The End of The End of Politics
Jamias Cascio drops violent wisdom over here at The “End of Politics” Delusion.
You have my express permission to kick the next person — especially someone advocating the embrace of radical forms of technological advancement — who tells you that they wish nothing more than to get rid of, move beyond, or otherwise avoid “politics.” Kick them hard, and repeatedly. They have adopted a profoundly ignorant and self-serving position, one that betrays at best a lack of understanding of human nature and society, and at worst a malicious desire to preemptively shut down any opposition to their goals.
He’s right, you know. But I tell you, sometimes I do wish there were no politics and people could pull their heads out of their asses long enough to do the right thing. And yes, all of that is code for “Dammit, why doesn’t everyone think like me?!”
I’m not proud of the times when I think like that, but there you go. I tend to call those my “Magneto Days”.
I agree that there are a lot of technophiles who express either a desire to be “above politics” or who believe that technological advances will free us from politics, but I think a lot of technophiles are really looking for an out of politics as we experience them today. And that IS something I think technological advances can pull out us out of.
Speaking as an American, embedded squarely in the middle of American media and politics, what we refer to as “politics” bears little or no resemblance to any rational form of communication or discourse. Of course there is no “golden age of politics” to look back on. Politics, being the interaction of various levels of power, has always been an affair that has been ugly and has brought out the worst in people. So long as there are power differentials between people or groups, there will be politics. The technological Singularity has more potential for creating power disparity as it does for levelling the playing field.
And keep in mind that the last major Political movement that had a goal of moving beyond conventional politics was the Neoconservative movement, whose experiment in national myth-making is in part responsible for the wreck of the political system we’re witnessing today. The technofuturist “End of Politics” is no more upon us than the Neoconservative “End of History” was when Francis Fukuyama declared it was imminent.
But…
Technology does have the potential to change how politics are perceived and performed. Right now, in the US, the political discourse is a screaming match between two major factions that only agree on one thing: theirs are the only voices that should be heard. There’s no readily visible relationship between the left and the right in the US save one of antagonism. The right is against the left and the left is against the right, no matter what shape that debate takes.
One of the main reasons for that, of course, is that Politics as it visibly manifests in the US is mediated and shaped by corporate media. The 24 hour news networks and their various other media limbs, in order to sustain and grow their business model, sell a purely oppositional narrative. The system insures that the lack of a national dialogue on any sort of important issue translates directly into profits for the corporations that run mass-market media. This is why what should be a national discussion about a health care system that no one really likes (save politicians who get kickbacks from insurance companies) has turned into a screaming match with bold-faced lies and national coverage of supposed politicians ranting incoherently about “Death Panels” and telling people on national news that the old and infirm will be euthanized.
What technology could do is make it easier for people to escape from the “us” vs. “them” mentality that drive the media machines and give them the power to come to their own educated conclusions. It seems like a long shot, most days, but technology has the potential to infuse the volatile political landscape with knowledge, non-media mediated discourse and hopefully a little bit of compassion. Technological mediation has the potential to create a more permeable membrane between “them” and us”.
No, I don’t think that we can ever escape politics for good or ill, but what we have, is the potential to forge politics tempered by knowledge, compassion and real human needs.
As they say around the intartubes, THIS.
Thanks for speaking out, and speaking so well.
Both Cascio and other following posts seem to not only assume politics is inevitable, but also the sole purpose was one can achieve (as used in the definition of politics by the protagonist of Sterling’s “Distraction”… “the reconciling of aspirations”.
(And I note how that word ‘aspiration’ has the same root word as conspiracy – it’s all about who you breathe and what you exhale in response…)
I’m not naive. Hell, I’ve worked in Government – and from that experience I gained a certain clarity in watching the actions (both declared and hidden) of politicians. I know we ain’t gonna see any TAZ-like web of autonomous zones with libertarian mores and so on. Some degree of organisational hierarchy is needed.
It’s just that pretty much every single person who choses to work in that field is a total cunt.
The best are just selfish cunts, want to make their mint, get the grace-and-favour third house for their mistress and then fuck off to the Chiltern Hundreds and a cushy board-of-directors gig in the same field they’ve just been on the other side of (supposedly). And they’re not the bad-uns – just the bent. The real nasty cunts are the ones like Blair – those with that total Right Man conviction of always being Right, being Destined for Greatness, no matter the cost to anyone else. And he wants to be President of Europe.
