Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Trunkless legs in the sand
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" -Shelley (1818)
Discussions of how the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will play out, the relative effects of black skin and female gender, whether particular messages and talking points each side employs will prove effective, what the Clintons will try after throwing the kitchen sink and making Tonya Harding their role model, whether Obama will escape from the taint of his discredited former pastor, and so on make for entertaining television and blogging. A fight is going on and it does pit candidates whose obvious differences and similarities are being analyzed to death. Whether you watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC and whether you read and comment on HuffPo, the Caucus, or the WSJ, smart and knowledgeable pundits are filling the screens and pages with their clever observations and bold predictions; for, isn’t that how they make their names (if not the big bucks)? However, to frame the Democratic presidential primary race as a fight between two ambitious political leaders with contrasting personalities, demographics, and ethics is to miss the real story.
The real story is about what those leaders are leading. We could use the language of Thomas Kuhn and say that what we are seeing is a paradigm shift; but, the real story is more than just that. We are not only observing but taking part in a critical transition in the evolution of our political culture, the ongoing experiment in living democracy set in motion by such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin and still unfolding as each of us plays our small part. While we write and talk and blog away, suffering such leaders as Dick, W, and Condy, an old system of political power that has outlived its usefulness is dying; and, a new dynamic structure is in the process of supplanting it. The demise of the old model is certain regardless of the last ditch, fight-to-the-death by the old-timers of the Clinton campaign, a mortal effort to win one last time for the traditional political game. The Old Guard senses that this is their last stand and they might as well have the pipes play Garryowen and die with their boots on.
http://www.us7thcavalry.com/legend.htm
Consider Ozymandias, the historic Pharaoh Ramesses II the Great, who won battle after battle, war after war, living for 90 years until his demise in 1213 BCE. No matter how many armies the Pharaoh defeated, how many people he subjugated, how many monuments he caused to be built, how many chariots and goats and bolts of purple cloth he amassed, his death was inevitable and no one could stop it from happening.
Hillary Clinton is merely the last of the Pharaohs, the post-Vietnam Democrats, a breed of deal makers funded by wealthy fat cat liberals, of amoral manipulaters and spin doctors who got people to vote for them or against the opponent by creating illusions and activating irrational psychological states, of ear-mark grubbing scavengers who traded favors for votes. As they die off, they are being replaced by leaders who will surf in on a wave of wired in decision-makers, millions of whom can be mobilized in minutes to contribute large and small sums of money and to fire off emails and to assault the blogs to let their elected representatives know what laws they want enacted and what policies they want to see scuttled. These are people who think for themelves, who perform their own due diligence, who don't need to reduce a complex reality to narrow categories such as "liberals" and "conservatives," who are loyal to reason and principle, not to fallible individuals.
The great Democrats of our time are placing their bets and lining up with their horse: Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Walter Mondale, and John Murtha cuing up behind the Clintons; Ted Kennedy, John Kerrey, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson taking Obama’s back. In a great irony, it happens that Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama has an African father, dark skin, an Arabic name, and an eccentric former pastor. These incidentals distract us from the truth: that Sen. Obama is only the first in a line of new leaders who will assume office as the memories of the old politics take their place in the history books, the public squares, and the museums that future archaeologists, scholars, and tourists will ponder and admire. His skin-tone and gender are anything but the real story.
Note: A previous version was posted on Daily Kos (Sundiata's diary)
Comments (12)
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Whether this is the turning of a new era or not, it makes a darn good epitaph on Bush.
March 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the entire poem. Click on the 7th Cavalry link to hear a catchy rendition of "Garryowen."
March 29, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for your analogy, Ramses II didn't win battle after battle, subjugating people after people, in fact the first battle he ever led, (and the last) the battle for Kadesh, he had his ass handed to him and escaped by the skin of his teeth. His great battles with the Hittites consisted of intermittent skirmishes, which always ended as standstills and then the first international peace treaty between the Egyptians and the Hittites. After the death of Ramses and his son Merneptah assumed the throne, there was one great battle by Egyptians in beating back the immigration of the Sea Peoples and then began the times of anarchy and the great decline. By the time Menerptah's heir assumed the throne a few years later the kingdom had once again split in two and this pharaoh and the rest of them were continually engaged in internal power struggles. It seems that your belief in Ramses II as the last great Pharaoh is the result of Ramses's spin doctors, the scribes. Some things never change, do they?
