I know I promised, but...

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ok, I've been kicking it anti-politics for awhile and I hope to keep up the trend, but I found this interesting:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20041012

JOCKS VS. GEEKS
The Two Tribes of American Politics

SEATTLE--We Americans are about to vote on what kind of country we want to be. Will we continue down the same road we've followed for over two centuries, as an imperfect nation dedicated to the preservation and expansion of individual liberties, whose Bill of Rights stands both as its greatest achievement and its most shamefully unfulfilled ideal? Or will we lurch to the right, voluntarily cashing in our personal freedom in exchange for citizenship in an empire constantly at war, reviled by the rest of the world but--until history spawns a worthy challenger--its undisputed master?

Issues like gay marriage and partial-birth abortion lead to a lot of spilled ink but are relatively inconsequential in the big picture of American politics. What divides our left from our right--each of which considers the other dangerous, if not treasonous--are competing visions of the United States. Were America's military and economic dominance over the globe to fade while our living standards and constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms remained intact, liberals wouldn't fret all that much. As we've seen since September 2001, on the other hand, conservatives don't lose sleep over increasing poverty, police checkpoints, censorship or racially motivated arrests or indefinite detentions since they see those developments as supporting the primary aim--remaining the world's sole superpower.

John Edwards talks about "two Americas," two classes for whom opportunity is either a birthright or a pipe dream. What he describes is real, yet the other gap--between those who see the U.S. as a nation based on individual rights and those who see it first and foremost as a powerful empire--is almost impossible to bridge. Individualists and imperialists can't agree to disagree because they don't even agree on what the United States of America is, or what it should become. Republicans, who view George W. Bush as a commander in chief leading the empire into dangerous battles abroad against hostile savages, equate him with the nation itself. "Why do you hate America?" they reply to his critics. Liberals, who view presidents as taxpayer-funded employees, are inherently hostile to the notion that any one man can be the embodiment of a democratic America. They roll their eyes at what they believe to be a cheap rhetorical advice although, in fact, the conservatives are dead serious about the question.

American politics are just as tribal-based as those of Afghanistan. But where they have Pashtuns and Tajiks, we have jocks and cheerleaders versus freaks and geeks.

There are two types of high school students: the sunny kids whose eyes light up at the announcement of a pep rally, who race to the gymnasium to shout the fight song, and the sullen black T-shirt-wearing hordes who let out disgusted sighs while hunting for a hiding place to smoke cheap cigarettes. Conformists versus contrarians, extroverts versus introverts, fans of Top 40 music versus fans of obscure, critically-acclaimed bands, people who believe those in authority versus those who don't. Athletes grow up to vote Republican, dorks Democratic. The great divide was chronicled by the John Hughes films of the 1980s--aggressive, bland privilege meets victimized, appealing alienation and wins--and it lives on in a classic right-wing Internet reposte to leftist posters: "You got beat up in school a lot, didn't you?" Members of the in crowd can marry those of the out crowd, work together and even be friends, but they will never share basic assumptions about the way the world works.

It's hazy now, but our two tribes used to agree about a lot more stuff. Democrats and Republicans both thought that Jimmy Carter was a nice man but an ineffective administrator, that Ronald Reagan was a good speaker, that Bill Clinton was a womanizer. Then the 2000 election was stolen and Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for wars of conquest and domestic political clampdowns. Republicans demanded total obeisance, Democrats refused, and both sides began spewing red-hot rhetoric that makes them irreconcilable.

So half the electorate looks at George W. Bush and sees a courageous, plainspoken man of integrity, comparable to Churchill, whereas the other half thinks he's a dullard and a pipsqueak whose strings are pulled by corrupt corporate executives. Since support for Bush or Kerry has more to do with tribal affiliation than issues or suitability for office, neither the incumbent nor his opponent's performance on the campaign trail nor the latest news on the economy or the wars budge the polls more than a few points back and forth. Incredibly, only one or two percent of the electorate remains undecided.

In a few weeks, either the imperialists or the individualists will emerge triumphant. The winning constituency will claim the right to decide what kind of country the U.S. is and should be. In truth, however, the two tribes of postmodern American politics are too closely matched for any election to settle that question.

COPYRIGHT 2004 TED RALL

Now, I know that the author is a big left-wing politico and that the message is distinctly political, but the sociology message is an interesting one. The picture of society as jocks vs. geeks of brawn vs. brains of solidarity vs. individualism is one I have often pondered about and believed in though I don't see it as falling as neatly along party lines as he does.

So, as a part of my interest, if anyone wishes to discuss the SOCIOLOGICAL quandary posted here without getting into the miasma of whether his party line declarations are accurate, I think it would be interesting.

