Thursday, August 18, 2005
JUMPING ON THE "ENOUGH OF CINDY SHEEHAN" BANDWAGON
I'm very sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss. It's an awful thing to have to lose one's child, and the whole nation grieves with her. She has every right to speak her mind. She has every right to disagree with the President or anyone else on issues of national policy. Blah blah blah. (Insert here all disclaimers and qualifiers necessary to pre-emptively address the predictable non-sequiturs and accusations of insensitivity, though they will undoubtedly rain down upon my being anyway.)
With that taken care of, let me ask: if someone had already publicly declared you a premeditated murderer, a liar, a traitor, a terrorist, a war criminal, a fascist and every other overwrought, hackneyed cliché insult (right about now I can hear those who lack any sense of proportion or perspective rhetorically asking, “but isn’t Bush all of those things?”) and then demanded that you personally confess to these crimes in a private meeting, might you be a bit skeptical of her claim to simply want a constructive dialog seeking answers? Perhaps you too would conclude that her mind is already made up, that she is not seeking answers or a heart-to-heart but rather a confrontation, and that your time is better spent doing something more productive than being lectured by an unhinged crank who hates your guts.
Ms. Sheehan already had her personal meeting with the President. That's more than 295,000,000 other Americans can ever hope for. Despite some claims made by her supporters, the President isn't answerable directly to her. She wasn't entitled to the first meeting but she received it anyway because the President cared enough to meet with her as he has with hundreds of family members of fallen soldiers. Yes, our president is answerable to the people as a whole. However, he is not answerable through a series of personal question-and-answer sessions with individual constituents. No president has or ever will have time for anything like that. That is why our system of accountability occurs through the electoral process; a President is accountable first through elections and then through working with the people's representative body, aka the legislature. A face-to-face meeting with any President is a rare privilege, not a right.
Just what is it that Sheehan expects? Does she think that if she gets her meeting with the President, he's going to say, as she is demanding (direct quote), "tell me that my son died to make your friends rich; tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East"? If she heard that from Bush, would she be satisfied? Would she finally have the answer she is seeking? Would it give her the "closure" she supposedly is after? Does anyone believe she would suddenly drop her "my sacrifice gives me absolute moral authority" posturing, go home and resume a quiet, normal life out of the spotlight?
Sheehan claims she wants answers, and many state we as a nation are entitled to answers from the President. Yes, we certainly are. And those answers have been supplied a hundred thousand times in speeches, press releases, press Q&A sessions, discussions, debates and resolutions. You may not like the answers. You may not believe the answers. You may wish they were more detailed answers. You may want different answers – which some would no doubt use to bludgeon Bush over the head with for "shifting the rationale for war yet again." But that doesn't mean the answers haven't been given. You're not entitled to answers that coincide with the "real" answers you may have manufactured in your mind. Nor are you entitled to answers that can only be supplied by a crystal ball.
Contrary to assertions made in the national dialog, Sheehan is not looking for answers, and neither is anyone else whose minds are already made up. What she and her fellow travelers pretend to want is a confession from Bush of sinister ulterior motives. Since she knows she will never get it, one can only conclude she is looking for publicity.
Well now she's getting it and suddenly she and her cabal don't like it. Her handlers can spin the "grieving mother wilting like flower in the sun" angle all they want. She has made a macabre public spectacle of her grief, and she has therefore invited scrutiny and responses from the very public she has engaged. Some will do so in a fashion that matches her own exceptionally inflammatory and self-marginalizing rhetoric. Vitriol from any quarter is not conducive to a constructive dialog designed to hash out a consensus. Those who answer Sheehan with the same degree of vituperation she has demonstrated toward her targets marginalize themselves as well. But such is the stock Sheehan has chosen to trade in, and I can’t bring myself to pity her when she finds out that slinging mud gets her dirty as well.
Ms. Sheehan, I hope some day you find the solace you’re looking for. Looks like this won't the day.
|
I'm very sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss. It's an awful thing to have to lose one's child, and the whole nation grieves with her. She has every right to speak her mind. She has every right to disagree with the President or anyone else on issues of national policy. Blah blah blah. (Insert here all disclaimers and qualifiers necessary to pre-emptively address the predictable non-sequiturs and accusations of insensitivity, though they will undoubtedly rain down upon my being anyway.)
