You agree that we all have power over our reality and believe that people need to accept responsibility for their own reality, and imply that the same is true for you. If you believe that you create your own reality then why are you loath to grant the same power to others? You are not judging others; you are judging a philosophical stance. You may have been born to a privileged class but if you accept responsibility for that fortune as well as your misfortune and abuse then you have every right to make that claim.

I do find myself wondering why it is okay to leave the property and resources in the hands of the few, so many of whose ancestors accumulated those resources via the labor of slaves or exploited labor. I think this is a moral dilemma.

As I stated in the Talking Turkishness thread, The past is a mental concept, composed memory, hearsay and beliefs based on hearsay – there is only NOW and the point of ALL resolution is NOW. No amount of redress (non-violent) for past grievances is appropriate except by the parties directly involved. Not the descendants, not the friends, not the government (except where the state has violated extant citizens’ bodies and chattel or is the only party that can resolve institutional malfeasance) Going forward NOW with everyone’s baggage that they managed by earning or gift or inheritance as a given is the only neutral way to proceed. The unfair advantage while violating Absolute Morality and deplorable is between the exploiters and exploited. They each are responsible for their dramas and if the recipients of this ill-gotten gain wish to make amends then it is up to them and their conscience – NO ONE else.

as a child who was abused, I can tell you that I would have liked nothing more than for someone to forcibly stop my mother. As an adult, I do think that intervention can most often happen without the use of force.

I was also abused by a father who was frustrated and had no outlet for emotions that he had problems controlling. I wished my mother would stop him but she abetted the behavior and told me that if I had behaved appropriately that I wouldn’t make mad. I was told that it was my fault and I believed it (for the wrong reasons as my belief system didn’t contain the understanding that I have in retrospect). I left home at 14 and didn’t return until I was 22 with a broken leg and was not able to easily care for myself. My parents are now in their late 80’s and we have a relationship that is better than it used to be (they deny the abuse ever occurred and believe I left home because I was headstrong and adventurous) so I let them have their illusions and don’t try to disabuse them. They are failing mentally now (mother with Alzheimer’s and father with brain damage due to heart surgery) and it is sad to see but I still love them and don’t destroy my children’s images of their grandparents by recounting my history.

Jazzman, if you were standing near a man with a gun at a child’s head – let’s say he’s a psychopath – and you can’t see any way to save this child without physically harming the man – would you do so?

If I found myself in such a situation (i.e., created the conditions for such an intersection of spacetime co-ordinates) and I would hope I never do, I would attempt to reason with the psychopath and if it were my wife or child, offer myself in trade. One never knows until one is in a situation how one will react but I would hope that I wouldn’t commit violence in any case.

I believe due to my pacifistic belief system, I have a peaceful life and only create seemingly negative circumstances as signposts to point me in the appropriate direction (as I told fiddlesticks, devils are only angels in disguise). I am blessed with good health, a good job, and a family with good health, who has never caused me trouble other than normal childish boundary testing. I am to be a 1st time grandfather this January and am excited influence a new generation.

Peace and a wink to you,

Jazzman

well, you certainly have my ears perked up. I’ll be listening and watching and seeing if I see the same light that you do.

(Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hanging pictures of him on my wall yet) First, he is positive, simple as that. Until I heard him speak I didn’t realize how much of what I was hearing from other Democrats was negative. If you listen to Joe Biden for example, you’ll here a litany of reasons the Republicans have screwed things up and how he predicted this all along (I’m leery of more of this happening if the Dems win Congress) I yearn for the tradition of President Lincoln who didn’t gloat after the war, he was positive and looked forward. Now some may see Obama’s positivity as political rhetoric and that’s their prerogative, I for one sense sincerity and compassion. I especially like how he measures his words in an interview, not in a contrived way, but in a way that says he actually listened to the question and does not have a rehearsed soundbite for every possible occation.