Even so, I can envisage mild variations of the older political tropes – wider enfranchisement (something along the line of State’s Bills for the UK, adding a NO box next to all names on a ballot, so giving the choice of either voting once for a candidate you support in some way – or of negating a vote for one you don’t want or trust). Reduce role of corporate money and power, enhance civil participation in the same was that jury duty is handled – randomly chosen ordinary folk, six months to a year in a major Service position previously reserved for elected MPs. And pay them well enough (and provide reasonable housing etc) so as to make bribery less effective – and the penalties for taking bungs strict, possibly even made capital offences.
For far too fucking long, our alleged Masters have had all the power to create laws, control and change laws… and yet so very many of them just can’t help themselves from dipping their sticky paws into the till (or the secretary). THe higher they rise, the more responsible for their actions they become – up to life imprisonment for high crimes, even execution for actual fraud of Her Majesty’s People. (And reserve state execution solely for politicians and their cronies who have betrayed the country and people. That crime only. Pour encoragez les autres.)
Just a dream I have sometimes – a world governed by grown-ups, watched carefully by other grown-ups. No way to just buy in at the table – or buy off those already there.
Short of that, nothing will get done that is free of the vile taint of realpolitik and business-as-usual corruption. A quick glimpse across the pond shows me just how crazy it gets when powerful (usually white) privileged classes have a hissy-fit over a point of business.
In short – Grinder politics would quite a different beast – and I would say. One which would not bear much resemblance to the modern form. Not because we’ve evolved in some Star Trek way beyond the need for power and control, but that more and more of us playing power games with quite different rules…
For some more bitter food for thought, check this out, more on the US RIght’s use of ‘weaponised postmodernism’ in the Town Hall mobbing:
http://mutateweb.com/archives/2009/08/10/birthers-and-democratization/
Thank you.
My own thoughts on Cascio’s piece: Politics will not end. Ever.
Ah, Magneto moments. A very natural gut response of smart people looking at politics and thinking that something could actually get done if all the crap could get cleared out of the way. I think everyone has them, myself included. Hell, I think most politicians have them. Some act on those moments, which is a problem.
I’ll admit to being a political junkie with the worst of them, and fortunate to be in a spot that allows me observe its workings fairly closely. I think the point about the neoconservative movement is excellent, and a good reminder that one person’s higher, rational vision is another’s political nightmare.
Where I think technology has helped some (outside of making organizing faster) is that the slew of blogs and high-quality reporting now more widely available counters the usual mainstream media narrative. It’s pulled back the curtain on the day-day manipulations that formerly only a few people were privy to.
And that’s why I disagree with your assessment of the U.S. political system. There aren’t two factions there, there’s more like eight or nine, lumped together in two parties because they think such alliances are the best way to get their goals accomplished.
That said, look past the screaming match (which most media will ALWAYS play up because it sells) and a plain struggle over power emerges. The biggest obstacle to health care, for example, isn’t the shouting from the GOP or its activists, it’s Blue Dog Democrats, out to protect the interests of their own faction, regions and benefactors.
There is no national discussion on any topic of importance that won’t have both screaming matches and amoral power brawls. This is partly because of the stakes. It’s also because politics is above all a fight. In any fight, the only thing that matters is victory.
That’s why politicians are, to use Cat’s term, cunts. Even the rare ones that I like, agree with and think genuinely want to do the right thing are cunts. Why? Because they’re playing for high stakes, in an environment that requires both the eye and stomach.
Consider where political activity has resulted in a better world than before. Look back at the fights that produced those steps forward and you won’t see them won by rational discussion and compassionate dialogue. Those may have played an important role in generating ideas, but they weren’t what actually got things implemented.
Yes, tech will open up some doors, but while the tools will change, the tactics won’t. A Grinder politician will still be a cunt. They’ll have to be to get their goals accomplished. If they’re cunning, they’ll be able to cover that up so well that future generations will regard them as a saint.
The point is to embrace the political brawl and learn to do it well enough to get something useful done.
P.S. I’m also straying dangerously close to the territory of the next Grinder Dialogues entry, so I should probably stop rambling and go finish that now. Thanks for the post and I’m glad this topic is getting discussed.
[...] follows is Jamais Cascio, who we’ve mentioned here a few times before, presenting a condensed, thirty-minute version of the Institute for the [...]
[...] follows is Jamais Cascio, who we’ve mentioned here a few times before, presenting a condensed, thirty-minute version of the Institute for the [...]