On Tuesday the US presidential cycle reached its first major milestone, with Iowans caucusing to determine the fates of the GOP’s contenders. As the unofficial start of 2012’s election madness (in fact already well under way), Iowa offers an opportunity to reflect on what rehashing the whole fatuous pretense every four years actually means.
In the systems prevailing around the world today, those of political decision-making, public policy is crafted by an infinitesimal fraction of society — one whose interests are not at all representative of the general population’s. Historically, the state has provided the means through which a circle of rich, ruling elites shifts its costs onto an unwary public and monopolizes the benefits of productive activity.
Since its naissance as the institutionalization of conquest and theft, however, the state has come to be regarded as something else entirely. Today, the state, the great predator of the innocent, enjoys a reputation as guardian of the weak and attendant of justice. And practical politics — that liturgy of the modern state in which the opera of elections is substituted for a government of, by and for the people — has been instrumental in varnishing that reputation.
Intermittent rituals like Iowa, rather than presenting a real opportunity to influence government, serve to pacify a populace victimized by government at every opportunity.
As a matter of course, allowing a privileged few to formulate rules for all results in rules calculated to favor those few. Free and open competition, based on equality in rights and fairness in exchange, is never the operating principle in an arrangement whereby some people have a legal prerogative to decide how everyone can use their resources, both tangible and intangible.
Instead, the modus operandi of the political process has always been and will continue to be that of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. As Duke University economist Thomas J. Nechyba succinctly described this phenomenon, “[T]he ‘winners’ are a concentrated few for whom it is easy to organize politically while the ‘losers’ are a diffuse many who barely notice why it is they are losing.”
Such is the nature of monopoly and the reason that it necessarily relies on the coercive, preclusive power of the state.
Among campaigning politicians, the constant rhetorical refrain is fixed on practical solutions to problems facing the country, on “making government work” for ordinary folks. But the representative politics that Americans recognize just isn’t designed to do anything outside of cementing and legitimizing a system of state-enforced corporate capitalism.
Whoever ends up in Washington, money and influence will be waiting there to secure privileges, expressed as laws and regulations that shackle competition. Politicians and their votes will go to the highest bidder, the benefits of obstructing genuine individual rights and voluntary exchange going to the most well-connected.
Getting money out of politics is made impossible by the very nature and definition of politics. The state is an agency of an economic ruling class, and elections are its exiguous attempt at public relations. Real democracy in a stateless society would mean consensually organized groups administering their own affairs, free from aggressive, external rule.
Corporate execs and our “public servants” were the big winners in Iowa. The best the rest of us can do is pull out our votes, withdrawing our participation and getting down to creating the kind of society we want outside of politics.
Citations to this article:
- David D'Amato, Why 2012 election is a pacifier for the proles, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 01/05/12
Great article!
Nothing in the world could be more empty than most of the Presidential debate. It's been years since the political system has even made a pretense to try to deal with any of our real problems (the politicians compulsively deny them). But they are getting more ridiculous by the minute in this attempt (the whole fake payroll tax issue).
But really since the NDAA passed I think we've finally crossed the rubicon. Only one thing really matters now and it is certainly not the lame brained politicians and the nonsense that comes out of their mouths, that is almost entirely a distraction from what matters. Only one thing matters most: fighting the now fully fascist state.
I don't know how Kevin keeps so optimistic about the future :). I'd like to have some of what he's smoking, it should be legal
In order to fight a great evil-by whatever means, at any rate-optimism of a certain quality is needed. Even if the Spanish Anarchists (and their allies) did lose, to go out and fight off that monster Franco took great courage. That courage obviously derived from an optimism of a certain sort. The optimism derives from knowing one is in the right. Might does not make right. True, the good guys don't always win; but, that is no reason for the good guys to give up.
To be radical requires optimism about the future, while retaining one's pessimism in regards to the present. No, none of us may live to see our cause triumph, or this terrible state of affairs end. But, one must still go forth, and do all one can. It doesn't require drugs to do so.
Rothbard's essay, "Left and Right" always cheers me up. So does Long's retrospective on it.
Why did you delete the PRINT opportunity?
I have to admitt that I have little faith that our electoral system is anything more than a sham, a mana for the masses to make us THINK that we have some control over the train-wreck that politics has become. On the other hand, short of armed revolution, I'm not sure what to do other than cast a vote in some direction with the hope that it might make some difference. If anyone here has any better ideas I'd love to hear them; really! I find myself very forlorn since I've realized what a lie our system is and I'd certainly welcome any ideas or suggestions on what We the People might be able to do to actually affect change.
I know things seem bleak, but don't fall into this either-or trap: the choice between armed revolution (depotism), voting (insanity), and surrender (retreat) is merely a choice between means that will never create the desired ends. Try reading Kevin Carson's book review of Scott Crow's "Black Flags and Windmills".
Far too many anarchists and libertarians, whatever their economic persuasion, are easily seduced into the political means. Whether voting or violence, it promises instant solutions. But, creating a new society is not possible by a violent stroke. Consider the American Revolution: after unseating the British Empire, the wealthy landowners fastened a Constitution upon the people. Though dressed in the language of liberty, it has ALWAYS been little more than a tool in the interests of the ruling class. It, for a time, legitimized slavery. Besides, Lysander Spooner demonstrated that the constitution is of no authority. It was never operative; the system, any political system, has always been a lie.
As for what to do? Why, the answer is in front of you; build the new, by yourself and/or with others, within the shell of the old. Educate yourself on every possible subject you can. Educate others. Build alternative instutitions. Do anything but electoral politics. Elections never solved anything, really.
BTW, what is your current political alignment? It might help me in recommending books, sources, and people.