With that taken care of, let me ask: if someone had already publicly declared you a premeditated murderer, a liar, a traitor, a terrorist, a war criminal, a fascist and every other overwrought, hackneyed cliché insult (right about now I can hear those who lack any sense of proportion or perspective rhetorically asking, “but isn’t Bush all of those things?”) and then demanded that you personally confess to these crimes in a private meeting, might you be a bit skeptical of her claim to simply want a constructive dialog seeking answers? Perhaps you too would conclude that her mind is already made up, that she is not seeking answers or a heart-to-heart but rather a confrontation, and that your time is better spent doing something more productive than being lectured by an unhinged crank who hates your guts.
Ms. Sheehan already had her personal meeting with the President. That's more than 295,000,000 other Americans can ever hope for. Despite some claims made by her supporters, the President isn't answerable directly to her. She wasn't entitled to the first meeting but she received it anyway because the President cared enough to meet with her as he has with hundreds of family members of fallen soldiers. Yes, our president is answerable to the people as a whole. However, he is not answerable through a series of personal question-and-answer sessions with individual constituents. No president has or ever will have time for anything like that. That is why our system of accountability occurs through the electoral process; a President is accountable first through elections and then through working with the people's representative body, aka the legislature. A face-to-face meeting with any President is a rare privilege, not a right.
Just what is it that Sheehan expects? Does she think that if she gets her meeting with the President, he's going to say, as she is demanding (direct quote), "tell me that my son died to make your friends rich; tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East"? If she heard that from Bush, would she be satisfied? Would she finally have the answer she is seeking? Would it give her the "closure" she supposedly is after? Does anyone believe she would suddenly drop her "my sacrifice gives me absolute moral authority" posturing, go home and resume a quiet, normal life out of the spotlight?
Sheehan claims she wants answers, and many state we as a nation are entitled to answers from the President. Yes, we certainly are. And those answers have been supplied a hundred thousand times in speeches, press releases, press Q&A sessions, discussions, debates and resolutions. You may not like the answers. You may not believe the answers. You may wish they were more detailed answers. You may want different answers – which some would no doubt use to bludgeon Bush over the head with for "shifting the rationale for war yet again." But that doesn't mean the answers haven't been given. You're not entitled to answers that coincide with the "real" answers you may have manufactured in your mind. Nor are you entitled to answers that can only be supplied by a crystal ball.
Contrary to assertions made in the national dialog, Sheehan is not looking for answers, and neither is anyone else whose minds are already made up. What she and her fellow travelers pretend to want is a confession from Bush of sinister ulterior motives. Since she knows she will never get it, one can only conclude she is looking for publicity.
Well now she's getting it and suddenly she and her cabal don't like it. Her handlers can spin the "grieving mother wilting like flower in the sun" angle all they want. She has made a macabre public spectacle of her grief, and she has therefore invited scrutiny and responses from the very public she has engaged. Some will do so in a fashion that matches her own exceptionally inflammatory and self-marginalizing rhetoric. Vitriol from any quarter is not conducive to a constructive dialog designed to hash out a consensus. Those who answer Sheehan with the same degree of vituperation she has demonstrated toward her targets marginalize themselves as well. But such is the stock Sheehan has chosen to trade in, and I can’t bring myself to pity her when she finds out that slinging mud gets her dirty as well.
Ms. Sheehan, I hope some day you find the solace you’re looking for. Looks like this won't the day.
|
Sunday, August 07, 2005
JOHN LENNON: BILLIONAIRE "WORKING CLASS HERO"
My favorite streaming radio station is Radio Paradise. It has simply the best and most eclectic playlist of any radio station extant, streaming or broadcast. Their playlist is astonishingly broad, including Beatles, Pink Floyd, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Air, Nickel Creek, The Pogues, Dave Brubeck, Modest Mouse, Elvis Costello, Kasabian, The Shins, Beta Band, The Church, Fats Domino, Hooverphonic, Prince (non-sucky Prince only), Nick Drake, Echo & the Bunnymen, Remy Zero, Zero 7, Moon Seven Times, Sun Kil Moon, The Killers, et cetera. You name it, and if it doesn't suck a goat nut, they play it. They even serve up Beethoven, both ala carte and with a side dish of Camper Van. A station that plays such a huge range of music could easily end up sounding like the soundtrack to an incoherent stream of thought. The genius of Radio Paradise is that the playlist is programmed such that these divergent artists and musical styles all fit together like bits of woven thread that form a comprehensive tapestry of music.
