As much as it pains me, I must move on - I cannot leave up pictures of Linda Cardellini indefinitely.... 
Anyway, I actually have something on my mind today. Namely, what is the bag with Americans being afraid of politics? More specifically, in the days since Hurricane Katrina, a series of ugly questions have started to rise to the surface: Was FEMA led entirely by morons? Was burying FEMA in the Dept. of Homeland Security really such a good idea after all? Why wasn't the President, like, doing stuff besides "clearing brush" in Crawford as Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast? Why has the evacuation of New Orleans been a clustefuck of poor information sharing and notably only for its lack of coordination?
Yet, once people start to *ask* these questions ... well, former NYC Mayor (and aspiring "moderate" fascist - just consider the fucker's draconian policing strategy) Rudolph Guiliani tells us that now is not the right to criticize relief efforts. And he's not the only one. It is, apparently, in bad taste to ask questions about whether the Bush administration goofed up this whole operation.
The basic critique that comes up is this: This is a *serious* time. It would be wrong for Democrats to use this to their advantage; it would be sleazy and waste energy that could be better spent helping the victims of Katrina.
But, I call bullshit, for a few different reasons...
First, *this administration* certainly likes to make use of whatever it can for political gain. Bush plays dirty: remember that "black" child that McCain had, that was brough up during the Republican primary? Remember all those 9/11-themed photos that came up during the Bush-Kerry campaign season? What about that BS on the aircraft carrier? Lissen, you can't play a political game where you hit low all the time and expect the other side to play civil when they got you on the ropes...
Quite frankly, the argument that asking hard questions right now is "playing politics" sounds an awful lot to me like an evasive manuever taken by an administration that is destabilized by a shitty economy, a war that is going badly, and really scared of a mild-mannered suburban mom. Patriotism is NOT an excuse to be stupid.
But, that's a pretty partisan defense of why Democrats should be playing "politics" at a time like this. Honestly, I don't want my point to be so context bound. Rather, I want to suggest that "playing politics" in this manner is *exactly* what the Democrats, or any political party, should be doing at a time like this. Not for the gain of the party, but b/c it's their job as representatives. [Note: not all queries are equally legitimate. Clearly, the levees breaking was a problem 30 years in the making and global warming is not really to blame here. I mean, there were big hurricans BEFORE global warming people. This was an inevitable problem in a lot of ways. The relevant questions are about *response* - they are political questions, in the sense that they are about bureaucratic coordination.]
This notion that asking quetions about what went wrong is a "waste of resources" just seems silly. I mean, are Dick Durbin and Dennis Hastert going to be working the telethon circuit or sandbagging? Is Bill Frist headed down there with his medical bag? Do the residents of New Orleans really need 535 lawyers bugging them?
Rather, I expect that my elected representatives respond to problems in the bureaucracy. Clearly, FEMA and the federal government were not ready for Katrina, and were essentially useless in the immediate aftermath. Given the fact that terrorism is a real threat and another natural disaster could strike at any time ... these are some goddamn pressing concerns.
Democrats are doing what we should *want* the "party-in-opposition" to be doing: they are challenging the actions of the party-in-power. By doing so, they filter out more information to us, the public at large. By doing so, they are establishing *accountability* for the state - pushing us to make better policy and think about the future, rather than just scrambling in the now. These political challenges force us to confront history, instead of being mired in the moment. This is progress. Sometimes it hurts.
[And when would be a good time to ask these questions? How long do we wait? It seems just as possible that waiting means the urgency flees us, so we don't fix the problem or do it half-assed. Which just leaves us right where we started: bent over and ready to get screwed. That's hardly wise is it?]
Yet, when this happens, we sit and wring our hands about political opportunism. Listen, we have a system that is build on the tension between seeking the common good and allowing personal ambition to run free. Yes - critques by Democrats certainly are part of an electoral strategy. No - that does not mean these critiques are therefore *inherently exclusive* of the common good. In fact, the theory behind the architecture of the Constitution would suggest that pursuing such "private ends" can actually be one path to the common good.
Maybe it's because I've been reading Sheldon Wolin, who laments the replacement of "the political" (tackling the problems of the general; asking normative questions about what "the good" of society is) with concern for "society" (which is oriented towards social stability, private aims, and organization), but this really saddens me. Sure, Democrats are playing "politics" in a different sense than Wolin means. Wolin is talking about a willingness to imagine a social order and your place in it - he is talking about a public and shared vision of the good, of defining a community, and considering institutions towards that end. But still....
In the contemporary sense, being "political" has connotations of private pursuit and seeking advantage at any cost. However, the two notions are not really that far apart. Both represent a willingness to take a normative stand on something and to struggle for that idea. It is possible for political figures to exploit an event. But, I think we let that fear - that fear of politics - seize us too quickly. Look where NOT being divisive got us: the war in Iraq and the US Patriot Act.
The job of political leaders is to be political ... by doing so, they can still be working for the common good, they can still believe in a political community (one united by love of liberty, not stupid slogans or policy agreement). Being political means challenge and combat. And that works - as J.S. Mill reminds us, we only get new ideas (and see what is wrong with the current ones) when we have a chorus of voices in public life. We need to stop worrying about what conflict is going to do to us, because consensus is fucking us right up the ass, and he totally forgot the lube.
