In The Jury Box: 2025

By David Eide

CONTRADICTIONS

What is perilous for American democracy are the various contradictions that could rip it apart and need to be resolved. It's very difficult the larger it becomes to do that very thing. Contradictions such as having a large portion of the people cut away from basic rights in the middle of the society that does nothing but celebrate its basic rights. Or having a democratic conscience in a world power where to sustain the world power things must get done that mock the democratic conscience. Yet if the power is not sustained, a long slide into chaos and utter divisions that will lead to autocracy. There are others.

So the question is can the system of governance contain and resolve those contradictions? Or do the contradictions rip things apart so that the system of governance is impossible to manage the society?

The "division" in this country is simpler than I believe analysts portray it: One part, the urban part does not take on the problems of the other part, the rural part. And the rural part does not take on the problems of the urban part. And they must compete for scarce resources. And if the resources are not forthcoming, the struggle can be life and death. Everything else, including social media, "otherness", resentments derive from that fact.

Remember that the division is not simply between the coasts and the fly-over country. It is within regions, like much of the Sacramento Valley, which is overwhelmingly agricultural and loves its guns, its meat, its trucks, its country/western. It also is replete with conspiratorial and secessionist attitudes. That doesn't make it a bad place but it is a different place. And the contrast between it and the Bay Area coastal area is a stimulating one.

The coasts put attention on justice issues, complex economic issues including the trade agreements that brings globalism to the cities and enrich them, poverty as part of a racial problem, traffic problems, housing problems etc that don't exist or are less in the rural areas.

It is important that you have local power able to deal with local problems with or without federal or state help. That's very difficult when core industries and their jobs flee overseas or down to Mexico and Canada. And long term poverty can make an area dumb with its own pain with a concomitant lack of imagination to deal with shifting ways and means. Many people need to feel the government belongs to them and that is impossible on a federal level. It's possible on a local level that is favored by the right-wing.

************

A society rife with propaganda and generalization is ready for some icon breaking. It's either that or it loses its "soul." The fact that so much of it emanates from academic circles tells me that those circles are both entitled and lazy, made corrupt because they have no or little competition. The only reason you'd maintain it is to try and provide a collective narrative that would "control" votes and economic decisions. But anyone with any integrity as an "intellectual" or scholar is going to break those generalizations and chase the culprits out of town.

The start of it is the rousting of the Trump Administration, another entity rife with generalizations, lies, and propaganda.

Utopia is an excellent way to flex vision. It should have no power but the power to make one think and to delight with possibility.

************

I don't know anyone who likes power or, even wealth. They have functions however and are protected as long as the people flourish. And that is the nib and nub of it. And politics is often a contest between those who are flourishing and those who are not. It's not rocket science. They both create generalizations and myths to protect their position. Is the structure of governance strong enough to sustain this? That is the question.

To have a true sense of "history" you'd have to know everything in the past, you'd have to know not how 1 or 2% of the people lived but how 100% of the people lived 24/7, all the transactions, all the thoughts and things said, all the conflicts and gestures of good will. Just this comprehension would put 99% of the history books either in the dustbin or in the pure entertainment section. History is usually written for the convenience of the era. When a country is fighting wars the history usually mythologizes the society and gives it incentive to win the fight.

When inequality is the main concern, history moves in to show what oppressors the wealthy have always been. In my day, a day that was anti-authority and most everyone believed that the system was rigged, history tried to portray the common people, the "people not in the history books," the "unwritten history." They were the heroes. It never is enough and can lead to bad politics, ineffective politics, entitled as it is by "history."

February 17, 2025

DIVISION

In a steaming pot of political crap where resentment and hate dominate, politics itself is discredited because it has killed off the spirit of democracy. Anyone who can buy into what is going on in this culture "has never seen the finer days."

"But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government." Madison Federalist NO. 49. Not a romantic notion but certainly right for political virtue.