So unless your analogy is that decline is inevitable, I don't think your analogy of Clinton as the last pharaoh followed by the "new people" really works, and while it's nice to pat yourself on the back for being the "new people" marked by the ability to raise vast sums of money through the internet, or flooding blogs with e-mails filled with umbrage, I'm not certain that's a major accomplishment. While claiming to be "wired in" it seems you're just as susceptible to spin doctors, propaganda and self interests as everyone else, as your comments demonstrate, in fact, you're exposed to more of it and as your blog entry indicates you're more likely to believe the self-aggrandizing flattery you heap on yourselves.
Everyone thinks he is the one who is loyal only to principles and reason and not to the fallible individual, but principles and reason are the affairs of humans and will always be what the individual says they are and will always be one of the individual's self interest compromised with society's interest. That great army you see, those "new people" are as far ranging in beliefs, in principles, in reason and in self-interest as they've always been and I hope, will continue to be, because the alternative is unbearable - who will decide those principles and reason that will rule the "new people"? You? A politician? A mob? The majority? What will happen to those individuals who step outside of your vision of reason and principles? Reason and principles are as fallible as the individual who makes them.
Your concept of the millions with the money and the networks to enforce their will upon society is as tyrannical as the millions with money and networks are now, and the only hope we have is that there is a fallible individual to recognize tyranny in all its forms, even that of the "new people".
March 29, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The world is full of smokestacks jeering at chimneys." La Rochfoucauld.
The hope of a writer is that someone will read ones work and take it seriously enough to criticize it. Only someone who is blown over by a puff of wind or who sticks his fingers in his ears when challenged is displeased by the critic. If one avoids the challenge, the opportunity for growth is lost. Therefore, thank you for investing time and thought, your most precious resources, in my little essay.
As you recognize, the piece does not hinge upon whether Ramesses won one battle or 45. While it’s tangentially interesting for you to supply a summary of the historical consensus, a brief statement along with a link for those who want the full story would suffice to make your point. You are also aware asserting a few phrases of mine are exaggerated doesn’t address my thesis. Moreover, while I don’t claim to be an historian, the accounts I read report the battle of Kadesh (or Qadesh) was a standoff. Not one source I could find stated that Ramesses “had his ass handed to him.” Therefore, it appears that your are at least as guilty of hyperbole as I am. And since you didn’t comment on them, I presume you accept the accuracy of the other references to history. But again, we are talking about an irrelevant detail in that I borrowed the metaphor from a poem about a statue.
You also got the obvious argument I was making in the piece that an old political culture where voters are essentially manipulated is being replaced by a culture where a significant body of voters will be intelligent, motivated and informed. The internet provides a powerful mechanism both for doing research, raising funds, and communicating back and forth between politicians and their constituents. The idea that Obama voters are just the manipulated masses sitting at a computer appeals to those who have no first hand experience in the Obama network. Perhaps this identifies you as part of the cynical culture that I predict is going the way of the pharaohs. Moreover, you accuse me of being self-congratulatory and grandiose in a self-congratulatory and grandiose manner. Having spent considerable time reading comments on popular political blogs I have been struck by the wishful thinking of those who hope that Obama’s follower really are drinking some form of spiked Kool-aid and that the Senator is nothing more than a balloon made of flannel. His successes leave them perplexed, exasperated, and reduced to shouting insults (or, less frequently, writing snarky critical reviews). You appear to be an intelligent and educated person so I hope I’m wrong about you being out of touch with the truth. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
March 30, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter from which source you borrowed your analogy, it is still wrong. It's indicative of the very problem you seem to think is solved by your access to information. Here we have this "great pharaoh" who was made great by his scribes (and even they couldn't hide the truth of the Kadesh battle in their accounts) who fooled so many people for millenium, simply by saying he was great. So there you have it, you were manipulated by Ramses's spin doctors. And why? Because no amount of googling will do for you what years of some poor shlub sifting sand in the deserts for twenty years will do for you - provide you with the truth.