Anyway, I actually have something on my mind today. Namely, what is the bag with Americans being afraid of politics? More specifically, in the days since Hurricane Katrina, a series of ugly questions have started to rise to the surface: Was FEMA led entirely by morons? Was burying FEMA in the Dept. of Homeland Security really such a good idea after all? Why wasn't the President, like, doing stuff besides "clearing brush" in Crawford as Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast? Why has the evacuation of New Orleans been a clustefuck of poor information sharing and notably only for its lack of coordination?
Yet, once people start to *ask* these questions ... well, former NYC Mayor (and aspiring "moderate" fascist - just consider the fucker's draconian policing strategy) Rudolph Guiliani tells us that now is not the right to criticize relief efforts. And he's not the only one. It is, apparently, in bad taste to ask questions about whether the Bush administration goofed up this whole operation.
The basic critique that comes up is this: This is a *serious* time. It would be wrong for Democrats to use this to their advantage; it would be sleazy and waste energy that could be better spent helping the victims of Katrina.
But, I call bullshit, for a few different reasons...
First, *this administration* certainly likes to make use of whatever it can for political gain. Bush plays dirty: remember that "black" child that McCain had, that was brough up during the Republican primary? Remember all those 9/11-themed photos that came up during the Bush-Kerry campaign season? What about that BS on the aircraft carrier? Lissen, you can't play a political game where you hit low all the time and expect the other side to play civil when they got you on the ropes...
Quite frankly, the argument that asking hard questions right now is "playing politics" sounds an awful lot to me like an evasive manuever taken by an administration that is destabilized by a shitty economy, a war that is going badly, and really scared of a mild-mannered suburban mom. Patriotism is NOT an excuse to be stupid.
But, that's a pretty partisan defense of why Democrats should be playing "politics" at a time like this. Honestly, I don't want my point to be so context bound. Rather, I want to suggest that "playing politics" in this manner is *exactly* what the Democrats, or any political party, should be doing at a time like this. Not for the gain of the party, but b/c it's their job as representatives. [Note: not all queries are equally legitimate. Clearly, the levees breaking was a problem 30 years in the making and global warming is not really to blame here. I mean, there were big hurricans BEFORE global warming people. This was an inevitable problem in a lot of ways. The relevant questions are about *response* - they are political questions, in the sense that they are about bureaucratic coordination.]
This notion that asking quetions about what went wrong is a "waste of resources" just seems silly. I mean, are Dick Durbin and Dennis Hastert going to be working the telethon circuit or sandbagging? Is Bill Frist headed down there with his medical bag? Do the residents of New Orleans really need 535 lawyers bugging them?
Rather, I expect that my elected representatives respond to problems in the bureaucracy. Clearly, FEMA and the federal government were not ready for Katrina, and were essentially useless in the immediate aftermath. Given the fact that terrorism is a real threat and another natural disaster could strike at any time ... these are some goddamn pressing concerns.
Democrats are doing what we should *want* the "party-in-opposition" to be doing: they are challenging the actions of the party-in-power. By doing so, they filter out more information to us, the public at large. By doing so, they are establishing *accountability* for the state - pushing us to make better policy and think about the future, rather than just scrambling in the now. These political challenges force us to confront history, instead of being mired in the moment. This is progress. Sometimes it hurts.
[And when would be a good time to ask these questions? How long do we wait? It seems just as possible that waiting means the urgency flees us, so we don't fix the problem or do it half-assed. Which just leaves us right where we started: bent over and ready to get screwed. That's hardly wise is it?]
Yet, when this happens, we sit and wring our hands about political opportunism. Listen, we have a system that is build on the tension between seeking the common good and allowing personal ambition to run free. Yes - critques by Democrats certainly are part of an electoral strategy. No - that does not mean these critiques are therefore *inherently exclusive* of the common good. In fact, the theory behind the architecture of the Constitution would suggest that pursuing such "private ends" can actually be one path to the common good.
Maybe it's because I've been reading Sheldon Wolin, who laments the replacement of "the political" (tackling the problems of the general; asking normative questions about what "the good" of society is) with concern for "society" (which is oriented towards social stability, private aims, and organization), but this really saddens me. Sure, Democrats are playing "politics" in a different sense than Wolin means. Wolin is talking about a willingness to imagine a social order and your place in it - he is talking about a public and shared vision of the good, of defining a community, and considering institutions towards that end. But still....
In the contemporary sense, being "political" has connotations of private pursuit and seeking advantage at any cost. However, the two notions are not really that far apart. Both represent a willingness to take a normative stand on something and to struggle for that idea. It is possible for political figures to exploit an event. But, I think we let that fear - that fear of politics - seize us too quickly. Look where NOT being divisive got us: the war in Iraq and the US Patriot Act.
The job of political leaders is to be political ... by doing so, they can still be working for the common good, they can still believe in a political community (one united by love of liberty, not stupid slogans or policy agreement). Being political means challenge and combat. And that works - as J.S. Mill reminds us, we only get new ideas (and see what is wrong with the current ones) when we have a chorus of voices in public life. We need to stop worrying about what conflict is going to do to us, because consensus is fucking us right up the ass, and he totally forgot the lube.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
New Orleans has been below sea level and in the hurricane path for years now. The water temp in the gulf has been consistantly rising. There were failures on local, state, & federal levels. They should have had every municipal & school bus taking people out of there a week in advance, but there were no plans in place. Everybody loses. Learn from mistakes.
My dad went to UC. I've been to the South Side. My Uncle is a Socialist and has always lived on the south side. He was a H.S. gov't teacher. He's the only white man for miles in his hood.
If I had more money, I would come to Chicago several times a year.