Ideology And Vaclav Havel

"Why bother with a ceaseless and in fact hopeless search for truth when truth can be had readily, all at once, in the form of an ideology or doctrine?  Suddenly it is all so simple.  So many difficult questions are answered in advance!  So many laborious existential tasks from which our minds are freed once and for all!"

- Vaclav Havel

Havel is notable for being the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic; and I find this quote from the noted essayist, poet, and politician occasionally poking out its ugly head as I watch both the political left and the right participating in Washington's 'business as usual'.   

The endless puppet show of the Republican debates goes on, as the mainstream media continues to tell us that Mitt Romney is the presumptive candidate; ignoring anyone else in the field, unless it's to speculate on when that current challenger will implode certainly seems to fit the bill.  Perhaps they feel that by the power of repetitive suggestion that non-Democrats will stop paying attention, accept their shrill and dismissive rhetoric as gospel, and stop questioning those seeking the highest office in the land on the Republican side. 

Meanwhile, any candidate questioning the pre-existing national party doctrines as defined by political pundits is marginalized to the point of non-existence.  Caught up in what Thomas Sowell would call 'Stage One Thinking', and ignoring the potential risks of sound-bite solutions that candidates are forced to give in the debate format they are handed, they refuse to accept anyone and anything beyond per-established political doctrine.  If this is what party politics and the electoral process has come to, maybe it's time to leave the party.  

The President continues a speaking tour that's little more than campaign to swing states at taxpayer expense to promote a plan that has already turned into a carcass picked more cleanly than last week's Thanksgiving turkey.  Some less cynical than I, might even find it strange that he feels he can do more good promoting it in stump speeches than working in Washington with legislators already caught up in their own ideologies.  Perhaps this is what leadership has come to mean (though I highly doubt it); though one cannot help but question how the oft heralded spirit of compromise is supposed to work when what we're handed is little more than strictly adhered to ideology from the bully pulpit of the White House.  

This however, is how the current resident of the White House got to reach that exalted position (as did many of those before him), and it's no doubt the way he intends to maintain 'the last job he will ever have'. This too is a well-known doctrine of politics.

Meanwhile the 'dance of the dead' (well, brain dead at least) goes on in Washington, where 535 legislators can't agree on the what a budget is or how to pass one, don't seem to know what constitutes a spending cut and can't agree on when such a cut will happen even when they agree that in fact it must, and attempts to operate the nation's economy on a principle of 'Wimpy Economics' that says we can pay for spending cuts tomorrow with tax increases today.

And while most agree that closing some of the loopholes in the tax code that Congress itself created is a good idea, ideology (and the 2012 elections) prevent them from doing so.  While most likewise agree that we cannot continue to spend and increase our national debt at current rates, ideology again prohibits them from doing anything to address this problem as well.

They ignore common sense and the basic principles of math including addition, subtraction, and the calculation of percentages; all the while telling us that they do so in the name of an ideology that's either inconsistent, contradictory, or both.  And while both parties attempt to tell us that this debate is all about holding firmly to such ideology, we all know that it's more about political expediency and not throwing away a gig that pays in excess of $165k in tough economic times.  Even those as apparently ignorant as those we hired as 'public servants' know better than to do anything that might lead them to having to look for a new job in this economy.

Adding insult to injury, we watch in stunned silence as information is released that the Federal Reserve lent over $7 trillion dollars to banks around the world (and plans to lend more).  Of course why we would expect a group of unelected bureaucrats who are nothing more than independent bankers to do otherwise is a mystery to me.  After all, who better than the financial experts who either participated in or blithely sat by and watched as the world's economy went to hell should we trust to act in our best interests rather than their own (or that of their brother bankers)?  

And while we prop up the world's financial system with electronically printed money that our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for, we have the comfort of knowing that those running the banks will continue to receive the exorbitant bonuses promised to them by contract, as those in charge simply play the game by the rules that they created, following the time honored ideology that got us where we are today.