A quick survey from 1492 to the present throughout the hemisphere. Pre-columbian, natural state of affairs, Spanish colonization south, French, English, Dutch, Swedes along the eastern seaboard, slavery, English subdue the French, the colonies rebel and set up their own government, they expand westward into the heart of it, it splits over slavery and fights a civil war, the industrial revolution sweeps through even as the "west is being won," inventions compound inventions as new immigrants come in, into America on the world stage, suffering massive depression, World War II, atomic age, rocketry, electronic advances, expansive economy, rebellion by students, blacks, women, Reaganism "return to normal", computer/internet, smart phone revolutions, War on Terrorism, divided America, challenged America.

I don't think a consistent ideology can be hacked out of it or easy conclusions made. The diversity of peoples and activities/beliefs vindicate a growing affluent society that can relinquish the wisdoms of scarcity and tolerate just about everything that seemed impossible. The kicker being, does that sow the seeds of a new scarcity? And since the affluence is not uniform, constant protest in and out of the political system over disparity.

How much can the culture tolerate? When will the thing get so corrupt and fearful that it kills off its own basic, foundational principles that allow for liberal democracy?

************

It seems that when a nation is growing there is a lot of wiggle room for mistakes, bad policies, badness itself. As long as it goes up learning curves and improves itself it is progressing.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Federalist #48- Madison.

Did you read that one Trump?

Most of democracy is unconscious assumptions. It gets tricky when one gets a bit of experience and knowledge on, then things light up, temptation lights up, disillusionment becomes a test, you have to treat everything as a becoming, as a learning curve and be interested enough to play it all out to the bitter end.

While it is necessary to connect with the past and know it as fully as possible, it's also true that the past never makes the grade because the successive generations have progressed. This operates on a collective as well as individual level. If that is true and if the learning curves are distributed unequally, it stands to reason that "politics" would be "different" depending on where you are on the learning curve. Assuming politics is a projection of "who we are" or "who we want to be."

************

Are the coastal elite oppressive to the middle of the country? I've thought so from time to time as any "thing" more powerful than another "thing" will be unequal and can devolve into oppression.

The coasts benefited greatly from globalism and the high tech revolution. I'm so embedded in the west coast maybe I'm not the one to ask. The coastal elites ask a simple question, "what does the interior have to teach me?" The coasts don't want the fundamentalism, the provincialism and the like. They love the national parks and quaint simplicity of some of the towns and visit there occassionally. The people are like distant relations who you warm up to when you visit then forget about the rest of the time.

The common people did exactly what they needed to do and shake the elites up. The division between them is the division between "national government" and "federalism." It's natural for smaller, less complicated areas to want most responsibility within the states. And, with Trump, we are witnessing a large scale shift from the national cohesion of the post World War II period, to a new federalism where states will do a lot of the heavy lifting. This will be fought over, at any rate, for the next several decades.

I didn't see a lot of rot in small town America as I drove through the west a few years ago. I saw poverty among the whites. I didn't see seething hatred.

I don't think it was that much different when I was young. I drove up to the Redding/Shasta area a few times in the 60's and saw a lot of poverty, a lot of welfare in that area. I didn't view it as a competitive area, political wise, with the Bay Area. It was, as now, heavily Republican.

But there does seem to be something that turned me off to the coastal elites. I suppose it's the arrogance that comes with money, power, and mobility. The antagonists have fundamentally different ways of viewing issues so it will be quite a ride through this decade.

I'm not hyper critical of the coastal elites. I remember when Silicon Valley was taking shape, when it mushroomed into what it is now, producing these giant companies that dominate the world. When it exploded in the late 70's, early 80's I could feel the energy from my little abode in Berkeley, thirty miles away. It was nearly physical. I've never felt anything like it before or since.

One thing is generally true: Elites will make rules that they themselves don't follow. It's almost a cliche. It's also true that elites are hauled down each generation and replaced with a new set.

************

Is it that people who voted for Trump and still support him don't see freedom as a reality? Don't see the individual as anything but an illusion? The supporters, that is, not the libertine, nihilist billionaires who do whatever they want whether it is perverse or unlawful. Is progress, among the supporters, seen as a mask for something devious? I can't make a judgment. I think they are intimidated by the world and want their simple representation of it front and center, in the oval office. I don't think it's more complicated than that. Or, are they simply a democratic check on the unleashed powers that don't know their limitations or boundaries as all tyrannical power does? Whether the tyranny is the increasing administrative state or science and technology or capitalism and globalism, it's more than small democratic communities can deal with and feel they are still agents in the flow of history.