The second thing that gets my juices flowing with Mr. Obama is the example he will set for kids with darker skin throughout the world, just by holding the highest office in the land. I’m sure you know that one of the biggest factors with racism is internalized racism. For so long a young dark skinned child never dreamed of being a doctor much less LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I can almost hear the imaginations of children everywhere expanding to new bounds – new circles of dreams.

What more could you possible want to get excited Allison. He’s has a humble heritage, check, he was the top of his class at Harvard, check, he’s on the right side of the issues, check, he’s charismatic, check.

Now it’s possible that he is not progressive enough for you, or me for that matter, but that might come in time, in increments. The reality is he has to appeal to the whole electorate.

My point is, I look his way and see light, it may not be all encompassing sunshine as yet, but there is light and I’m heading in the direction of the light – I hope you’ll come along.

And, while I don’t have a plan in mind, I do find myself wondering why it is okay to leave the property and resources in the hands of the few, so many of whom’s ancestors accumulated those resources via the labor of slaves or exploited labor. I think this is a moral dilemma. So, while you don’t believe anyone should have to give up what they own, I’m not so sure. It’s an exploration I would like to see us have in the public dialogue. It’s all well and good to free the slaves, but if the slave owner – who has committed a crime against humanity, in my mind – gets to keep all the property and the wealth generated from the slave labor, while the slave is told to go off and see how she does in the world, something is not set to rights. I’m not talking reparations, here. I’m thinking about railroad barons who made fortunes on the backs of abused laborers, mining companies, etc. In all of these situations, we may have addressed some of the abuses, but not the unreasonable distribution of the resources attained in these situations. Like I wrote, I don’t have a vision for what kind of action this would mean. I do think a sincere public dialogue might lead to some kind of catharsis.

As for forcible action, you can probably tell that I struggle with this one. I don’t use physical force myself. At least I like to believe I am. Yet, I wonder, if my child were being threatened, how I would react. I don’t think I can truly know my nature unless that is tested. Which I hope never happens. And as a child who was abused, I can tell you that I would have liked nothing more than for someone to forcibly stop my mother. As an adult, I do think that intervention can most often happen without the use of force. Jazzman, if you were standing near a man with a gun at a child’s head – let’s say he’s a psychopath – and you can’t see any way to save this child without physically harming the man – would you do so? Is there ever an appropriate moment? I am only moved to the idea of physical force in order protect another. But I kow that this is a slippery slope. I certainly know that stopping abuse doesn’t always require physical force. Still, sometimes, it seems it does. Thought, I also know that things get to that point because we don’t address bad behavior or it’s cause early enough.

These are just some of my thoughts as I read your comments to me. Especiallay having been called out for that which you don’t admire. (see writes with a wink.)

The 2nd 5 tenets in the Absolute Morality paragraph – http://www.radioopensource.org/elections-06-identities-politics/#comment-34281#comment-34281 should have been credited to Nikos who posted them in the God in our Genes Thread as his made up “religion”. http://www.radioopensource.org/is-god-in-our-genes/#comment-8273#comment-8273 in my rush to leave work at 9:00 PM, I inadvertently pasted the comparison between what I call Absolute Morality and the tenets of the Nikosian “religion.” My apologies to Nikos

The reason you don,t fit is because you are not the classic hardcore liberal.You don’t let yourself get pigeonholed into thinking all left wing plicies are good and all right wing policies are bad. You may lean left but you havent tipped over yet.

I am now conservative for the most part. I would rather say libertarian but people in this day and age have little desire for our country to actually follow the constitution. Big govt on both sides has changed the country forever. I am still in favor or should say not against gay marriage, legalized drugs to a small extent. first amendment rights. with no restrictions either rightwing or left wing. The only exception would be people who are engageing in acts of treason.Abortion rights(can we please have a common sense compromise).
Affirmitive outreach programs(Not forced quotas) Govt assistance for the mentally and phisically impaired. This does not include drug abusers and alcoholics. I’m for legal immigration. I’m against illegal aliens.I’m agnostic but fear the ACLU and other left wing groups are trying to unfairly attack religous groups. (The boy scouts is one example) I love the environment and try and recycle and do my best to not harm nature. But I hate it when Green peace or other groups try and tell me how to run my life. I hate guns. I hate hunting. But what I hate even more are people who try and sh-t on the bill of rights by taking away the rights of honest citizens.I hate socialism. I’m for capitolism. It feeds and clothes many more people than all other economic models. I’m pro Isreal. I have actually been to the middle east .I think I have a much better idea of what is really going on than do the talking head leftist academics that I so often listen to.

