I knew a kid named Mattie whose family lived in an old farmhouse on the edge of town. They had a big yard with various trees, including a small cluster of plum trees by the big open field we used for playing baseball. Mattie loved those plums; the only problem was, the bees liked those plums, too, and he’d get stung, and run crying into the house for his Mom’s first aid.
Later, sting medicated with ointment, he’d come back outside, and drift closer to the little plum orchard again.
“Mattie, you stay out of those plum trees!” his mother would holler outside at him, but Mattie couldn’t help himself. After a while the temptation was too much. He’d be back up in a tree, raiding the plums, and he’d get stung again. And go crying back into the house.
I think he got stung five or six times once, I’m not kidding. (He’s probably got a great tolerance for bee venom as an adult.)
Which is how writing about politics strikes me, sometimes, and why I’m ambivalent about it.
I got drawn into a political forum before the ’04 election, which drew out all my worst instincts. I began by promising myself to take the high road, but there were a couple champion baiters on that forum, who lived for the snark and the derision, and I was soon caught up in it myself. And part of me got off on it, too, I have to say.
For what purpose? It soon became clear that it was a couple dozen at most checking in, with a half dozen of the most vociferous trading posts, and no minds were likely to change. I was wasting time trying to deliver the most potent sting.
Marilyn vos Savant, who has tested as the world’s smartest person and writes a column for the Sunday paper, recently advised that it’s okay to talk politics, but to try and keep it positive. Rather than writing what’s wrong with the other side, describe what’s right about your approach.
Sounds so simple, doesn’t it?
So it’s easy for me to say that I think the middle of the 20th century was America’s greatest era, from FDR’s inauguration through the civil rights gains of the 60s, as government programs helped raise up the greatest middle class the world has ever seen–lending the bootstraps, as it were, for Americans to pull themselves up. Through the WPA in the 30s and the huge war effort, Americans worked cooperatively in numerous powerful new government programs, with vast cultural impact. As awful as the war was, it brought Americans together from all corners and cultures of our country and provided an immense leveling force.
Even though segregation survived the war, the velocity of that democratic drive overwhelmed Jim Crow in the years that followed. What was once called “women’s liberation” in the early 70s drew power from that leveling spirit and initiative, too.
Since Watergate, and the cynicism that engulfed politics and our culture afterward, we’ve entered a cynical, jaundiced era, seasoned with a self-congratulatory skepticism. Any whiff of malfeasance erodes confidence in public institutions, never mind that private corruption is just as pervasive, if not even more pernicious.
The 70s was supposed to be the Me Decade, after that, people laughed at slogans such as “He who dies with the most toys wins.” It ushered in a new materialism that soon, through the 80s and 90s, became an attitude of “I’ve got mine, screw you, Jack.”
We seem such a selfish people now; worlds away from the cooperativism of our grandparents and their parents in the Depression. It seems ironic that they had so little and were willing to share what little they had, while we with incredible material wealth upgrade our appliances and vehicles and computers with the latest gadgetry as the right-wing ridicules any domestic social spending program aimed at helping the less fortunate.
It would be easy for me to tie into the neocons and their unilateral approach to politics at home and abroad, an unwillingness to understand problems from others’ perspectives, from Hispanic to Sunni, the arrogance that comes with such certitude that they no longer need to hear the other side except to mock it. Thank you Limbaugh and Savage Nation.
But now I’m breaking vos Savant’s rule. It’s just so easy to begin looking for plums and to end up trying to deliver a potent sting.
OmbudsBen 
I’d make the claim that we Americans have always been a selfish people (Toqueville saw it quite clearly), and that the cooperative effort we exhibited during the New Deal and World War II, both of which we romanticize now, were the exception, rather than the rule, in our history.
Yeah, I think the whole history of “rugged individualism” has sturdy roots. I’ve thought of this a lot, in terms of the four nationalities that primarily made up pre-Civil War America: English, Celtic, African, and German. Three of the four northern European, with those from the UK in particular strongly emphasizing the individual, rights, and freedom.
The wave of immigration from 1880 to 1930 gave us the melting pot, contributing a number of cultures in tact (as opposed to torn asunder by slavery), which might have emphasized the collective over the individual a bit more.
A coincidence, then, that soon after their arrival cooperative effort, especially through the government, gained strength?
Whatever the roots, I like the results. You may romanticize it all you want, but I miss what it accomplished for our nation.