I realize that this may be impossible so close to an election and with such a opinionated starting author, but still... I think we can do it.

 

[impressive]

The picture of society as jocks vs. geeks of brawn vs. brains of solidarity vs. individualism is one I have often pondered about and believed in though I don't see it as falling as neatly along party lines as he does.

Agree. This election is more about a caste system.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: I know I promised, but...

Agree. This election is more about a caste system.

Are you calling me a subhuman?

 

[rgraham666]

To me, the question is always about the balance between the individual and the group.

Being a snarly individualist, the individual is usually the most important thing. But I realize that sometimes I have to restrain my personal wants for the good of the whole.

It seems to me that the Shrubbies get the whole equation wrong. They are individuals when they should be members of the group. And groupies when they should be themselves.

Above all, I don't believe the Shrubbies ever think about what they are doing and why.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

We live in a socicety. Except for those who are Rich enough to ignore it att heir whim or those who are willing to be poor enough to thumb their nose at it, you are part of the group.

Man is by nature gregarious. He has been forming groups for ages. the nature has changed, from familial groups and tribes to city populations, to today's almost constantly linked nation/state society.

Yet from the begining man has fought to retain individuality among the group. Conforming as much as is practiceable while still maintaining enough anti-social traits to stand out, even if he stands out only in his own eyes.

Our society endeavors to answer to the will or the whole, while protecting the rights of the individual. In answering to the will of the whole, laws have been enacted to curtail the rights of the indivdual. This is not intrinsicly bad. A pedophile is prohibited from seeing sexual gratification in the way he would find most enjoyable, the strong man has limits upon what he can do to his fellows, the criminal is locked away for his crimes.

The current administration is pushing the very bounds in deciding how much the individual may be constrained by the will of the whole.

Quoting LC:
The picture of society as jocks vs. geeks of brawn vs. brains of solidarity vs. individualism is one I have often pondered about and believed in though I don't see it as falling as neatly along party lines as he does.

Nothing falls neatly along party lines, because each party is made up of individuals. Neither side has a claim to being strong, intelligent or right. The parties do not represent a clash of ideology so much as they represent a deliniation of individual desires, hopes and fears.

There are very few people whose individual preferences totally mimic the party line. You identify with one or the other, most often across a narow range of issues that are important to you, the individual. For example, most southern Democrats are in agrement with the Dem's fiscal policy, but are lukewarm at best to it's social agenda. Conversely, most southern republicans are lukewarm to indifferent on the GOP's finanacial policy, but are strongly in favor of it's social agenda.

The liberal/Democratic preception that they are the more intellectual party, I find to be an amusing conciet. I've never met a Democrat in person I felt to be my intellectual equal, much less my superior. In point of fact, I have considered the majority of liberals and Democrats that I have known to be rather dumb, unable to argue a point without resorting to histronics and emotional appeals, and utterly no challenge to think circles around. It is one of the more amusing ironys in my life that the first group of liberals I ever met who hold my respect is the group that debates politics informally on a porn site

No party represents Jocks or Geeks, Brawn or Brain, olidarity or individuality. They each represent a collection of ideas that are neither uniformly intelligent, strong or right. Each side has great minds and not so great minds. Each side tries to strongarm the other at times. And each is at heart a collection of ideas on how to run society, which is by defintion a group.

There isn't an overriding issue society splits over, it splits over a multitude of small issues. These are grouped together into preincipals that the parties divide over to separate one from the other.

When you disuss society or politics, you are almost by definition discussing generalities. Each side is full of internal contridictions over individual minor things. For example, Democrats and liberals are squaking over USA Patriot because it attacks our constitution given freedoms, yet they have lead a long and sometimes successful campaign to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms. A right guarenteed in the very document they are so inervated over the GOP curtailing.

Buzz words, catch phrases, hot button issues abound. A very large part of every campagin is tailoring you rplatforms strong points to appeal to the people you are begging for a vote. In georgia Bush might push his faithbased inititives in his speeches, but in California he probably won't mention them, opting to talk about security and his response to terrorism.

You can split the country over nearly any issue. Bit with each issue you have to redraw the line.

The will of the whole is a tenuous thing, when each candidate who becomes president generaly does so without the support of the majority of the country and sometimes, as with Bush, even without a majority of the voting population.