The internet is one of the greatest inventions to date. That doesn't make it though, the source of truth that you seem to think it is, it is only as good as the information that is put on it, by individuals. That is why your dependence on it as the mechanism of truth and wisdom is misplaced - its end product is the result of the fallible individual working from information provided by other fallible individuals, a concept I don't think you grasp. So here we have you, googling information about Ramses, which was provided by, well, Ramses, when revisionists are looking at new discoveries and finding that perhaps Ramses wasn't so great after all. Unfortunately, you can't know that from googling, you have to do the scholarly research, immerse yourself in the history and read the journals, books and historiographies from many disciplines, separate the wheat from the chaff and find a tentative truth that will be revised with the next bit of clay tablet that turns up. The fact that I didn't comment on your other references to history doesn't indicate agreement, that's a conceit of your's which equates silence with agreement, I didn't comment on them because one example of your lack of historical context, seemed to suffice without the necessity of pointing out the other irregularities inside your cynical and jaded opinion of another generation which you dismiss with a remarkable lack empathy and understanding.
The fact that you support Obama has nothing to do with your misplaced trust and dependence on the "Obama Network" which in itself would indicate a biased and slanted source of information. And speaking of bias, what makes you think I am in the least bit cynical and contemptuous of Obama and Obama supporters? I admire Obama and have only objections to him in the same way I have objections to all the candidates - I understand that all the candidates are fallible individuals, who have made mistakes, will make mistakes, have faults and virtues, talents and challenges and live in the same world that I do.
My objections to your blog entry have nothing to do with your support for Obama, it is your dismal world vision where those with money and access to the internet will inflict their will and vision on others, which is as tyrannical in its imposition as any other special interest group which imposes its will and vision on others. My objection is your lack of objectivity, your willingness to replace one form of the tyranny of special interests with another. What I find sad is your contempt and disdain for the individual when it is individuals who input the information you are dependent upon - and you can't see that. The very thing you rail against is the very thing you need most.
You too seem to be an intelligent person, it is your lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for history and your insistence upon the ownership of a particular lease on the truth that makes me think the future will be more of the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
March 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"127.--The true way to be deceived is to think one-self more knowing than others." Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marsillac.
Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims
Translated from the Editions of 1678 and 1827 with introduction, notes, and some account of the author and his times.
J. W. Willis Bund, M.A. LL.B and J. Hain Friswell
Simpson Low, Son, and Marston, 188, Fleet Street.
1871.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8roch10.txt
Now, BevD, it's nice to get so much attention; and I am enjoying this conversation; but, do you realize what how pedantic you are being? As the Duc de la Rochefoucauld warns us, a little humility goes a long way. We could probably be friends if you had a more open mind and a willingess to participate in a civil dialog instead of rudely delivering a lecture. I don't expect everyone to agree with me; but, you happen to have completely misread my position. I would suggest you ask more questions and don't make so many assumptions about what others are saying. I could be mistaken, but you remind me of the older folks who think anyone posting a comment favorable toward Sen. Obama has to be 22 years old and a wide-eyed idealist. I would guess you are annoyed by the kids who don't understand how everything really works and are threatening the entitlement Sen. Clinton has to the Democratic nomination. I'm 55 years old but those kids are the future of the DP, if it has one. I saw your comments on the young man reciting his street poem about Obama; and, you really should have restrained yourself instead of spitting on a very sharp black kid whose cynicism about the system was cracked open by the example of Sen. Obama's audacious hope. I apologize for repeating myself but the point of the essay is that power is shifting from wealthy power brokers to coalitions of motivated voters who use the internet to communicate and coordinate their activities. This is the main reason Sen. Obama has been able to defeat the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. Yes, he's charismatic but without the motivated network, he would have flopped and dropped a long time ago. Am I correct that this type of network is the wave of the future and that it will result in a shift of power to communities of savvy individuals? Neither one of us knows because it's a prediction. I did not say a thing about the quality of information one gets through the internet. If I were so naive, would I be quoting La Rochefoucauld? Yes, I read blogs but not to be informed of "the truth." I read them to get a sense of how people are perceiving and feeling about the events of the day, especially the Democratic Party presidential race. "The truth" is an unknowable construct that we can only approach by determining how well the predictions based upon our hypotheses work. If you are seeing reality more clearly than I am, your predictions will be better than mine and you will achieve your goals more efficiently than I will. It's like having a more accurate map of the terrain. I believe that one should never presume one has the complete picture (a point made in one of my favorite wisdom tales, the blind men and the elephant). I hope this clarifies my position for you. Now, if you want to lecture me further, I demand to see your credentials. You have developed a sadly inaccurate picture of who I am.
