Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Government and Democratic Tradition

It has become very clear to me that lots of people don't appreciate government.

Every time political discussions break out here, we enjoy a good fight!

At the risk of provoking another one, I want to share a passage from Cornel West's challenging book, Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism (2004).

This reading, excerpted from the chapter entitled "The Deep Democratic Tradition in America," is important it seems to me, especially in view of the manner in which Katrina tore away the blinders protecting mainstream America from a reality check about urban poverty.
_________________________________

To many, our democratic system seems so broken that they have simply lost faith that their participation could really matter. The politics of self-interest and catering to narrow special interests is so dominant that so many ask themselves, Why vote?

The disaffection stems both from the all-too-true reality of the corruptions of our system and from a deeper psychic disillusionment and disappointment. The political discourse is so formulaic, so tailored into poll-driven, focus-group-approved slogans that don't really say anything substantive or strike at the core of our lived experience; the lack of authenticity of discourse--and the underlying lack of gravitas, of penetrating insight and wisdom on the part of politicians--is numbing. But we must keep in mind that the disgust so many feel comes from a deep desire to hear more authentic expressions of insights about our lives and more genuine commitments to improving them. Many of us long for expressions of real concern both about the pain of our individual lives and about the common good. . . as opposed to the blatant catering to base interests and to narrow elite constituencies. We long for a politics that is not about winning a political game but about producing better lives. . . .

Our national focus has become so dominated by narrow us-versus-them discourse that it has all but drowned out authentic debate over issues. Though many voters are mobilized by the increased polarization of our party politics, there is an underlying disgust about the preoccupation of our political leaders with partisan warfare.

The uninspiring nature of our national political culture has only enhanced the seductiveness of the pursuit of pleasure and of diverting entertainments, and too many of us have turned inward to a disconnected, narrowly circumscribed family and social life. White suburbanites and middle-class blacks (and others) are preoccupied with the daily pursuit of the comfort of their material lives. In many cases they literally wall themselves off into comfortable communities, both physical and social, in which they can safely avert their eyes from the ugly realities that afflict so many of our people. Because they are able to buy the cars and take the vacations they want, they are all too willing to either disregard the political and social dysfunctions afflicting the country or accept facile explanations for them.

The black community is increasingly divided, the upper and middle classes as against the feeble institutions of the inner cities. Too much of the black political leadership has become caught up in the mainstream political game and has been turning away from the deep commitment to a more profound advocacy for poor blacks. Meanwhile a generation of blacks who have suffered from the cataclysmic breakdown of the civic and social structure in inner cities are consigned to lives of extreme alienation and empty pursuit of short-term gratification.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is it that people "don't appreciate government" or that there is a broad disagreement as to what government(s) should and should not be involved in doing. Example: Should the federal government be involved in taking money from some citizens (taxes) in order to give it to other citizens (hurricane "victims")? If so, how do you determine who gets the money and how much they are supposed to get?

Many of the hurricane "victims" (certainly not all or necessarily a majority of them) are "victims" because of choices that they freely and voluntarily made. Are the taxpayers of America supposed to provide them with "free insurance" to cover the losses that they are now sustaining?

Why should taxpayers be expected to pay to rebuild buildings that are below sea level? Part of my lot is in the 100 year floodplain. Bt law, I am not permitted to build there.

Cornell West is, in my opinion, basically at least a socialist and, in many of his expressed ideas and writings, borders on being a communist. By that I only mean: "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need".
In this day and age, especially in America, it may be very difficult to determine just what is a "need" and what is a "want".

These are very difficult questions and issues. I believe that it is somewhat safe to say that in Jesus' day, "the poor" were generally considered to be those without the very basics for sustaining a minimal subsintance (sp?) life. Food, shelter, two or three changes of clothing.

Anonymous said...

Many, if not most, of the middle class blacks, have, in one or two generations, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Perhaps many at some time in their lives had to depend on welfare, but like my own "white" mother, hated it intensely and consequently instilled in their children the need to work for a better way of life.

Anonymous said...

The first comment written about this post is truly an eye-opener for me. I have heard people blame the poor for their situation, and I've seen people try to justify ignoring extreme poverty with various "God helps those who help themeselves" type mantras. But I've never, until today, witnessed someone blame a class of people not only for being poor, but for having a hurricane destroy their home and all of their possessions.

What would Jesus do? Certainly never write a comment on a blog like that.

Thank you Larry, for providing an open forum for discussion here. Sometimes I get so comfortable talking with all my liberal friends that I forget there are people that put quotation marks around the word "victim" while talking about the people effected by the hurricane.

Matt

Unknown said...

IBreakCellPhones,

That is the crux of the argument. I'd say we've got no historical evidence of it. But I don't think we have any more evidence that a lack of government stifles things.

When America did probably the most it's done in history to help the rest of the world (WWII and post-war activities like the Marshall Plan), it was an activist government. The ballooning of our economy occurred first in the 50s while the New Deal was still firmly in place, and then in the 90s following tax hikes under Bush Sr. Some might say tax cuts have "kept our economy afloat" in the 2000s, but the results have surely not been as impressive.

I don't think our government runs perfectly (I believe we get the government we deserve, and this is what a materially-focused short-attention-span electorate produces), but it has, at least, not hampered the economic growth that helped large segments of the economy, if not all of it. If there's another alternative that's done equally well in a situation where is no more land/resources to hand out for free like America did in the 1800s, I would be interested in finding out more.

Charles

Anonymous said...

Matt,

I am glad that I was able to at least partially open your eyes.

A couple of points: All types of people were effected by the hurricane; rich, poor, educated, uneducated, old, young, people who chose to live in the area, people who had no choice, people who chose to stay in harms way, people who could not leave, people who had insurance, people who didn't, homeowners, renters, wealthy, welfare recepients, just to name a few.

Some people might view those who were "victims" (please forgive the quotation marks which seem to upset you greatly) as not all "being in the same boat" nor necessarily deserving of the same treatment, help, assistance, or response.

If you will re-read (with an open mind) my original posting, I did not "blame" anyone for anything. However, anyone who voluntarily chooses to live virtually right on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and/or invest their money in property so located, might want to be aware of the POSSIBLITY of being at least somewhat inconvenienced by a hurricane. In fact, if history is any indicator, PROBABILITY is a more correct term and "inconvenienced" might be a slight understatement.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

The hatred and judgement in your comments saddens me. I pitty your inability to show kindness to your fellow man and pray when trouble enters your life that it will be met with kindness and generosity.

lt

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

Sorry that you are so saddened. Try to cheer yourself up.

Just who is being judgmental here?

I am quite able to show kindness to my fellow man and do so.

I have no hatred at all for anyone involved here. In fact, I have personally given personal items, money, and volunteered my time to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

This started out as a discussion of the different views that various people have as to the proper role of government in our society. I made some comments and posed some questions that I thought could possibly be relevant to such a discussion. It was never intended as a statement of what I, as an individual, might do or feel toward my fellow man.

I can't help but ask: Are you one of those bleeding-heart liberals that I have heard of all of my life?

Anonymous said...

I'm one of those bleeding-heart liberals. Actually, is there an adjective stronger than bleeding-heart? Because that would be me.

Anonymous said...

Quick thoughts: 1) As for the quality of our public discourse, Al Gore had some interesting things to say recently here http://tinyurl.com/83p37 Never mind that he's a Democrat; it's a thoughtful piece and merits reading.

On the question of government, what's troubling is that so many of us have bought into the notion that government stands apart from us, instead of existing as an expression of the common good, of by and for the people. It's easy to cede control of something if one feels that one has no stake in it.

Underlying some of the comments above is that each of us is a kind of monad in competition with all the other monads what together make up society. Each following his individual destiny and pursuing the good life, acting in the aggregate like molecules of gas in a piston. That's an 18th Century idea. Followed through to its conclusion it leads to a Hobbesian war of all against all. There has to be some countervailing force. The neoconservative sociologist Daniel Bell made the case in "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". Adam Smith did not reveal Sacred Text. However, as a people we sure have gotten capitalism confounded with God and country. Is everyone who raises issues of the common good a socialist? And, if so, what does that mean, anyway? As soon as that word is invoked, does it end the conversation? Is it a kind of "king's exe" that lets us out of any further moral consideration of the plight of the poor? One is reminded of a quip, sometimes attributed to Walker Percy, "It was an age so false that it had lost the consciousness of its own falsity." Go in peace...

Anonymous said...

I see you are a little defensive Anonymous. If you personally don't believe what you wrote, then why write it and write it with such vigor. Don't you see that refering to the victims of Katrina as "victims" is a tad judgemental?

Larry James said...

Mark, you have summed up much of our problem in the US today. Thanks for the post.