I don't see society divded into jocks & geeks or individual and solidarity, I see society divided into 250 million individuals, each expecting society to protect their rights and each willing to bow in leser or greater degree, to the will of the whole.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

*Sigh*

Let me try this. Sometimes and to be honest oten, I notice the idea that the high school world and setup despite claims to be temporary actually forms the system of college and adulthood. Sure, the players are different, the old rulers and clique types falter and become the new losers and gang bastards. As one grows up the jocks are gone but in their place are the winners and bosses, equally unassailable and arrogant and clinging to the same views on power, on women, on dominence. The old popular girls may fade into domesticity, but new ones replace them ready to jilt the unexpected. And through it all there are losers, freaks, and geeks often doing "well" but for little benefit. Look at the cubicle working engineer, the starving artist in the crummy flat, or the punk musician trying to make it big. Some luck out, the similar abberations of high school when one unworthy reached a point of exaltion surprisingly on his/her merit. These similarities appear to me when I think about it, examine the world that surrounds me, perhaps I am alone in the observation, but it is one of the reasons that I found the article interesting.

The political pieces I'm less interested in. There's similarities in the general. The angry jock who believes in violence as an all resort, will support vengeance crusades much easier. The annoying Student Council bastard becomes that annoying political spokesman complaining about what they're child is exposed to or pass laws on smokes to better convienence themselves. And the introverted little bully victim will likely grow up with anti-authoritarian streak in them. These things are expected. Is it perfect? By all means, no. New circumstances often recolor old prejudices and viewpoints. The anti-authoritarian geek who suddenly makes a million dollar invention may find himself more i favor of authority's protective services. The angry jock may, after a bad bar fight or arrest, become more of a pacifist. The SC bastard may decide that politics is bullshit and become an anarchist. Nothing is set in stone, that's why I set little store by this part.

However, I think the general roles are still intact. There's still the "angry jock", the "SC bastard", the "eternal victim", and all the geeks, freaks, prayer group attenders, and all of that. There are still sociologically speaking people who hide out in the computer room and avoid the school outside as much as they can. Internet forums would not exist without these character types.

That is what I found fascinating about the theory. The way he tries to stretch it to fit the current political mold is a bit much, but in generalities I see how it fits. However, it does not mean much to me right now. The overall theory it hints at however, I find absolutely fascinating.

Perhaps, I'm alone in that regard.

Sigh, I thank Colly, rgraham, for your twin essays on individualism and politics. They are both very intelligent and make good points. The trade offs between society and individual are as reminiscent of high school as the rest. The trade-off between doing the work and buttering up the teachers with good attitude versus playing your conscience, speaking your mind, and otherwise shaking things up. I'm only sorry that I had less interest in that aspect of the theory than your explanations merited. They were still informative though and surprisingly interesting and I thank both of you.

 

[amicus]

Colly said:

"The liberal/Democratic preception that they are the more intellectual party, I find to be an amusing conciet. I've never met a Democrat in person I felt to be my intellectual equal, much less my superior. In point of fact, I have considered the majority of liberals and Democrats that I have known to be rather dumb, unable to argue a point without resorting to histronics and emotional appeals, and utterly no challenge to think circles around. It is one of the more amusing ironys in my life that the first group of liberals I ever met who hold my respect is the group that debates politics informally on a porn site..."

Thank you Colleen....perhaps they will go lightly on you...for saying that...they will not on me.

Not only do they smugly claim intellectual superiority...they smirk that they are the select few who support the arts and that they have a 'higer minded' approach than those who are sportsfans and television addicts.

A telling feature was a thread or perhaps a couple...where people listed their favorite books, movies and television programs.

It is a mindset, the political mindset of those who believe they are born to rule and manage the lower class. There smug elitism disdains the competition in the market place while they enjoy the goods and services produced for them.

They claim to have an interest in human rights but claim the pacifist role when it comes time to put action behind the words and protect the oppressed.

So, Thank you Colleen Thomas for expressing your thoughts and know there is at least one appreciative admirer of yours out here.

Cheers....

amicus...

 

[fifty5]

One of the thing I learnt about way back when was Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety (if you want to know what that is, go Google!)

Any 2-party system simply cannot do justice to a whole nation, whether that nation is the US, the UK, Iran, or wherever.

Come to that, I think I think that a single vote (whether first-past-the-post or any 'proportional' system) probably doesn't have sufficient variety. Read Nevil Shute's "In The Wet". That novel describes a system of multiple votes, where each individual qualifies for more votes according to how much of a stake they have in their country, and how much extra expertise they have.

One vote acrues to everyone for simply being alive.

Another acrues to those who pass higher education.

A third is given to those who raise a family.

Yet another is awarded to those who spend a significant period in a foreign country.

Another is awarded to those who make a (moderate) fortune.

I forget what the 6th was - and the 7th (the 'human interest' aspect of the story) was awarded as a 'decoration' for special, individual merit.