March 30, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, you're excitable when your principles and reason are challenged, not to mention your lack of historical knowlege which is frighteningly superficial. Your projections of your own fears upon me is a case in point, your fear of getting older, your own irrelevance looming over your keyboard, it is discouraging, I'm sure. Your silly deflection of a comment made in another thread, which you completely misunderstood, because in your arrogance you think you have all the specimens pinned to the board demonstrates your hardened, cynical view of humans. You could have asked what my comment meant, but you cannot. You have alreadly filed it under "older person who doesn't understand hip, young black poets" (like you do, I suppose) when, if you had not stopped to file your assumption and slam the drawer shut, it might have occurred to you that the my comment was this - "urban poetry?" Why marginalize it, why not call it poetry? Or even call it what it really is - prose poetry.
So once again, I congratulate you on your deflections but you still must answer the questions - whose principles and whose reason will rule humans, who decides what those will be? What happens to those without the money and resources to inflict their will on the people in your brave, new world? Will there be a vote at some progressive website where the majority decides, and who selects those principles and reason which will guide the "new people"? Will it be the fallible individual who spurs all keyboards to type in unison to those principles and reason? And what happens to those who can't afford to donate money or have no access to the internet? Who will represent them and who will represent those who don't think your principles and reason are good and in fact think they might be bad? Like all totalitarians, you truly believe that by eliminating the individual from the human equation you will make society a corruption free, infallible machine in which all citizens think alike, have the same goals and want what you want.
And no, we don't all start out as purely narcissistic, we are a combination of nature/ nurture and children learn from the very beginning the meaning of reciprosity. We evolved as a species not because we were driven by self interest, we survived because we were not. We are driven by an innate need for co-operation and interdependence and knowledge that we each have to ensure our survival. That is why we find crippled arthritic older humans carefully nurtured by our ancestors as well as children with bones healed - someone cared enough to value their contribution, no matter what the burden it placed on the group.
March 31, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"34.--If we had no pride we should not complain of
that of others.
132.--It is far easier to be wise for others than to
be so for oneself."
La Rochefoucauld, Maxims.
Since you have not met my demand to show me some credentials, what say we stick to discussing ideas instead of engaging in unsolicited psychological profiling? Nevertheless, you did me a favor by giving me feedback (you think I’m kidding but I’m not), so let me again say “thank you” for caring enough to posit your arguments and to correct me in my foolishness. Also, I apologize for misunderstanding your comments on the poetry slam contestant and judging you unfairly. I would greatly appreciate your explaining to me what the comment actually meant.
Now, let’s take some of your statements and examine them. In your original critique, you said,
“Everyone thinks he is the one who is loyal only to principles and reason and not to the fallible individual, but principles and reason are the affairs of humans and will always be what the individual says they are and will always be one of the individual's self interest compromised with society's interest.”
The first assertion in the above sentence is not true, BevD. Keeping in mind we’re discussing politics, many people are not very thoughtful when it comes to principles, even if they believe they care about them. Many more give lip service to principles but lack insight into what they really believe; and, this type often discovers when the chips are down that their principles actually didn’t run very deep. A good example is the character of Kurtz in “Heart of darkness” In the world of politics, reason is often used primarily to rationalize ones actions, often after the fact (perhaps the abundance of attorneys in the political world is a factor here). However, in every camp, some minority of individuals truly are committed to core values. Effective use of reason requires that one be scrupulous in testing the truth of ones assumptions, ever mindful of the fallibility of human cognition (see previous comments about developing an accurate map). Finally, there are two types of people, plain fools and fools who realize they are fools. I aspire humbly to be among the latter.