Most streaming radio stations have an ancillary website that serves little more purpose than to point you to their stream and maybe supply real-time artist and title information. The Radio Paradise website, on the other hand, is a full-fledged interactive web community. It comes complete with chat forums, member journals (blogs of sorts), member-driven song ratings, a member .mp3/.wav submission upload feature where they will consider adding your upload to the playlist (NOTE: 95% of your uploads will get spiked no matter how cool they are), and a member "comments" section for every song in their playlist. Best of all Radio Paradise members are among the most lucid and learned amateur students of music you'll find anywhere.
However, that lucidity does not appear to extend into the world of politics, economics, or current affairs. Liberal arts tend to draw crowds that are, well, liberal. And not just "liberal" in the sense of "open-minded and free-spirited," but also "liberal" as understood in the contemporary American political spectrum. So it ought to shock nobody that a website community dedicated to artisan-crafted music draws a membership that, on balance, is decidedly left of center. One accordingly expects the "comments" section for John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" to weigh heavily in favor of the song, and Radio Paradise members do not disappoint. This gives a token libertarian-conservative like myself a chance to take the whole lot to task.
For background, the lyrics of "Working Class Hero" are as follows:
As soon as your born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all,
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.
Typical comments from Radio Paradise members are as follows:
"This song has always left me cold, probably because it is so accurate." --KevDog
"Workers of the world, unite." --madsatod
"As true today as it was when he wrote it. Corporations and their puppets won't 'Give Peace a Chance' when billions of dollars can be fleeced from taxes of the working class." --normol
Say what??
RP member "rgrace" was the first to challenge the orthodoxy of the lyrics and, subsequently, of the RP crowd at large:
"OK, good, a fabulously wealthy rock star wrote
"You're still f***in peasants as far I can see"
which is just classic. Poor John. How DARE you not follow me or listen to me! Sorry, I don't find this truthful, just irritating. Thank you John, but I try hard to think for myself. If that makes me a peasant, fine."
PattonFever responds, "a rich person writing a song like this about non-rich people looks like an offer of understanding, to me. it doesn't look like hypocrisy, or whatever."
My response: it's not a matter of hypocrisy but that his own experience of growing up in relatively humble circumstances to become fabulously wealthy sort of undermines the whole "don't bother, it's all for nothing" premise of the song.
RP Member Typesbad engages: "The premise is not underminded at all. There are exceptions to everything, and clearly John understood that his circumstance was quite exceptional. Sure he was extremely talented, but he realised that dumb luck also played a hand in his situation. Would he have gotten so far if he hadn't run into Paul who had such acute pop instincts? Would the US teenagers have gone so gaga over the Beatles if they didn't need some external diversion from the Kennedy assassination? I'm sure many Beatle fans can come up with better examples of fortuitous circumstances in their rise."
There is nothing at all exceptional about class mobility in capitalistic societies. It has been the norm since capitalism became an institutionalized economic system. The only exceptional aspect of John's economic ascent was its magnitude. "Dumb luck" plays a part in every sucessful person's success, but success almost never happens by accident. Preparation and hard work are also part of the equation. Those who engage in neither never get their "lucky break" because they lack the tools to ride that break to success. The Beatles are no exception. They worked their balls off for years honing their craft and making almost no money before they got their break, and then worked their balls off some more when their break came. That break never would have come had they not done the hard work and preparation, and their success would not have been so colossal had they simply stopped working hard once their break came.
He continues: "John was well aware that most of the working class is just as stuck as his song implies. Unfortunately, capitalist systems require a certain lack of class mobility, just as they depend on a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down."
On the contrary, class mobility was almost non-existent before institutional capitalism. It is still almost non-existent in nations with highly controlled economies. No macroeconomic system has more class mobility than capitalism. Period. China's currently growing class mobility has precisely coincided with the extent of the liberalization of its economy, as did that of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Ireland, and other nations that have developed first-world standards of living from utter poverty in the last 50 years. In short, the promise and realization of upward class mobility is the engine that drives a capitalist economy, and it is what makes capitalistic societies the wealthiest and most productive on earth.
(It is worth noting in John's favor that the barriers to upward mobility in the UK were notably higher when this song was released -- and the prior two decades when John grew up/became a young adult -- than they are now, though mobility still occured. In the last 20 years class mobility in the UK has become more fluid and achieved parity with the world's more liberalized economies.)
Also, capitalism doesn't "rely on" a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down so much as there is an relation between the two; namely, many economists believe that employment below a certain point is a signifier of -- not a cause of -- inflation. The capitalist system contains no deliberate mechanism to maintain a certain level of unemployment any more than it can deliberately control supply, demand, prices, or any other factor that is largely determined by the highly fluid aggregate whims of tens of millions of independent actors who each have a different agenda from the next. And again, since unusually low unemployment is a signal of -- not a cause of -- inflation, there is no benefit in maintaining an unemployment rate floor since this cart-before-the-horse approach does nothing to contain inflation.