The hypothesis was that those who had a bigger stake in the country, or had done something that was likely to increase their understanding of their country's actions, should have more say in electing their country's leaders.

Given that each government decision is binary - they either do or don't do each action - that seems to me to be a better way to apply Ashby's law (which is as unescapable as the law of gravity) to real life politics than giving the same influence to an illiterate who's just left school (fill in your own example of someone who's almost incompetent to choose) as to those who've got something to loose or to offer...


OK, maybe that does go off at a tangent (or at a greater angle), but I still think it's relevant to this thread.

A vs B (R vs D) simply can't do justice to reality.

IMHO,

Eff

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One of the thing I learnt about way back when was Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety (if you want to know what that is, go Google!)

Any 2-party system simply cannot do justice to a whole nation, whether that nation is the US, the UK, Iran, or wherever.

Come to that, I think I think that a single vote (whether first-past-the-post or any 'proportional' system) probably doesn't have sufficient variety. Read Nevil Shute's "In The Wet". That novel describes a system of multiple votes, where each individual qualifies for more votes according to how much of a stake they have in their country, and how much extra expertise they have.

One vote acrues to everyone for simply being alive.

Another acrues to those who pass higher education.

A third is given to those who raise a family.

Yet another is awarded to those who spend a significant period in a foreign country.

Another is awarded to those who make a (moderate) fortune.

I forget what the 6th was - and the 7th (the 'human interest' aspect of the story) was awarded as a 'decoration' for special, individual merit.

The hypothesis was that those who had a bigger stake in the country, or had done something that was likely to increase their understanding of their country's actions, should have more say in electing their country's leaders.

Given that each government decision is binary - they either do or don't do each action - that seems to me to be a better way to apply Ashby's law (which is as unescapable as the law of gravity) to real life politics than giving the same influence to an illiterate who's just left school (fill in your own example of someone who's almost incompetent to choose) as to those who've got something to loose or to offer...


OK, maybe that does go off at a tangent (or at a greater angle), but I still think it's relevant to this thread.

A vs B (R vs D) simply can't do justice to reality.

IMHO,

Eff

In the first elections to vote, you had to be white, male over 25 (i think) and a property owner. The idea was that only those who held property had a stake in good governemnt.

My little town gives some creedence to this. We have something like 5 schools and several multi-million dollar bonds out. The school borad is corrupt, embezzels like mad and still gets reelected. When they have gouged all they can out of the cash from the last bond, they just float another. Property taxes are so high it's astounding. How does this happen? Because we are next to a military base and the vast majority of registered voters rent. They pass the bonds with no concern for property tax cause they don't pay it.

Ben Franklin Observed that a Man with an Ass could vote, but if the Ass died, he could not. So who really had the right to vote? The man or the ass?

A proportional voting system is inherently unfair, because those who get only the vote from being alive and are too poor to get a higher education will not likely rasie a family, visit a foerign country, make a small fortune etc. A minority (the very rich) will be voting 7 times thier proportion to the population at large. The moderately wealthy will be voting at 3 to five times their proportion, while the poor will get one vote, maybe 2 if they can raise a family from flipping burgers at McD's.

If the poor don't outnumber the middle class by 3 to 5 and the very rich by 7 to one or better, they will have no say in the government and that government is therefore, very unlikely to pass legislation that would improve thier lot.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Fifty5....

Interesting...and I am so happy to see a reference to one of Nevil Shute Norway's novels....I have read them all and have many favorites...

I think there may be many ways of determining the function of government by its citizens and the one you mentioned is as good as any I have read.

However...

I surmise that a two party system has somewhat evolved in the political process because it works...

In the list of things you included about how to gain more votes, thus more leverage...many would not achieve that and thus, I think, would feel unequal and under represented in the actions of government.

Few intellectual either like or understand what a democracy, rather a republic..such as ours accomplishes.

It can not exist without a strong and clear set of documents that set forth the function of that government.

Many think, or even wish, that a majority vote could change the basic premises in our constitution; such as doing away with the rights to 'life, liberty...'

Those rights are not granted by the consitution, they are acknowledged as innate and protected...

I share the concern over an illiterate voting public or one that is easily swayed...however...my view is that there is an innate 'goodness' in the common man that often is more precise and proper than his better educated brothers.

I vote we stick with the system we have....


regards....amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

That sure as hell explains a lot.

I'm not gonna let my kids play sports!

Ok, I've been kicking it anti-politics for awhile and I hope to keep up the trend, but I found this interesting:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20041012




Now, I know that the author is a big left-wing politico and that the message is distinctly political, but the sociology message is an interesting one. The picture of society as jocks vs. geeks of brawn vs. brains of solidarity vs. individualism is one I have often pondered about and believed in though I don't see it as falling as neatly along party lines as he does.