What should my political identity be?I think that there are more people who
lean one way politically but can listen and agree with some policies that another group advocates.

Yours are good questions and I think I will add the topic of Class to the activated suggest-a-show thread. Very (too) briefly, for me class is based on an objective measurement of people’s economic, cultural (e.g. education), and political capital, what Bourdieu referred to as their habitus. This goes beyond Marx’s emphasis on surplus labour time, and allows us to measure not only the economic wealth and rewards for ones productive effort but also the degree to which someone can control their employability and mobility.

I am thinking of class in very functional terms, not the descriptive labeling that spinners indulge in (and which needs to be countered). Nother mentions issue politics above. What more important issue than one’s means of livelihood. Class-based political movements, then, would work towards creating a more equitable system, globally, by pressing for redistribution though, as jazzman stresses, non-violent (but more pro-active) means.

The groups banning together are people who feel strongly about immigration, abortion, gay marrige, civil liberties, anti imperialism.

Yes I believe that everyone’s circumstances are TOTALLY their responsibility. I believe ALL consciousness creates its environment by choice for reasons as diverse as the universe itself. Those in desperately poor neighborhoods provide challenges for themselves and opportunities for others to empathize and provide aid. Living with prejudice allows one to see the benefits of not prejudging others for superficial characteristics. Living in a violent atmosphere provides the opportunity to eschew violence and embrace peace. As I told rc21 in the College thread, if there is a strong enough desire for education, one will create a way. All persons can better their lives no matter how short, how long, or how horrible the circumstances if they consciously choose to.

That it is an issue of “poor self-image”? I was referring to voluntary plastic surgery for cosmetic (not reconstructive) reasons which I see as an issue of “poor self-image” but it is a person’s choice for whatever reason they feel is necessary and who am I to say they can’t have it – even though I believe it is misguided.

but to state that extreme poverty will “only … be minimized as an issue is when peoples’ consciousness is sufficiently raised… is what I would call a bit a “spiritual bypass”

I stated that homelessness and poor self image would be minimized – not extreme poverty, that is an issue even the historical Jesus stated was an opportunity for his flock to help, saying “The poor you will always have with you.” I help anyone in whatever way I can when I create the opportunity (i.e., the needful enter my personal reality) and contribute to many charitable causes. (mainly foodbanks, and underprivileged chlldren’s causes.) By all means teach to fish and give fish so that one might have strength to fish and never fear anyone will lose anything because they gave to someone else.

Peace and Charity

Jazzman

Allison, I generally am in concert with your opinions, I apologize for any harshness inferred above. The few occasions where you advocate the need for force such as your post http://www.radioopensource.org/cold-wars-and-how-to-survive-them/#comment-5974#comment-5974 where you advocate intervention between parent and child by outsiders and http://www.radioopensource.org/gary-hart-peter-beinart-and-richard-perle/#comment-5546#comment-5546 where you wish we had intervened in Afghanistan for more “noble” reasons (which you graciously retracted) are the exception to your predominately balanced and sage postings.

When metaphors such as “fight” for systemic structures that “force” re-distribution of resources are used, I think Sherwood Forest, and when rhetoric such as Why should anyone own… by implication more than they need, I think of Robinhood’s modus operandi. The proscription of plastic surgery (implied by dint of law) for anyone due to lack of a Universal Healthcare System seems rather harsh to me so I reacted in my typically strident fashion. Again I apologize for my reaction to your post, not that you took offense (if indeed you did.) Let me address your other questions.

