way. And while it is true that the parties are often subject to the same purse strings and manipulative influences, it is also true that we continue to vote for them. We can lament the appearance of a Prisoner's Dilemma, but we can also look ourselves in the mirror and state with firm confidence that we have our appropriate reasons.
I'm not getting my Revolution any time soon; indeed, I would be wary of one that comes from my quarter at this point. I can accept this; it therefore seems pointless to hold out. Our oft-ridiculous, moneyed electoral system actually did bring tremendous progress. Consider the anti-gay ballot initiatives that failed in the early nineties, and the hard political push from the right. There is a reason I raise a glass to these bigots; by the time it came to Lawrence v. Texas, pretty much everything had changed, and from there it simply became a constitutional chess match. But the Supreme Court often, in such matters, tries to gauge a sense of the nation, and compared to the days of Bowers v. Hardwick, yes, everything was different. And part of the shift in sentiment came from the homophobic push through the nineties that brought The Gay closer and closer to people as more and more closeteers stepped out in order to make the point of just who their friends and family would be hurting by this vote.
And talk about a sense of the nation; it wasn't just three liberal states voting for gay marriage, but a middling, midwestern state with a DoMA on the books rejecting an escalation, which in turn set off the downward spiral of homophobic influence resulting in the recognition of same-sex marriage in Minnesota↗. By the time we got to Windsor, it was over.
And all of this starts with what I considered at the time gross abuse of the democratic initiative system. In the end, homophobes tried as many of the levers of democratic influence as they could in our society, and in failing helped bring about gay marriage faster than we might otherwise have expected. Using the tools of democracy, they fulfilled their own doomsaying prophecy.
It's hardly ideal, but it's also observable that I do, in fact, get much from the current democratic system; to that end, holding out makes no sense, and the differences between the parties are sufficient that I don't lose any sleep for backing Democrats.
In the end, most people seem practical this way even if they don't enumerate the outline. I think the one-party lament, while it does have certain applicable merit in terms of orienting general policy discussion, echoes out of proportion with its real numbers, and out of harmony with its real intentions; for the most part, it is merely an excuse. And those who gnash and wail need to believe they have more company than they do.
____________________
Notes:
Lenin, Vladimir I. 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder. 1920. Marxists.org. 16 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1IUfkUW
Joepistole said:
The idea of many is contextually subjective, and therefore easily manipulated. I happened to recall, the other day, an anthropologists' joke about the wisdom of certain tribal cultures that count one, two, three, many.
More realistically, what are the raw numbers? Even a handful equaling a few thousands would count as many, but this isn't really what one means when claiming, as our neighbor has, that, "Many people feel that the two political parties have become one party at the level of leadership; ruling elite, due to the impact of big money on the political process."
We're probably talking numbers in the millions, but it is also a recursive, market-reinforced notion. Functionally, it makes about as much sense as the process whereby a Republican policy screws up society, Republicans complain that government just doesn't work, and voters re-elect them in sympathy with the complaint. And there we go; we're talking about Kansas, or Iowa on a desperate day―if the parties really were one and the same, Iowa voters would have sent the Democrat to the Senate because he, at the very least, is competent. But it's not all the same to them; they sent Joni Ernst, because she put an (R) after her name. In the end, with Kansas re-electing Brownback and Iowa choosing Ernst, the lament that it doesn't make a difference because the two parties are pretty much the same would be a fallback excuse. You know, like maybe they should have elected Davis in Kansas and Braley in Iowa, but, you know, it wouldn't make a difference; they would screw up all the same, because, you know, the two parties are pretty much the same.
And, you know, Republicans like comparing the government to a business, so let us consider an analogy:
• You know, maybe I shouldn't have hired the guy who told me during the job intervew that the job could not and should not be done. Maybe I should have hired the guy who looked forward to getting the job done, had a plan for how to do it, and a track record working on these sorts of jobs. Anyway, whatever. It wouldn't have made a difference. They're pretty much the same.
Just sayin'.
It's true that there are a lot of people who say the parties are the same; it is also true many of those claims are based on irrational outlooks. And it's true, I could say the same thing and stand defiantly and insistently out to the left of everything, refusing to take part, and blaming everyone else for not letting me take part, but it really does seem futile.
I get why some communists hold out; it's an issue of serious contention, with Lenin denouncing Sylvia Pankhurst in a 1920 pamphlet titled, 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder↱. Holdouts like Pankhurst have a philosophical and political reason; functionally, the Revolution "must come to them", as such, and the realist knows it probably won't be their own personal self, but a future generation. Societies move leftward, generally, only when they perceive no other options. A proper communist revolution will not be top-down. All of that.
In the meantime, it's also true that I can observe measurable differences in quality of life according to which of the two parties gets their way. And while it is true that the parties are often subject to the same purse strings and manipulative influences, it is also true that we continue to vote for them. We can lament the appearance of a Prisoner's Dilemma, but we can also look ourselves in the mirror and state with firm confidence that we have our appropriate reasons.
I'm not getting my Revolution any time soon; indeed, I would be wary of one that comes from my quarter at this point. I can accept this; it therefore seems pointless to hold out. Our oft-ridiculous, moneyed electoral system actually did bring tremendous progress. Consider the anti-gay ballot initiatives that failed in the early nineties, and the hard political push from the right. There is a reason I raise a glass to these bigots; by the time it came to Lawrence v. Texas, pretty much everything had changed, and from there it simply became a constitutional chess match. But the Supreme Court often, in such matters, tries to gauge a sense of the nation, and compared to the days of Bowers v. Hardwick, yes, everything was different. And part of the shift in sentiment came from the homophobic push through the nineties that brought The Gay closer and closer to people as more and more closeteers stepped out in order to make the point of just who their friends and family would be hurting by this vote.
And talk about a sense of the nation; it wasn't just three liberal states voting for gay marriage, but a middling, midwestern state with a DoMA on the books rejecting an escalation, which in turn set off the downward spiral of homophobic influence resulting in the recognition of same-sex marriage in Minnesota↗. By the time we got to Windsor, it was over.
And all of this starts with what I considered at the time gross abuse of the democratic initiative system. In the end, homophobes tried as many of the levers of democratic influence as they could in our society, and in failing helped bring about gay marriage faster than we might otherwise have expected. Using the tools of democracy, they fulfilled their own doomsaying prophecy.
It's hardly ideal, but it's also observable that I do, in fact, get much from the current democratic system; to that end, holding out makes no sense, and the differences between the parties are sufficient that I don't lose any sleep for backing Democrats.
In the end, most people seem practical this way even if they don't enumerate the outline. I think the one-party lament, while it does have certain applicable merit in terms of orienting general policy discussion, echoes out of proportion with its real numbers, and out of harmony with its real intentions; for the most part, it is merely an excuse. And those who gnash and wail need to believe they have more company than they do.
____________________
Notes:
Lenin, Vladimir I. 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder. 1920. Marxists.org. 16 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1IUfkUW