I think you’re onto something by emphasizing the “collective” influence of the waves of immigration since the Founders’ generation.
By “we,” I meant not you and I but that Americans tend to romanticize the Depression and World War II, and overlook much of the conflict and terror that time held for most of those who lived through it. Studs Terkel’s wonderful oral history, “Hard Times,” and Paul Fussell’s book, “Wartime,” deal with many of those themes. I try not to romanticize that period myself, while at the same time claiming FDR as a hero, and wish we had his kind again when we so sorely need changes, some “cooperative” or”collectivist,” in our own society.
So does the implosion of the neocons and their unilateralist agenda hold out any hope?
I keep thinking it might, but I also thought there was no way people would re-elect Dubya in ’04, so I’ve over-estimated the electorate before.
I think if you survey the liberal blogs, you will see a new center of political gravity emerging. The neocons have discredited the Republican party, but those who were formerly Republicans but did not disgrace themselves will have an opportunity to speak for themselves and if they want to build or join a different party it will be a welcome constraint.
I do not know what the future of this country will be, it is for the people themselves to decide. I have made it my objective to deal with certain things to clear out of the way what is corrupting and wrong, to end torture and detention without habeas corpus, to end war. I support efforts to guarantee health care, food and shelter to every human being, but I would also grant or recognize the right of any person to abstain and refuse help.
Cannabis prohibition must be ended, and the drug war must be replaced with a regulatory system which seeks to reduce harm, and ceases to transform our cities into battlefields.
I’m with you on the importance of ending the prohibition. If nothing else, it’s awful how many good cops have lost their lives in the drug wars. Whatever one’s feelings on the issue, it’s such an awful waste.
I sure hope you’re right about the neocons. But they seemed dangerous idealogues before their catastrophes even began, yet I heard today Bush’s approval rating is 28%. Which amazes me. What parts are they approving of?
What do you mean by “grant or recognize the right of any person to abstain and refuse help”? Don’t we already have and exercise that right?
I think what I’m observing is the building of a very extensive safety net, much better than the New Deal, and established with whatever constitutional amendment might be necessary to obtain it properly. We understand that we need universal health care, because everyone needs health care sometimes, and some people are uninsurable, and others simply cannot afford treatment now. Moreover, it is less expensive to provide a continuity of care for everyone than to treat them only when they have emergencies.
But some people are going to be obnoxious about this. I might be one of them, if necessary, because if the new system isn’t good, and it traps us, we won’t be better off. So it has to be an optional plan, which we can choose for ourselves and/or buy supplemental coverage.
Though the easiest solution for universal health care seems to be a massive investment in Medicare with open enrollment for all.
It pleases me to find another Toqueville fan here. I’ve often thought it was remarkable to what extent he could foresee the problems that have plagued a “democratic” culture. (By the way, Bush may not be right about too much, but he is right about this–“Democrat” is a noun, “democratic” is an adjective.)
The biggest problem with blathering about politics is that it is just that: blather.
I’m old enough to have been born into and largely raised in that mid-century culture of middle America. I lived through the 1960s and watched things change radically in the 1970s. It was an exciting time if you were young and prosperous (which I was), but it has clearly had some profound and disquieting effects on our social culture.
We have largely lost the will to the “common good.” It’s a great loss. It’s possible that it can be recovered, but IMNHO, not by politicians of any ilk.
Whig, I’m with you about UHC, and I hope you’re right, we finally get it here in the US soon.
Also, re what used to get called “the social net”, I find the notion of letting wall street into the social security system pretty scary.
Anecdotally, I’ve been the reluctant job-hopper, ending up with well-diversified retirement plans in various locations, with different lumps of money I’ve consolidated when I could. They’ve done okay, but not much better over the long haul than if I’d put them in a savings account, and some have been stagnant even longer.
One of the fund managers made headlines for mismanagement. I read the artricles and realized where my profits had really gone.
I’m all for bolstering social security as it is. No privatization. I like the idea of investing in the US government.
Marianne, re that lost will. It makes me think of the abolitionist Frederick Douglas, asked what young blacks should do in the face of ongoing racism. His answer was, “Agitate. Agitate, agitate!”
I think more and more things are changing.
As a sidenote: the SF Chronicle today has this column:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
The Hippies Were Right!