I wonder if Mr. Havel chuckles or cries as he recognizes the terrible truth he has taught us?

.

Not A Team Player In A Two-Party System

We are often told that the problem with government is the level of political discourse between the left and the right. We are similarly told that if only conservatives would compromise with liberals (or vice versa), the nation's problems could be solved. It seems however, that the problem with the debate is that it's not so much between the left and right as it is between the Democrats and Republicans. Even as politicians attempt to define themselves by issues in order to appeal to certain parts of the political base, what they're doing in actuality is establishing their credentials as members of their political parties. 


Politicians have in fact become little more than players on political 'teams', competing on a national electoral playing field. My friend Roland Hansen has written about the fact that Independent politicians are a joke that can achieve little if anything once elected, due to a lack of party affiliation. While I agree with him about what can be accomplished, but my anger is not directed at these potentially viable candidates, but at the rules of the game that have put them on a dead branch of political evolution. 


It's not that Independent Candidates could not be good elected officials, do not come up with good ideas, or that their thinking is incorrect; instead it's that since they do not wear the uniform of either team, their efforts are doomed; since there's little hope that they will be allowed to score. As use of the sports analogy points to, keeping score is in fact what politics has become all about. Neither of the major teams plays for the benefit of the fans or the good of the game any longer (if they ever did). Instead their efforts are expended on behalf of their team owners, investors, and fellow players; often at the expense of the rules of the game and the expectation of the fans. Good legislation will go down to defeat and bad legislation will be passed all so one team or another can put another win on the scoreboard. When those in the stands cry 'foul', they are told by contestants and analysts that they simply don't understand the situation (or more accurately, the rules of the game). 


Few view the success of elections in terms of ideology any longer (which quite often is much the same in these parties), as much as they do in terms of the number of players they can put on the field. Few politicians will even attempt to reach an accord on a legitimate issue that needs to be a addressed, or reach across 'party lines' for support when there's a chance to use the issue in the next election cycle. Cowardly competitors from both sides refuse to stand alone for fear of angering the team that they play on or losing their team's support to keep a job that their timid actions show them not to be doing. 


Instead, we are treated to elected officials carefully polling the fan base and season ticket holders (special interest groups) to determine how to increase the sound of the cheering for their side while actually doing nothing. Even if they disagree with their team management over which plays should be called, they swallow any remnants of independent thought to maintain loyalty to 'the franchise' rather than those who sent them to Washington in the first place. We can in fact blame this madness on our Founding Fathers. 


It was begun by Alexander Hamilton's creation of the Federalist Party in the late 1700's to support his desire for a stronger central government than many saw in the Constitution, and a fiscal policy which included a powerful national bank. James Madison, and later Thomas Jefferson, responded to this move with the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party (a name which has nothing to do with either of its namesakes); and the game was on. Oh, there have been name changes over the years, as the effects of Political Plate Tectonics continue both the erosion of ideology and the formation of new teams who would like to play in the big leagues; but for the most part in the history of this nation, we have seen only two players. Lately however, these two gladiatorial squads seem intent on making this a 'Thunderdome' event, where two enter and only one leaves. 


The pronouncements about the 'will of the people', 'the good of the nation', and 'serving the electorate' ring especially hollow among the cheers of 'we are the champions', 'go team go', and 'take no prisoners'. What's even worse is that through tradition, we've now institutionalized the entire hierarchy of the contest. This team concept has become such an ingrained part of the political culture that we think nothing of paying for their internal candidate selection processes (primaries); as if there is some intrinsic value in paying public dollars so that these private clubs can pick their representatives. And should some libertarian, independent, or other '3rd party' candidate attempt to enter the ring of this exclusive contest; they will quickly find themselves without access the trough of taxpayer funding granted by tainted tradition to the elephant and the jackass. I'm afraid however, that they've lost at least one fan. I can find nothing of value in what has become a savage and pointless game where no matter what the score is, the ultimate loser is the voters.