5) Do not attempt to attain an IDEAL by violating any of the above propositions. The “All of the above” Meta-rule – IDEAL ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY LESS THAN IDEAL MEANS.
Compare to your Creed or Religion if you prefer.
1) Revere all other humans: they are you in different bodies. They see, on your behalf, what you cannot. On your behalf they hear what you cannot. On your behalf they smell what you cannot. On your behalf they taste what you cannot. And on your behalf they feel what you cannot.
2) Revere all other creatures: they may not ponder as profoundly as you, but they feel just as deeply.
3) Revere the plants: they feed you, whether directly or through animals that consume them, that you consume in turn.
4) Revere the mountains and the valleys, the forests and the deserts, the wild steppes and the tamed plains. Revere all water, no matter its amount. Earth and water combine with sunlight to make you and all other life.
5) Consider carefully – with empathy as your guide – the effect on other creatures and people any action you make.
After empathy guides you, choose the action that harms the fewest other sentient creatures.

In our 2 party, Representative Republic, it is our representatives who decide how the public wealth is distributed (recently the SCOTUS has even opened the door to re-distribute private property by the state/ municipality – see Kelo vs. City of New London .) Most representatives (especially conservatives) are less than altruistic and favor legislation that benefits their cronies, families, and themselves and maneuver to death or neuter bills that don’t, rather than further the common weal (as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) When it comes to feathering their private nests most are corrupted by power and rationalize that they need to press their advantage to stay in power to continue to “serve the constituency.” The entrenched party has gerrymandered class dense (their constituent class) districts to this end to create safe seats and remain in the majority. The robber-baron analogy is not that far off and it is as you say backed up by not only the threat of state violence but the fact of it. That it is insidious depends on the perceptiveness of the citizenry. Karl Marx thought he had the answer and believed that the “noble goal” of a classless society justified violent revolution which was an integral part of the natural order of “social evolution”. I don’t believe any human being has the right to physically harm another or deprive anyone of personal property regardless of the amount of property one possesses. In order to preserve a reasonable modicum of social order, we as citizens agree to abide by our representatives majority rule or peacefully petition for change. See Absolute Morality below.

Depends on how you frame it.

As a high tech worker for a foreign-owned company, surrounded by mostly non-US born workers, getting close to retirement age, I fall into all kinds of demographic groups that politicians are attempting to pander to.

Also as a photographic artist whose website features lots and lots of nudes I have to regularly contend with email from the people on Christian right who think that I’m sending this country and its moral straight to hell.

And if you saw my earlier comments WRT to Israel you know that I’m an outspoken supporter of many Israeli policies and have pissed of lots of pro-Islamic types.

Any of this makes me fodder for categorizing, but I’m categorically uncategorizable.

That’s never stopped ME before . . .

plnelson: all the categories that you mention that you fit in don’t have the emotional tap root that some others do, like African American/Black or Jewish or Latino ( the underclass especially). “Categories” or identities such as webmaster, poet, painter photographer are quite different and weak by comparison to the point of speaking of apples and oranges. It’s ridiculous to talk of the “amateur photographer’s vote”. C’mon……….

There is a difference between what is and what ought to be. As long as there are politicians who want power influence and office more than anything else, they will take advantage of such weaknesses. It’s also about the culture of how office is gained.

FWIW- Perhaps a hopeful sign, I just heard a report about how voters in Massachusetts are sick of the negative advertising and Deval Patrick, certainly the less negative and pandering of the two candidates, has quite a lead now, the report said, because of that difference.

It is also used as a manipulative tool. Politicians try to speak the ‘language’ of the researcher defined demographic they belive they need votes from. The voters, in an attempt to see which politicians they are aligned with, start buying into to these identities. Whether it’s Meyers-Briggs, high school cliques or identity politics, we seem to need to find our ‘tribe’. It makes us feel safe. So we can be manipulated into accepting these labels. Politicians and marketers of all sorts have found this to be a successful way to sell their products.