Green homes? Organic food? Nature is good? Time to give the ol’ tie-dyers some respect
Marianne, should we refer to members of the Republican party as Republics?
The parties are called Republican and Democratic. Drop the -ic and it’s a gesture of disrespect.
I do think we are seeing a tremendous tuning out of politics among the conservatives, as their mainstream party loses viability.
Among liberals, the tendency is in the opposite direction, as people become empowered and engaged who previously were forced to the sidelines or ignored completely.
We’re getting onto dangerous ground here, because one of my true pet peeves is the abuse of the American language.
Whig, “republican” can be either a noun or a verb, has been for centuries, back to the Greeks. “Democratic” is just plain an adjective no matter how you slice it. You can find disrespect anywhere you really look for it. I think it would be nice if Democrats focused on real issues instead of this nonsense. I’d like to find reasons for optimism.
And Ben, I’m sorry, but as long as we have career politicians in charge, things are not going to change for the better, IMO.
Well, if we’re talking about abuse of language, the Republican party is anti-republican. These are proper names, however. That’s why we use them even when they are wholly inaccurate.
It’s nothing new in American history, either. The Whig party wasn’t whiggish. The Federalist weren’t federalist. Etc.
I think the last honestly named party were the Democratic-Republicans, which were transformed to the Democratic party by the undemocratic Andrew Jackson.
First, the adjectival / nomenclature issue has no strong charge for me. But I am enjoying your exchange and would, if I could, offer you both a cup of tea or coffee and an easy chair, if it would facilitate.
But Marianne, the “career politican” line catches my eye. You probably know that here in CA we voted in term limits. Have you followed the issue enough to know how it has worked out for us?
I haven’t followed it in-depth, but the commentators have remarked on a lack of familiarity with the law and parliamentary procedure, having so many newbies. In the past, the older guard made sure the prior law was followed. Now, with so much inexperience in the legislature, it has empowered the lobbyists greatly. They are the ones with experience, never having been voted in in the 1st place. Representatives eager to not look foolish rely on their favorite lobbies for support and guidance and, as always, money.
If you know anything more about the term limits experiment, I’d love to hear it. But my sense so far has been that career politicians are our best chance at some measure of experience & objectivity in holding the big money at bay and looking out for thir constituencies. I’m not saying it’s a good chance – but aside from them, it’s just unions, corporations and lobbyists, isn’t it?
Thanks for the cuppa tea. I’m enjoying a little of my morning herb, too, so this is a nice relaxing time.
I have found some good politicians. For instance, Russ Feingold in the US Senate. He’s a good man. My own representative, Barbara Lee. She’s a good woman.
I also believe that Bill Richardson is a good man. I think he is a bit politically awkward and may not be taken seriously as a candidate by the corporate media which prefers to emphasize the most telegenic rather than the most competent.
Ben, term limits don’t fix the pronblem, they just ensure that politicians have to change jobs frequently, creating the sort of churn that you mention.
My problem with “career politicians” is this: They spend their entire lives feeding from the public trough. I don’t think it’s accidental that many of them trained as lawyers. Most of them have never run a business or had to manage serious budgets.
The original idea was sort of a Hindu-like philosophy: Those who had been successful in the community would be selected to go do a period of public service in government and then return to their homes and businesses. How far we have come from that. . .
I think it was Toqueville who wrote that if Washington could abandon his image of general and be just a normal citizen administrator it would be on the order of a minor miracle. He would be the first successful general heading up a revolution to do so. So I don’t think that it’s accidental that when Washington was inaugurated, he eschewed his uniform and wore a plain brown suit made with wool from a Connecticut mill. He served two terms and went back to run his estate.
Whig, Ben, language DOES matter. We use it daily to deceive ourselves. And currently we’re using it in much the same way as our legislators use sex scandals and the like to avoid doing the real business of government. The French philosophes had it right.
I do not use language to deceive myself or anyone else.
Oh, man, this is just so perfect. I’ve been grappling with a topic for weeks, possibly months, a sumo sort of editorial effort to get a handle on how to approach it, and the topic has been throwing its weight around and belly-whomping me out of the ring time after time.
But you’ve both brought the topic from the sidelines right into center blog, as it were. Clearly a sign it’s time to face up to this. I was beginning to think it was maybe two posts but I’m beginning to suspect it’s actually three … more soon.
I have 500 pounds of leveraging topic to — oompf, whup! * boom ! *