So, as a part of my interest, if anyone wishes to discuss the SOCIOLOGICAL quandary posted here without getting into the miasma of whether his party line declarations are accurate, I think it would be interesting.

I realize that this may be impossible so close to an election and with such a opinionated starting author, but still... I think we can do it.

 

[rgraham666]

In spite of his general libertarian stance, I found Robert A. Heinlein's method of deciding citizenship the best I've heard of so far.

In his book, Starship Troopers a person couldn't vote or hold public office unless they volunteered for Federal Service and served a minimum of two years. The government could not turn you away. If you showed up 'blind and in a wheel chair" they had to find something for you to do.

Many people regard this as 'war mongering' as the main character was a soldier. But Federal Service covered a wide range of things. Two years cleaning floors in a space port, if that's all you were capable of, could fulfill your duty.

Heinlein went into great detail exploring this idea.

The two most practical reasons were:

1. You earned the right to vote, with sweat and hard work, and maybe blood and pain. This makes it more valuable to you. At the price you've paid, you are unlikely to misuse or ignore it.

2. You've proven that you regard your society as more important and valuable than yourself. You are more likely to be concerned with your society's welfare than your own.

A common objection was dealt with, "Why not draft everyone?"

Because the system is trying to find people with a sense of civic duty. If they don't have it, you can't create it.

A damned interesting book. It's had a huge influence on my political thought.

 

[Guest]

Bullshit!

Eeehaah!

I'd been married long time ago
If it hadn't been for old Cotten-eyed Joe

I'd been married long time ago
If it hadn't been for old Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

What did I say?
Bullshit!
Say it again!
Bullshit!
What did I step in?
Bullshit!
One more time!
Bullshit!

Now you plays it fast and plays it slow
Everybody dues Cotten-eyed Joe
Now you plays it fast and plays it slow
Everybody dues Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

What did I say?
Bullshit!
Say it again!
Bullshit!
What did I step in?
Bullshit!
One more time!
Bullshit!
Little bit louder!
Bullshit!

 

[fifty5]

Muliple/qualified votes

Colly, Amicus, RGraham,

I don't suggest that either Shute's or Heinlein's precise proposals are perfect for us, now - quite apart from anything else they wrote in particular locations at particular times - but it's interesting to note that many of Shute's 'foreign residence' votes acrued through military service, paralleling Heinlein's proposal.

As far as wealth goes, Shute did specify that inheritance did not qualify. The wealth had to be created by the voter in question.  And multiple foreign holidays weren't enough for the foreign residence vote - it had to be a single, extended period (over a year?)

I also seem to remember that the higher education vote didn't simply mean a degree, though that counted, but an apprentice who emerged as a craftsman could also qualify.

To date, the criticisms I've heard could all be addressed by tinkering with the details and fine print (as rgraham suggests is critical).

Shute's bottom line was:
1. EVERYONE should have a vote, BUT
2. People who could go beyond the basic minimum of being alive - who had longer term interests and more understanding of the issues should be able to exert more influence (but, in the context of thousands / tens of thousands / millions of votes, not THAT much more).

Heinlein's proposal is simpler - so more vulnerable to Ashby's Law - but seems to me to espouse a very similar ethos: that voting power has to be earned - and if that were so, politicians would have to be more than rabble-rousers who appealed to crude self-interest to get elected.

I find the current US and UK governments persuasive evidence that a raw, single, universal vote (even if correctly counted) doesn't lead to an optimum outcome...

If "democracy is a very poor system, but the best currently available" (or something like that) then looking for something even better isn't such a bad idea.

Eff

 

[rgraham666]

Re: Muliple/qualified votes

If "democracy is a very poor system, but the best currently available" (or something like that) then looking for something even better isn't such a bad idea.

Eff

I heard it as a quote from Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

 

[fifty5]

Re: Re: Muliple/qualified votes

I heard it as a quote from Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Something like that, but I could have sworn that rather than "worst" it was "bad" (awful, lousy, whatever - absolute rather than comparative), then followed by the comparison.

Democracy (in 1-person-1-vote form) really is the best we've found so far, but that doesn't mean something better can't be found.

Eff

 

[rgraham666]

I quite agree Eff.

The problem is, as always, is that the people charged with the franchise become lazy and irresponsible. They don't vote for what's best for society, but what's best for them. Or more commonly what's best for the group they identify themselves with.

One of my favourite writers argues that we are now corporatist nations rather than democratic ones.

I tend to agree with him.