But it is destructive. We can analyze it to death, when what we might do instead is reject it. Ultimately, for humans to start living together constructively we have to reject all notions that we should be classified. We can identify common problems we want to address, common projects we’d like to undertake and areas where we respectfully accept our individual differences. We don’t have to label ourselves bassed upon these commonalities and differences. I would prefer if if politicians referred to issues rather than demographic groups. Labels remove fluidity and, therefore, the concept of change. Once you start saying, “I’m a _______” and your idenity is based upon that, it becomes a lot more challenging to become something else. It is very different to say, “I robbed a bank, where do I go from here.” Than to say, “I am a bank robber, where do I go from here?” One questions says, I want to look at what I do. Another says, i want to look at who I am. It’s a lot easier to do something different than to be something different.

I’m blathering now. For many of you this is a topic I’ve gone on about before. The bottom line is that yes, it has become a successful – and, therefore, meaninful – tool for poiticians to practive “identity politics” but at the core the concept is a destructively, manipulative sham.

That doesn’t justify it. You could say the same thing about playing the race card or scaring voters with vague threats of terrorism or WMD’s as a way of getting votes or gaining support for some policy. Those things “work”, too.

“People as groups seem to want that attention at election time even if it’s schmoozing and phoney.”

I can’t parse “people as groups” – I don’t know what that expression means. Do you mean individuals like to hear politicians address groups they are in? I don’t think that’s important to most people. Let’s see – I’m a software engineer, webmaster, poet, painter, photographer, runner, cook, investor, and a bunch of other things. I’m a member of all kinds of professional and special-interest organizations and I can’t recall the last time any of my elected officials made any specific comments to or about of those groups.

Politicians may take positions on things that affect me – Sarbanes-Oxley, f’rinstance or First-Amendment rights (I have content on my website that some people would like to censor) but I couldn’t care LESS if they give a speech before some organization I’m in or make any specific references to people with my vocations or avocations.

I like Sidewalker’s articulation just above.

There are two strains to this conversation and they get mixed. One is about what is and maybe celebrates that at least in part. in part, the other is about what should be but is not.

Regardless of what politician’s believe, it either works for them or it does not.
Identity politics is a kind of language-( politician to voter) “I understand your problems, and concerns” (and I’ll prove it by eating the same food you eat). It’s a fact of life. If it did not work, politicians would not use it. People as groups seem to want that attention at election time even if it’s schmoozing and phoney. In the end it’s up to individuals to wise up to how they are being manipulated. Because so many are not tuned in to what is going on in this country, they are vulnerable, and so we all are.

But what’s a “class”? How many different classes are there and what are they called? How do you tell who’s in what class? And what’s a class interest? Can class be objectively measured or is it like good art – ‘we know it when we see it’ ?

As I demonstrated above, a strong economy, a secure nation, a government free of corruption, etc, benefits EVERYONE regardless of income, education, age, gender, etc. I don’t think you can point to any uniquely “class interests” that will be so universal.

I didn’t say it’s the only “significant” one; I said it’s the only one you can COUNT ON being REAL, and not the fantasy of some paid market manipulator.

If you have an African American woman engineer who’s approaching retirement, WHICH of those various “identities” is the one that will determine her vote for a particular candidate?

The reason why economics is not a predictive science – why you can’t reliably predict stock market peaks and crashes, and how far this or that commodity price will rise or fall, and how low the unemployment rate can REALLY go before inflation sets in (the NAIRU has getting recalibrated for 15 years now) – is precisely because economics cannot model individual humans. Because they are too complex, and their decisions are subject to too many interacting influences. Likewise, “identity” politics ireduces the complexity of actual, real-world human beings to one-dimensional stereotypes. And it fails for that same reason.

