I have many thoughts related to Bernie's exit from the 2020 presidential race. It's taken a minute for these thoughts to materialize as quarantining with two small children and a full-time job is all-consuming, but I finally found a minute. In the interest of brevity, these are the three most important ones:
1. Let's get this out of the way: I will almost certainly vote for Joe Biden in November.* I am too beholden to our stupid, stupid version of democracy to do otherwise. I say "almost certainly" because there are seven months remaining in this campaign, and I do not want to commit to casting a vote for the worst possible version of a Joe Biden candidacy. Furthermore, Ohio is not going to be the tipping point state in the electoral college, so who even cares.
*I don't believe anyone reading this is ignorant or disingenuous enough to think that my ambivalence about Biden means I would entertain voting for Donald Trump. But just in case that person exists, let me confirm that I will not.
What I will commit to in this race is not telling anyone else what to do with their vote. While I've made my own moral calculus to (almost) always vote for the least bad major-party option, I feel disinclined to hector anyone who has made a different choice, especially since such people tend to be far less privileged than me. And I certainly can't bring myself to champion my admittedly abstract moral logic to those with more direct reasoning - specifically, those who see themselves in Anita Hill, or those who have experienced sexual assault, or those who are simply young people crushed beneath the weight of 40+ years of austerity.
2. The vision of America that Bernie's campaign presented was the most good and moral case for the continued existence of our nation I've seen in my lifetime. Regardless, it came up short in its main goal of actually winning, so some introspection is needed. To be very clear there is valid, good-faith criticism of the campaign's approach to be levied: Bernie played too nice with fellow candidates (especially Biden), the campaign's focus on door-to-door canvassing didn't quite match its theory of activating non-voters, the organization of the campaign was suboptimal and didn't always match the rhetoric, etc. But none of these critiques hold a candle to the clear proximate cause for the defeat: establishment forces using existing power structures to give Biden the advantage at every turn.
It is not hard to make this case. On one hand there is no simpler explanation for why, in an election that was hyper-focused on the issue of healthcare, voters who overwhelmingly support Medicare For All chose to overwhelmingly vote for the candidate who is firmly against it. On the other hand, there is a good deal of direct evidence for how these forces shaped this very race! Corporate media was clearly supportive of Biden and almost single-handedly invented the "electibility" narrative that propped him up. DNC power brokers planned for months how to defeat Bernie (with the help of Obama), which resulted in the unprecedented move of Iowa victor Pete Buttigieg dropping out before super Tuesday in order to consolidate the vote of the right-wing of the party (while concurrently a single tear-free billionaire kept Elizabeth Warren's campaign afloat through Super Tuesday with the express goal of splitting the left-wing vote). And the democratic process itself was fraught with disenfranchisement, from the Iowa clusterfuck to a Biden-backed pandemic vote in Wisconsin that may have led to a second surge of coronavirus in the state.
It's easy to look at all of this and despair. But instead I think this is all very edifying. In the face of generational despair, creeping fascism, and existential dread (now on multiple fronts!), the powers that be refused to back down, instead orchestrating their clearest act of malice against the public I can remember. There should be no doubt now that the very idea of working within the system to reform it is a pipe dream. The goal of the left moving forward must be to destroy these power structures, which moreso than any individual (even Trump) are the primary drivers of oppression in our nation.
3. This loss is a clear blow for every area of progressive policy. Nowhere is this more clear than with environmental policy, due to both the scope of the problem as well as the short timeline we have to act on it. While I am aware that a Bernie victory would not have guaranteed a full reversal of global warming (nor does a Biden or Trump presidency guarantee climate disaster), it is clear that our best shot to pursue a habitable future through formal channels has come and gone. This does not mean we should fully abandon electoralism - there are a lot of strong downballot candidates to support in 2020, and presumably someone will take up Bernie's mantle in 2024. But it does mean that we need to accept that the most likely method of successfully taking the drastic action needed to preserve life as we know it lies outside of politics as we know it (and while this has likely always been the case, now we know for sure).
As for what that method actually is, I have no idea. My goal now is to focus my time and my money on this. If anyone has any suggestions to this end, let me know. I still have faith that there is a way forward, but I also know that no one is coming to save us. We must act now.
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Things I Believe
One of the most interesting assignments I received in grad school was to write about things I believe without evidence. Me being me, I forgot about the last two words and almost failed the assignment. But now that I am older and "wiser" I am ready for the assignment. This is the closest I will ever get to writing a manifesto.
3. Most depression and anxiety is the natural expression of our human revulsion towards the inhumanity of our society. Anyone who tells you it's a matter of chemicals or whatever is probably lying to you.
4. Deontology is dumb because human reason cannot conceive of a truly universal law. Consequentialism is dumb because human reason cannot comprehend the full set of outcomes necessary to make truly ethical judgments. Virtue ethics is even dumber, primarily because of the implications of the previous two sentences.
6. Humans are organic beings and as such are not capable of holding inherently moral designation. They are not capable of being judged as "good" or "bad".
7. Yes, much of what appears to be malice can be more accurately described as incompetence. But much of that is a form of learned incompetence that is not materially different from malice.
Evidence 2: lol
EDIT - I am going to add evidence that I do eventually find where applicable. Turns out I have pretty good intuition about things. Cool.
1. We tend to think of problems in our society as primarily matters of individual morality when in reality they are the natural, purposeful outcome of systemic oppression. If there is one thing to base your worldview on, it is this.
1b. "Free will" as you probably conceive of it is a lie designed to convince you of the opposite of this.