“That great army you see, those "new people" are as far ranging in beliefs, in principles, in reason and in self-interest as they've always been and I hope, will continue to be, because the alternative is unbearable - who will decide those principles and reason that will rule the "new people"? You? A politician? A mob? The majority? What will happen to those individuals who step outside of your vision of reason and principles? Reason and principles are as fallible as the individual who makes them.”
Yes, exactly so. My post argues that grassroots movements such as the supporters of B. Hussein Obama have the potential to empower their members to hold candidates accountable. Perhaps you have been watching the HBO special on John Adams. John and Abigail were highly concerned about powerful people who had insufficient accountability; and, their conversations contributed to the presence of checks and balances in our Constitution (feel free to correct any historical inaccuracies you spot). However, the accountability in our governmental system seems to have broken down. A huge percentage of US voters believes we should get out of Iraq and the Democratic majority in Congress has been used by Bush and Cheney the way Gov. Spitzer used that call girl. The optimism in my post stems from my belief that coalitions of voters may be able to increase the accountability of government officials and reduce the influence of the wealthy and connected. Some one has to be in charge, don’t they? Who do you think it should be? On the one hand, you argue for the altruistic nature of people (which often is potentiated by witnessing disaster); yet, you seem to believe that people who organize in order to influence political causes are necessarily going to pursue narcissistic agendas.
“Your concept of the millions with the money and the networks to enforce their will upon society is as tyrannical as the millions with money and networks are now, and the only hope we have is that there is a fallible individual to recognize tyranny in all its forms, even that of the "new people…”
I'm really not seeing how you think political networks are going to impose their will on the country. Are you talking about the manner in which Sen. Obama has nearly secured the Democratic nomination? Wise people understand that compassion and justice for others is also self-interest and that the objects of greed and lust don’t satisfy our appetites but rather leave us feeling empty. My vision is of people who care getting involved, identifying leaders who appear to have “the right stuff,” and viewing part of their role as supporters being to stay informed and hold the leaders accountable. Technology can serve an important role is helping democracy work better. I see Sen Obama’s movement as having many of the qualities I’m looking for. He is an inspiring leader whose success depends upon retaining the support of those millions of small contributors who also love to get involved in his mission. This appears to me to be democracy working better than I’ve ever seen it in my 55-years of life.
We could discuss your other remarks having to do with susceptibility to spin, the way Ramesses got more credit than he deserved, etc; but, it’s late and I need to get to bed. I’ll just add here that certainly everyone can be manipulated and it is important to be skeptical and to utilize sound research methods in coming to any major conclusions. Of course, if one is omniscient, one doesn’t have to be bothered with the challenges of testing ones hypotheses.
April 1, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Wake up, niggers, or we're all through!" The Last Poets
PPS I reread your replies and see that you did explain your comment on Mr. Dauchan's poetry. Look carefully and you'll see the reason I interpreted it as a cut (yes, I have been too careless is reading your posts... mea culpa mea culpa). And BTW, what's wrong with a little excitement? It beats being DEAD, you know, death? That thing I'm in mortal fear of? Seriously, have a nice day. It's the only one we have.
April 1, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS I realize that I misspelled "La Rochefoucauld" and that I missed a few typos, as well. I'm certainly far less than perfect or all-knowing; and, the truth is, I am given to self-interest like everyone else. However, self-interest exists alongside altruistic tendencies which are only recently being recognized by social biologists. We all start out being purely narcissistic but some people mature to the point of not being controlled by their baser nature. Thanks again for a thought-provoking response to my blog.
March 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now compare and contrast with Eliot's "Wasteland".
Extra points if you mention Yeats.
March 30, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a second- I thought BevD was the teacher in this classroom. You two need to decide who's in charge so I know whose approval actually counts around here.
March 30, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment