The Concept of Dreaming part II
15/05/08 16:49
What amazes me about
these cultural microcosms that seem to constitute the
american society is that they - unlike in Europe -
really aren’t that geographically specific. They will
meet up in churches, synagogues, bars or sports
stadiums. They’ll have barbecues in the back yard of
a cousins friends house a 100 miles away from their
home, and they will be friends solely because someone
has vouched for them.
So if they say they don’t wanna help, they’re saying they want do it when forced to help. They sure as hell will help though. We went out for a beer with Nathan and Luc, our current hosts - great night out but by the way. The next morning, somewhat hung over I meet Nathan in the kitchen. As I’m just in there to restock on water I ask what he is doing up so early.
It turns out that one of his friend’s father has cancer and the family - due to lack of proper insurance is facing a large debt from the hospital bills. Not really much choice but to lend the money and hope he survives, is there?
Well, his friends, family, colleagues - his cultural microcosm - are doing something. Nathan on that dreadful morning, was on his way to help build a stage for a benefit they were doing, in order to raise money for the guy. They were all coming together as a community, not a state, to help the person and family in need.
Obviously impressed I ask Nathan if this is a common gesture. His answer is simple - and remember that this is a guy that really doesn’t care much for state, taxes and federal government. I should hope so... - and then he shrugs and adds - ... But of course they’re Irish... He smiles and leaves to help a man in need. But he does it because he wants to, not because he has to.
The resentment against being told what to do really does seem to come from their ancestors - as culture and tradition usually does. They were fugitives from oppression and a stagnated society.
People truly believe that if you are unhappy, then you have the possibility on moving to a place that shares your own values - and in many cases this is actually possible. Obviously the truly abandoned and poor people are the ones who are left outside of the communities.
The interesting thing about these communities is that the one of the only place they meet up are at the markets. Through standard market transactions they are somewhat intertwined. The hing is - and everyone realizes this - that there is a huge difference between being morally self sufficient, and being materially self sufficient.
Seeing the microcosms all of a sudden acting dependent on each other, puts the role of the state into a more valid perspective. They need the state to secure their transactions, and even more fundamentally - to allow this transaction of product to take place.
They need the state to interact with other cultural microcosms - with markets as a prime example. The state is there to, literally - and in no way metaphorically - open the world. It needs to secure roads, electricity, security - primarily against foreign enemies as the local law enforcement is often chosen by the people themselves.
It is not there to secure or create beliefs or values as one would expect, that is from a european point of view. As mentioned earlier, the reluctance against higher taxes - even in regards to securing welfare - is in no way to be seen as reluctance to help. It is, plain and simple, a reluctance against being told what to do. The welfare model, like the scandinavian one, is heavily founded in a specific set of values - and this is what they oppose.
A question now comes to mind regarding the immediate connection to part one of this blog:
How does all this relate to the media and democratic nomination proces?
Well, first of all: it does.
In order to understand the elections, one needs to accept the fact that society and the role of the state is fundamentally different in the US - at least when comparing to Europe. The role of the state, and hence the role of the politicians is immensely different.
In Europe we will tend to vote for the people who can guarantee both our safety from outside threats, but just as well on the politicians who represent our views within the state. In the US the vast majority will vote for whoever seems the best bet to secure the way of life that they like, ie. whoever will secure their independent lifestyle within a chosen microcosm.
And this as - in my opinion - the key to understanding the process. If someone talks about raising taxes, raising welfare etc they are in fact telling you what to do. The are legislating in an area where the government and state essentially have no business. It’s not a question of helping or not helping - it’s a question of choosing to help for yourself. It’s a matter of defining what is right for you and your family - not for everyone else.
Now, a case could (and should) be made about the impact of the religious right. In Europe they are vilified and portrayed as self serving crusaders, with a lust for power (whether or not this is true I’ll stay out of). The important thing is that they seem to get backing from a large amount of the american society - a presumption stemming in the fact that the current president got elected twice.
But the crucial point isn’t really that the majority of the american people are religious zealots. The point is that they will vote against whoever wants to tell them what to do - ironically they end up voting along with the christian right wing, but that is probably more a result of a two party system, than them being fundamentalists.
Alas... Once again I digress...
The media I said, right - here goes.
As the voter doesn’t really see the politicians role as that of a traditional european legislator - more like a person making sure that microcosms can exist independently, at least culturally - it would also make some very interesting changes in the way one criticizes the media: especially in Europe.
Now before anyone gets all psyched up about the view that people should mind their own business, lets just calm down. There is no such thing as a perfect society, and I for one, really don’t understand how one gets away with disregarding views as being foreign. The point of a democracy is to listen (and with no intent of being humorous) ant then discarding. Hopefully only due to the fact that you disagree.
The aversion towards being told was to do is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that american debate and coverage really isn’t that much about what a candidate wants to do. It’s often just as much about how the hell he’ll go about doing it. In saying that you intend to legislate you will not only be targeted by your political adversaries but also by those with whom you share values. Because the fundamental value seems to be that you can be anything, and no one has the right to stop you. Only after that does other values take effect.
This fear and loathing of legislating anything with a slight resemblance to morals or values then again affects the media. Because if very few candidates actually say anything, then the talking parrots - and I truly am grateful that they at least are pretty - that we call ‘News anchors’ have no news. So what you’ll do is get a commentator to visit you in the studio to tell the american people what they’re really saying when they’re basically not saying anything.
These commentators are - in all fairness - often open proponents of a given candidate so there really isn’t any intention of deluding the viewer with a sense objectivity. And as long as each side have a representative trying to ‘unmask’ the meaning of both the spoken and unspoken policies, one could presume that this is to be considered a joust among equals.
Well it’s not.
Obviously it’s fair to a lot of people; the anchorman, the commentator (a whole new market pseudo market it seems) - even the candidates seem to acknowledge this habit as an acceptable part of the modern day democracy. And for that mother of all unholy, self sustaining, parasitic triumvirates - things are ok. In fact only one thing has been left out the equation. Guessed who?
The annoying cattle that this whole shebang used be about: the voters!
Oh, and don’t get me started on what happens when corporations and special interests join in - it’s a veritable daisy chain of modern day debauchery....
As I seem to have worked up a steam, I might as well stop for now. Part III will be about what actually does happen when corporation and special interests decide to join the chain gang.
But for now,it’s mashed potatoe time. And that should be entailed by a comatose state on the couch.
Ps: Oops, no pictures in post - my bad
So if they say they don’t wanna help, they’re saying they want do it when forced to help. They sure as hell will help though. We went out for a beer with Nathan and Luc, our current hosts - great night out but by the way. The next morning, somewhat hung over I meet Nathan in the kitchen. As I’m just in there to restock on water I ask what he is doing up so early.
It turns out that one of his friend’s father has cancer and the family - due to lack of proper insurance is facing a large debt from the hospital bills. Not really much choice but to lend the money and hope he survives, is there?
Well, his friends, family, colleagues - his cultural microcosm - are doing something. Nathan on that dreadful morning, was on his way to help build a stage for a benefit they were doing, in order to raise money for the guy. They were all coming together as a community, not a state, to help the person and family in need.
Obviously impressed I ask Nathan if this is a common gesture. His answer is simple - and remember that this is a guy that really doesn’t care much for state, taxes and federal government. I should hope so... - and then he shrugs and adds - ... But of course they’re Irish... He smiles and leaves to help a man in need. But he does it because he wants to, not because he has to.
The resentment against being told what to do really does seem to come from their ancestors - as culture and tradition usually does. They were fugitives from oppression and a stagnated society.
People truly believe that if you are unhappy, then you have the possibility on moving to a place that shares your own values - and in many cases this is actually possible. Obviously the truly abandoned and poor people are the ones who are left outside of the communities.
The interesting thing about these communities is that the one of the only place they meet up are at the markets. Through standard market transactions they are somewhat intertwined. The hing is - and everyone realizes this - that there is a huge difference between being morally self sufficient, and being materially self sufficient.
Seeing the microcosms all of a sudden acting dependent on each other, puts the role of the state into a more valid perspective. They need the state to secure their transactions, and even more fundamentally - to allow this transaction of product to take place.
They need the state to interact with other cultural microcosms - with markets as a prime example. The state is there to, literally - and in no way metaphorically - open the world. It needs to secure roads, electricity, security - primarily against foreign enemies as the local law enforcement is often chosen by the people themselves.
It is not there to secure or create beliefs or values as one would expect, that is from a european point of view. As mentioned earlier, the reluctance against higher taxes - even in regards to securing welfare - is in no way to be seen as reluctance to help. It is, plain and simple, a reluctance against being told what to do. The welfare model, like the scandinavian one, is heavily founded in a specific set of values - and this is what they oppose.
A question now comes to mind regarding the immediate connection to part one of this blog:
How does all this relate to the media and democratic nomination proces?
Well, first of all: it does.
In order to understand the elections, one needs to accept the fact that society and the role of the state is fundamentally different in the US - at least when comparing to Europe. The role of the state, and hence the role of the politicians is immensely different.
In Europe we will tend to vote for the people who can guarantee both our safety from outside threats, but just as well on the politicians who represent our views within the state. In the US the vast majority will vote for whoever seems the best bet to secure the way of life that they like, ie. whoever will secure their independent lifestyle within a chosen microcosm.
And this as - in my opinion - the key to understanding the process. If someone talks about raising taxes, raising welfare etc they are in fact telling you what to do. The are legislating in an area where the government and state essentially have no business. It’s not a question of helping or not helping - it’s a question of choosing to help for yourself. It’s a matter of defining what is right for you and your family - not for everyone else.
Now, a case could (and should) be made about the impact of the religious right. In Europe they are vilified and portrayed as self serving crusaders, with a lust for power (whether or not this is true I’ll stay out of). The important thing is that they seem to get backing from a large amount of the american society - a presumption stemming in the fact that the current president got elected twice.
But the crucial point isn’t really that the majority of the american people are religious zealots. The point is that they will vote against whoever wants to tell them what to do - ironically they end up voting along with the christian right wing, but that is probably more a result of a two party system, than them being fundamentalists.
Alas... Once again I digress...
The media I said, right - here goes.
As the voter doesn’t really see the politicians role as that of a traditional european legislator - more like a person making sure that microcosms can exist independently, at least culturally - it would also make some very interesting changes in the way one criticizes the media: especially in Europe.
Now before anyone gets all psyched up about the view that people should mind their own business, lets just calm down. There is no such thing as a perfect society, and I for one, really don’t understand how one gets away with disregarding views as being foreign. The point of a democracy is to listen (and with no intent of being humorous) ant then discarding. Hopefully only due to the fact that you disagree.
The aversion towards being told was to do is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that american debate and coverage really isn’t that much about what a candidate wants to do. It’s often just as much about how the hell he’ll go about doing it. In saying that you intend to legislate you will not only be targeted by your political adversaries but also by those with whom you share values. Because the fundamental value seems to be that you can be anything, and no one has the right to stop you. Only after that does other values take effect.
This fear and loathing of legislating anything with a slight resemblance to morals or values then again affects the media. Because if very few candidates actually say anything, then the talking parrots - and I truly am grateful that they at least are pretty - that we call ‘News anchors’ have no news. So what you’ll do is get a commentator to visit you in the studio to tell the american people what they’re really saying when they’re basically not saying anything.
These commentators are - in all fairness - often open proponents of a given candidate so there really isn’t any intention of deluding the viewer with a sense objectivity. And as long as each side have a representative trying to ‘unmask’ the meaning of both the spoken and unspoken policies, one could presume that this is to be considered a joust among equals.
Well it’s not.
Obviously it’s fair to a lot of people; the anchorman, the commentator (a whole new market pseudo market it seems) - even the candidates seem to acknowledge this habit as an acceptable part of the modern day democracy. And for that mother of all unholy, self sustaining, parasitic triumvirates - things are ok. In fact only one thing has been left out the equation. Guessed who?
The annoying cattle that this whole shebang used be about: the voters!
Oh, and don’t get me started on what happens when corporations and special interests join in - it’s a veritable daisy chain of modern day debauchery....
As I seem to have worked up a steam, I might as well stop for now. Part III will be about what actually does happen when corporation and special interests decide to join the chain gang.
But for now,it’s mashed potatoe time. And that should be entailed by a comatose state on the couch.
Ps: Oops, no pictures in post - my bad
|