"John acknowledgement of these contraints, even if they didn't apply to him is a much more grounded attitude than that of others on the top of their fields that tend to spout "Hey, I made it! I'm so good! Whats your problem?"
I see them as the two sides of the same cynical coin.
"I've reached the about the same economic level I grew up in and thus haven't had trouble making ends meet for a while any any serious sense. But I recall vividly when I did, and I know other good people who still do."
So in other words, you've experienced class mobility. Class mobility does not imply that everyone makes it and nobody struggles. Nor does it guarantee that everyone climbs the ladder; indeed, not everyone wants to. But with the exception of those who inherit a wad of cash, nobody makes it to the next step without struggling.
Also, class mobility goes both ways, though overall standard of living through all class strata trends upward over the long term in stable capitalist societies. Fluid upward class mobility also means fluid downward class mobility. In class-fluid economies, fortunes made are not infrequently lost, and sometimes made again. Or consider the standard course of a career, where you start your career at a certain income level and with few assets; then typically your salary increases over time and you accumulate more assets (upward mobility); then you retire, lose your asset-building income stream, and deplete your erstwhile accumulated assets for the rest of your life (downward mobility).
"So if I write a song or even just a letter to the editor about that, am I insincere?"
Lennon strikes me as someone who sincerely believed every single word he ever uttered. So I'm not questioning his sincerity so much as the validity of the premise of this song.
|
My favorite streaming radio station is Radio Paradise. It has simply the best and most eclectic playlist of any radio station extant, streaming or broadcast. Their playlist is astonishingly broad, including Beatles, Pink Floyd, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Air, Nickel Creek, The Pogues, Dave Brubeck, Modest Mouse, Elvis Costello, Kasabian, The Shins, Beta Band, The Church, Fats Domino, Hooverphonic, Prince (non-sucky Prince only), Nick Drake, Echo & the Bunnymen, Remy Zero, Zero 7, Moon Seven Times, Sun Kil Moon, The Killers, et cetera. You name it, and if it doesn't suck a goat nut, they play it. They even serve up Beethoven, both ala carte and with a side dish of Camper Van. A station that plays such a huge range of music could easily end up sounding like the soundtrack to an incoherent stream of thought. The genius of Radio Paradise is that the playlist is programmed such that these divergent artists and musical styles all fit together like bits of woven thread that form a comprehensive tapestry of music.
Most streaming radio stations have an ancillary website that serves little more purpose than to point you to their stream and maybe supply real-time artist and title information. The Radio Paradise website, on the other hand, is a full-fledged interactive web community. It comes complete with chat forums, member journals (blogs of sorts), member-driven song ratings, a member .mp3/.wav submission upload feature where they will consider adding your upload to the playlist (NOTE: 95% of your uploads will get spiked no matter how cool they are), and a member "comments" section for every song in their playlist. Best of all Radio Paradise members are among the most lucid and learned amateur students of music you'll find anywhere.
However, that lucidity does not appear to extend into the world of politics, economics, or current affairs. Liberal arts tend to draw crowds that are, well, liberal. And not just "liberal" in the sense of "open-minded and free-spirited," but also "liberal" as understood in the contemporary American political spectrum. So it ought to shock nobody that a website community dedicated to artisan-crafted music draws a membership that, on balance, is decidedly left of center. One accordingly expects the "comments" section for John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" to weigh heavily in favor of the song, and Radio Paradise members do not disappoint. This gives a token libertarian-conservative like myself a chance to take the whole lot to task.
For background, the lyrics of "Working Class Hero" are as follows:
As soon as your born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all,
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.
Typical comments from Radio Paradise members are as follows:
"This song has always left me cold, probably because it is so accurate." --KevDog
"Workers of the world, unite." --madsatod
"As true today as it was when he wrote it. Corporations and their puppets won't 'Give Peace a Chance' when billions of dollars can be fleeced from taxes of the working class." --normol
Say what??
RP member "rgrace" was the first to challenge the orthodoxy of the lyrics and, subsequently, of the RP crowd at large:
"OK, good, a fabulously wealthy rock star wrote
"You're still f***in peasants as far I can see"
which is just classic. Poor John. How DARE you not follow me or listen to me! Sorry, I don't find this truthful, just irritating. Thank you John, but I try hard to think for myself. If that makes me a peasant, fine."
PattonFever responds, "a rich person writing a song like this about non-rich people looks like an offer of understanding, to me. it doesn't look like hypocrisy, or whatever."
My response: it's not a matter of hypocrisy but that his own experience of growing up in relatively humble circumstances to become fabulously wealthy sort of undermines the whole "don't bother, it's all for nothing" premise of the song.
RP Member Typesbad engages: "The premise is not underminded at all. There are exceptions to everything, and clearly John understood that his circumstance was quite exceptional. Sure he was extremely talented, but he realised that dumb luck also played a hand in his situation. Would he have gotten so far if he hadn't run into Paul who had such acute pop instincts? Would the US teenagers have gone so gaga over the Beatles if they didn't need some external diversion from the Kennedy assassination? I'm sure many Beatle fans can come up with better examples of fortuitous circumstances in their rise."
There is nothing at all exceptional about class mobility in capitalistic societies. It has been the norm since capitalism became an institutionalized economic system. The only exceptional aspect of John's economic ascent was its magnitude. "Dumb luck" plays a part in every sucessful person's success, but success almost never happens by accident. Preparation and hard work are also part of the equation. Those who engage in neither never get their "lucky break" because they lack the tools to ride that break to success. The Beatles are no exception. They worked their balls off for years honing their craft and making almost no money before they got their break, and then worked their balls off some more when their break came. That break never would have come had they not done the hard work and preparation, and their success would not have been so colossal had they simply stopped working hard once their break came.
He continues: "John was well aware that most of the working class is just as stuck as his song implies. Unfortunately, capitalist systems require a certain lack of class mobility, just as they depend on a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down."
On the contrary, class mobility was almost non-existent before institutional capitalism. It is still almost non-existent in nations with highly controlled economies. No macroeconomic system has more class mobility than capitalism. Period. China's currently growing class mobility has precisely coincided with the extent of the liberalization of its economy, as did that of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Ireland, and other nations that have developed first-world standards of living from utter poverty in the last 50 years. In short, the promise and realization of upward class mobility is the engine that drives a capitalist economy, and it is what makes capitalistic societies the wealthiest and most productive on earth.
(It is worth noting in John's favor that the barriers to upward mobility in the UK were notably higher when this song was released -- and the prior two decades when John grew up/became a young adult -- than they are now, though mobility still occured. In the last 20 years class mobility in the UK has become more fluid and achieved parity with the world's more liberalized economies.)
Also, capitalism doesn't "rely on" a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down so much as there is an relation between the two; namely, many economists believe that employment below a certain point is a signifier of -- not a cause of -- inflation. The capitalist system contains no deliberate mechanism to maintain a certain level of unemployment any more than it can deliberately control supply, demand, prices, or any other factor that is largely determined by the highly fluid aggregate whims of tens of millions of independent actors who each have a different agenda from the next. And again, since unusually low unemployment is a signal of -- not a cause of -- inflation, there is no benefit in maintaining an unemployment rate floor since this cart-before-the-horse approach does nothing to contain inflation.
"John acknowledgement of these contraints, even if they didn't apply to him is a much more grounded attitude than that of others on the top of their fields that tend to spout "Hey, I made it! I'm so good! Whats your problem?"
I see them as the two sides of the same cynical coin.
"I've reached the about the same economic level I grew up in and thus haven't had trouble making ends meet for a while any any serious sense. But I recall vividly when I did, and I know other good people who still do."
So in other words, you've experienced class mobility. Class mobility does not imply that everyone makes it and nobody struggles. Nor does it guarantee that everyone climbs the ladder; indeed, not everyone wants to. But with the exception of those who inherit a wad of cash, nobody makes it to the next step without struggling.
Also, class mobility goes both ways, though overall standard of living through all class strata trends upward over the long term in stable capitalist societies. Fluid upward class mobility also means fluid downward class mobility. In class-fluid economies, fortunes made are not infrequently lost, and sometimes made again. Or consider the standard course of a career, where you start your career at a certain income level and with few assets; then typically your salary increases over time and you accumulate more assets (upward mobility); then you retire, lose your asset-building income stream, and deplete your erstwhile accumulated assets for the rest of your life (downward mobility).
"So if I write a song or even just a letter to the editor about that, am I insincere?"
Lennon strikes me as someone who sincerely believed every single word he ever uttered. So I'm not questioning his sincerity so much as the validity of the premise of this song.
|
