| Number 176 | October 18, 2002 |
|
|
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, Perhaps the biggest difference between U.S. elites and the rest of us in the past few decades has been the willingness and ability of the elites to talk openly on the level of philosophy. The rest of us are not so good at this (and, of course, we have significantly fewer resources to use in disseminating the ideas we do have). That's why I talk about philosophy this week. The differences we have with Bush's War Against Terrorism (the WAT?!) are not the result of some quibbles with how best to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. We need to understand that the deep and growing divide in this country has to do with radically differing philosophies about how the world works and what sort of creatures we human beings really are. That's kind of a tall order, I realize; that's why Nygaard Notes comes out every week, so I can keep chipping away at these big ideas... Thanks to those who have sent in their contributions. A special thanks is in order, as always, to the "Charter Members," who have been supporting Nygaard Notes from the beginning. I really couldn't do this without the support of Nygaard Notes readers. I am deeply grateful for your support, financial and otherwise. Peace, Nygaard |
|
|
I was at a meeting a couple of years ago in which the general manager of a local TV station stated, in talking about their local news show, "We are a commercial TV station. We have to bring in viewers to get the advertising to pay the high costs of doing local news." She was not implying that viewers would be "brought in" by good journalism, as she made clear in her answer to a later question about why TV news is so focused on gore and crime: "We need to lead with a ‘grabber.' It may not be good journalism, but we need to keep our ratings up." And so it goes. Producing a newspaper has just as little to do with informing the public. What it's all about is producing large numbers of readers to sell to advertisers. Any honest journalist will tell you that this is how it works. This is not how it works at Nygaard Notes. I am not looking to reach a "mass market." If I were, I wouldn't jump back and forth between talking about the "Big Picture" (as I do this week in Part 2 of "Beyond Good and Evil") and talking about the details (as I did last week in looking at War Propaganda). Nor would I bother with the complicated process of continually pointing out the myriad ways we can use the Big Picture to understand the Small (and vice versa). The for-profit press doesn't have the time to do all this work, nor do they trust and respect their readers and viewers enough to even try. I do. And that's one of the things that makes Nygaard Notes different from a lot of periodicals you might look at. If I could get 1,000 people to send me $10 per year, I would have it made. If I get more than that—and I hope to get many more than that—then I either reduce the suggested subscription rate, spend the extra money on paying for project-related expenses, or in some other way use the power that comes with this readership to benefit the community. If you do not need to make ever more money, you are free to act on principle, and to be truly accountable to your community. This is what I strive for, and if you think this is worth something, then you should send some money to support it. If not, keep reading Nygaard Notes for free, whatever your reasons are. Maybe later you'll find it valuable enough to support with your hard-earned dollars. |
|
If you want to support the Nygaard Notes project, but don't have too much in the way of money, here are some ideas for other things you could do:
|
|
Two weeks ago, in Part 1 of this Good and Evil series, I talked about the "dualism trap," and pointed out that the dominant ideology in the U.S. likes to boil complex issues down to an "either/or" choice. I used a couple of stories to illustrate how, during the so-called Cold War, the choice was between "Communism" and "The American Way of Life" and how, if you questioned one of those, you necessarily were understood to embrace the other. We have seen this since the end of the Cold War, only now we have been told that "Communism" has failed and, therefore, "The American Way of Life" is the only choice remaining. The term for this in political science circles is "TINA" – There Is No Alternative. If you look closely at the pronouncements of the Bush administration you see this point of view clearly stated. For example, in the key planning document, "National Security Strategy of the United States of America," released last month, the "President" calls the U.S. model the "single sustainable model for national success" in the world. And, as Mr. Bush has said on innumerable occasions, the War Against Terror (the WAT?!) is a war of Good Against Evil, Freedom Against Totalitarianism, a Clash of Civilizations, a Crusade, and so on. In all of these arguments, there are two sides, and "we" are on one of them. "The Evil Ones" and their allies, we are told, are on the other. My friends tell me how isolating it is to be (apparently) the only person in their workplace, or on their bowling team, or anywhere, who wants to argue with the premises upon which this "war" is being waged. But it is difficult to constantly be in a position of saying "No! No! No!" all the time, of rejecting everything that is being proposed, of declining to endorse the supposed "national consensus" articulated by George W. Bush (or the puppeteers who animate him). What, then, to do? What we are saying "No! No! No!" to is the dualistic trap of "Good vs Evil" put out by Bush & Co. It's past time to stop saying "No" to that agenda, and time to start saying "Yes" to our own. And that starts with articulating a different, dynamic philosophy that goes beyond Good and Evil. The Philosophy Continuum The simple "Good vs Evil" system tells you that anyone who condemns acts of terror must, therefore, support the official actions taken by our national institutions in response (or, supposedly in response) to those acts. If you don't wholeheartedly accept the official response, you may be accused of being consciously "soft on terror," or of unconsciously endangering the "national unity," which is necessary to prevail against the enemy. This is nonsense. Let's talk about philosophy. I suggest that there is a continuum of political philosophies, with what I have called an Individual and Competitive, or "IC," worldview at one end and a Social and Cooperative, or "SC," worldview at the other. Nobody adheres purely to one or the other (so I'm not suggesting a simple dualistic model, which would be just too ironic, wouldn't it?). But to imagine people falling somewhere on such a continuum is far more useful than the standard "left/right, liberal/conservative" model we use all the time in our public discourse. This standard approach would have us believe that only those on the "left" or the "far left" reject the Bush program; that's not true. I discussed the contrast between the values of the IC and the SC philosophies some months ago, when I suggested that the SC philosophy values Solidarity, Justice, Compassion, and Democracy, which I contrasted with the IC values of Unfettered Liberty, Opportunity, Toughness and Survival, and Free Markets. (See Nygaard Notes #160, "No More ‘Left' and ‘Right:' Introducing New Terms," if you want a fuller discussion on this.) Those SC values are the values of Nygaard Notes but, for the purposes of the argument I am attempting to make here, you can use any set of values you like. (And I hope you do have a clear set of values!) The point is that you can decide what is right and wrong by looking to see what mostly supports your values, or not. You don't need absolutes, nor faith, nor Holy Texts, nor blind obedience to any "leader" who claims to be in possession of them. In fact, any leader who falls back on these and asks for "unity" around them either thinks he is living in a theocracy, or wishes he were. The key to any pluralistic society, in contrast, is secular values. To the extent that we are bound together as a "nation," we are bound not by our belief in a particular God or Truth, but by our shared adherence to a set of values. The unifying power of such values increases as the degree of participation in shaping them increases. That is, the more people have a say in what they are, the more legitimate they will be. In the United States, there is a profound disagreement about what values unite us. The most hopeful prediction for the WAT?! might be that, as more people begin to think about what really does unite us, we begin to engage in an on-going public discussion about our values as a nation. If we were to have such a public discussion, I think it would yield a complex and interwoven set of values that would be quite different than the implicit set of values around which Bush & Co. want us to "unite." (Free Markets, xenophobic patriotism, etc) Certainly this is true on the global level, as many nations vehemently reject the New World Order of U.S.-led unfettered capitalism, often misleadingly called "globalization," and even more vehemently reject the endless wars needed to bring it into being (the proposed escalation of the war on Iraq being only the most obvious). The IC Philosophy in Practice If you probe beneath the current rhetoric of the day, you will find that the basic belief that underlies the dominant IC ideology—adhered to by both "liberal" and "conservative" elites—is the idea that the mass of human beings are basically bad, or at least stupid. It is considered fortunate (from this perspective) that there is always a small class of citizens who are prepared to control or suppress the badness and stupidity of the "bewildered herd." Subscribers to the SC ideology, on the other hand, tend to believe that people are basically good, so the job of society then becomes to liberate them, thereby allowing them to fully express their goodness. Instead of a means-tested "welfare" system, for example, SC adherents might argue for a guaranteed national income, which would liberate people to pursue the work they love rather than be forced to accept the work that the owning class wants us to do. These differing philosophies are constantly in conflict, although the tactical disagreements between the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of the IC elites tend to get all the press. The good thing about the WAT?!—as carried on by Bush & Co.—is that a lot of the standard behavior of our elite classes is so much easier to observe than usual. It is easier to see the extent to which everyone outside of the "inner circle" is distrusted and marginalized by those in power, and not only in this country, but in the arrogant relationship of our "leaders" with the rest of the world. By assuming that only a small group is qualified to think about and decide on the fate for the great mass of humanity, the IC philosophy dictates, by its nature, a "top-down," exclusionary system of control. The alienation and rage brought on by such a system is at the root of the terrorism that is so prominent at the current time. This, then, is what we reject, and what we support: We reject the Individualistic and Competitive philosophy and the top-down, exclusionary process of "multiple-choice democracy" it calls for, in which leaders of questionable legitimacy tell us what we value and how we will express those values. We support, instead, a Social and Cooperative philosophy which has at its foundation a grassroots, participatory process in which WE decide what we value and choose leadership (not necessarily "leaders") who will strive to express those values most honestly and consistently. Many United Statesians agree that we need to defend ourselves against terrorism. So be it. But let that defense be a principled defense of democratically-agreed-upon values instead of a quixotic crusade to "eliminate Evil." The first choice leads to a safer, more just world. The second, as we are repeatedly told, is nothing but a prescription for endless war. |