2. Most outwardly directed hatred is re-packaged self-loathing.
1. We tend to think of problems in our society as primarily matters of individual morality when in reality they are the natural, purposeful outcome of systemic oppression. If there is one thing to base your worldview on, it is this.
1b. "Free will" as you probably conceive of it is a lie designed to convince you of the opposite of this.
2. Most outwardly directed hatred is re-packaged self-loathing.
"It helps to remember that everyone hates themselves, at least a little bit, and the more you can refrain from projecting that hatred onto the world the less annoying you’ll be." https://www.gawker.com/culture/dont-be-so-attached-to-attachment-theory
3. Most depression and anxiety is the natural expression of our human revulsion towards the inhumanity of our society. Anyone who tells you it's a matter of chemicals or whatever is probably lying to you.
4. Deontology is dumb because human reason cannot conceive of a truly universal law. Consequentialism is dumb because human reason cannot comprehend the full set of outcomes necessary to make truly ethical judgments. Virtue ethics is even dumber, primarily because of the implications of the previous two sentences.
(lol: https://twitter.com/erikhinton/status/1319684628140183553?s=20)
5. A significant percentage of TV shows (and other commercial art, but it's most noticeable in TV) espouse unmistakably lefty themes while employing unmistakably liberal writers. This actually gives me hope, because it suggests the gap between the two is more permeable than deterministic class analysis would suggest.
5. A significant percentage of TV shows (and other commercial art, but it's most noticeable in TV) espouse unmistakably lefty themes while employing unmistakably liberal writers. This actually gives me hope, because it suggests the gap between the two is more permeable than deterministic class analysis would suggest.
Evidence: This basic argument is one of the central discussion items of Struggle Session: https://soundcloud.com/strugglesesh
6. Humans are organic beings and as such are not capable of holding inherently moral designation. They are not capable of being judged as "good" or "bad".
7. Yes, much of what appears to be malice can be more accurately described as incompetence. But much of that is a form of learned incompetence that is not materially different from malice.
7b. There's also a third category of "things are too complex for humans to make consistently perfect sense of them" which might explain even more than malice/incompetence. Perhaps this third category could be "inherent incompetence." If we're unable to build a computer large enough to explain the universe, perhaps our existing cognition is insufficient to make enough sense of the world to bend it to our will.
8. For practical purposes, there are three fundamental classes of people. The first are those with no wealth and no power. The second are those with enough wealth to assert power over themselves. And the third are those with enough wealth to assert power over others. The solidarity within the first and third groups and the allegiance of the second group are what determines a nation's politics.
8. For practical purposes, there are three fundamental classes of people. The first are those with no wealth and no power. The second are those with enough wealth to assert power over themselves. And the third are those with enough wealth to assert power over others. The solidarity within the first and third groups and the allegiance of the second group are what determines a nation's politics.
Evidence: Looks like I subconsciously cribbed from Trotsky lmao:
"Further, it is of course true that the growth of political consciousness depends upon the growth of the numbers of the proletariat, and proletarian dictatorship presupposes that the numbers of the proletariat will be sufficiently large to overcome the resistance of the bourgeois counter-revolution. But this does not at all mean that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the population must be proletarians and the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the proletariat conscious socialists. It is clear, of course, that the conscious revolutionary army of the proletariat must be stronger than the counter-revolutionary army of capital, while the intermediate, doubtful or indifferent strata of the population must be in such a position that the regime of proletarian dictatorship will attract them to the side of the revolution and not repel them to the side of its enemies. Naturally, proletarian policy must consciously take this into consideration."
9. Our government and constitution is bad but "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a great sentiment. Specifically because the passage operates around the words "we," "all," and "they."
10. The "I collect experiences not things" mindset appears wise on the surface. But ultimately it's just traditional consumerism adapting to the realities of our globalized/financialized/service economy.
11. Contrary to what fallacy scolds say, ad hominins are often fine when evaluating pundits. It is true that many pundits make both good and bad arguments, but even then, why would you want to get your good arguments from someone who often exhibits questionable judgment?
9. Our government and constitution is bad but "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a great sentiment. Specifically because the passage operates around the words "we," "all," and "they."
10. The "I collect experiences not things" mindset appears wise on the surface. But ultimately it's just traditional consumerism adapting to the realities of our globalized/financialized/service economy.
11. Contrary to what fallacy scolds say, ad hominins are often fine when evaluating pundits. It is true that many pundits make both good and bad arguments, but even then, why would you want to get your good arguments from someone who often exhibits questionable judgment?
12. Counterarguments framed as "it's actually simple" or "it's actually more nuanced" are generally bs. It's not that misunderstandings aren't often a matter of oversimplifying or overthinking something - it's just that if you frame your argument that way, you're probably privileging your sense of superiority over the merits of the argument itself.
13. The majority of people who find themselves materially advantaged in some way often deal with the contradictions inherent to that by constructing a reality where they are the victim, actually.
14. Many Americans hold essentially Manichean views of the world, but those views are mostly a direct consequence of our hegemony and our political system. Our two party system leads to a red team/blue team mentality where people who identify with one team view anyone who doesn't adhere to all perceived tenets of that team with suspicion. Similarly, people who view American hegemony to be "good" tend to be suspicious of those who voice concerns to the contrary (and vice versa).
Evidence: I talked about an example of this here, but man hard to find a clearer instance of this type of thinking than this:
Evidence 2: lol
15. A stunning number of disagreements result from misunderstandings between one party who is arguing about how things *are* and another party who is arguing about how things *should be*. One really common example of this is on issues of speech where some will cite first amendment while others discuss the broader concept of free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)