The other problem with “identity” politics is not whether “PEOPLE” beleieve in “identity” but that POLITICIANS believe in it! What a GOOD leader should do is base his positions on his philosophy and values and understanding of the facts, and then clearly communicate what his positions are and why he took them. But “identity politics” has created a race of political monsters that are constantly recalibrating themselves to appeals to this or that “identity” group and avoid offending some other “identity” group. The whole thing becomes a markting game devoid of any true leadership. The failure of the Democrats to articulate clear, definite programs and plans is a EXCELLENT example of what’s wrong with “identity” politics, because that’s such endless recalibartion leads to.

I agree, pinelson, that having the same ethnic background does not lead naturally to a shared identity. But this is the same with national background. That’s why a nuanced consideration, which includes gender, class, age, ethnicity and other aspects of self, is important. Sadly, marketers turn this fine texture into slogan and it is mass produced for easy consumption. Though audience research shows us that people interact and creatively play with these identity costumes, these “shams”, as you call them, and create their own forms of self-expression and attachment.

The challenge is finding common ground that can lead to socio-economic change. Herein lies the appeal of class-based interests and notions of human and cultural rights.

They now know it will be possible to tax and spend at a rate that will have us wondering why our paychecks have disapeared. Every special interest group is currently lining up at the trough in expectations of a big handout. At least the GOP tried to limit the damage. We are not known as Taxachusetts for no reason.

Still, I am glad he will win, because I am tired of the Republican governors we have had. ”

I’ve actually been fairly happy with the Republican governors we’ve had – I’m a fiscal conservative and they’ve reflected my values in that respect, without offending too many of my social liberal values.

My biggest problem with Patrick is that Massachusetts will be a one-party state. It is NEVER good, as we’ve seen in the federal government for one party to dominate EVERYTHING. Anyone’s who’s live in Massachusetts as long as I have knows, for example, in races for US Congress that about half the time the Democratic incumbent runs UNOPPOSED!

Think about that for a second. Even in the old USSR you could vote “Da” or “Nyet”. In Massachusetts you don’t even get a “Nyet” vote in some elections.

‘Excitement’ and ‘thrills’ are emotions. Appealing to people’s emotions are how the Republicans convinced Americans to invade Iraq and do a lot of the other stupid things they’re got people into. One of the reasons this country is so screwed up is that voters and the leadership are “thinking” with various body parts OTHER than their heads – their adrenal glands, their genitals, etc.

Barak Obama is a powerful resource for the Democrats and they should think logically about the most efficient way to utilize that resource. He can run for President in 10 years and still win and be a BETTER president then due to more experience – in the meantime he can serve them better in the Senate. Obama in 2008 is an illogical choice as well as a sign of desperation on the Democrats’ part that they can’t think of anything better.

To use a sports analogy, it’s like having a really BAD football team with no talent at any position. But they’ve managed to pick up a phenomenal first-round draft choice, Heisman Trophy winner, and now they expect that rookie to get them into the Superbowl.

Nope.

If you are a legal citizen of the United States; if you qualify for a passport and a social security number you’re an American. There’s nothing fuzzy about it.

I had to laugh when I saw Nother’s comments that “Until recently the party would designate a different phone desk for different identities, they would have a black person calling black people to get out the vote, a Hispanic person calling Hispanic homes, and so on.”

So what makes THOSE things “identities”? Suppose you are a black software engineer living in Lexington Massachusetts. Suppose your wife is a marketing director and between the two of you you pull down $190K. You got two kids in the Lexington school system, and vacation in Europe. Is your “identity” the same as an AIDS victim in Baltimore just because you have the same skin color? I have a relative with the same skin color and last name as me, living in rural Appalachia, who’s a drug addict, works at a gas station, and in and out of jails and rehab centers most of her life. Because we have the same ethnic background does that mean we have the same “identity”?

I’m tyring to tell you guys – this concept is a sham.

Theo Epstein doesn’t work in a field where after two terms at the top you’re automatically out to pasture.

The Democrats are not thinking strategically.