************

Reading the Federalist Papers it is evident to me that the framers put the burden of broken empires and governments on the predations of wealth. That the Constitution was created "for the people" "by the people" since it emanated from them, delivered to them by elite and wealthy people who were enlightened, to the extent that they were conscious of their own corruption. The framers knew their own kind and that elites usually divide between the nihilists like Aaron Burr or the cynical like most of them were, only made "good" by old verities like "honor" and "Christian values" that don't count anymore, apparently. Without those verities wealth is nakedly nihilistic and cynical.

The two main things to understand is that concentrated wealth destroys nations and the liberal democracy was made for the people, the middle-class people who do all the work. Wealth was able to control both the political and cultural values at the expense of building a middle class that believes in itself, ever since the Reagan years. How that building is done is another question. I know it involves building upward mobility from the poor into the middle class and strengthening of the labor unions.

There were large splits in the American spirit that I saw when I was a young man. One was the split between the "spiritual" and the "secular" that split politically and socially when it should be contained within the individual self and resolved there.

Another split was between the "democratic conscience" and the fact America was a world power. To maintain it, it would have to do some nasty things. To let it go would mean a deformation of its social culture, more conflict, more tension, more oppression.

The political splits I saw, eventually, as part of democracy, the very thing Madison believed needed "ambition fighting ambition", created a lot of checks and balances. He didn't want the system completely clogged up in conflict though.

And there is a vast difference between 1800's America and 21st century America. The penultimate need is to balance wealth creation and the "flourishing of the people" to produce tranquility. Both sides of the equation. Both.

Of course we speak of huge entities. America is outlined against oceans and gulfs and borders on the north and south. With 330 million people from all sorts of backgrounds and beliefs, ages, races, geographies, incomes and so on. How can the mind deal with all the systems, the minutae of billions of transactions a day, the complications within a project much less ones own life? How can you get the trust in the people that "everyone knows what they are doing?"

An academic but haunting question going deep into the 21st century: What keeps the armies from raging in this huge land mass as would happen in any other place on the globe, as has happened in Europe, Asia, and Africa? It's the strength of the Republic with a national government to take care of the big stuff and independent states who take care of the regional stuff. And who, in their right mind, would want to destroy the opportunities for a good life?

February 7, 2025

AMERICA IS AN IDEA

The "idea" side of America is bankrupt. It's one of the prime reasons Trump is President. No intelligence worth its salt is going to let the experiences of 40-50 years ago impose their assumptions on it. The Democrats are bankrupt. Their political imaginations and experiences are forty or fifty years old. Their leadership is shapeless gas appealing to cultural assumptions that are way overdue for a breaking. I've written on this in Events, at least 15 years ago. I thought Obama would be the new transformative guy but he got swamped by the errors of his predecessor. Trump is transformative in a very negative sense but an opening is there if "liberals" and "intellectuals" would get their head out of their asses.

************

I think this describes a dilemma: liberal democracy in America was no longer an effusive, joyful understanding of building something new. It had become a burden. And the question was when will the critical mass of citizens give up the burden? If all their enthusiasm and joy is cannibalized by people with a thousand times more resources then why would they continue to do it?

The burden was 1) the complexity of the world which required a series of systems and expertise to operate, so the sense that I, a single citizen, had no power and was dependent on things I didn't have a clue about and 2) the necessity of maintaining America as a world power and all the compromises that entail.

If this is the case, what kind of solution is available but for the citizen to work him and herself up to a point where they know enough to understand, even celebrate, the necessity? And from understanding the need, to solve problems and not to repeat problems.

Democracy as consciousness itself.

It is the responsibility of the citizen to give democracy some cred and work from the idea that significant things grow and develop as a result of democracy. And that what it produces is not frozen in time for fear of destroying an illusion of perfection.

************

No doubt the citizen goes through profound disillusionment before he discovers his maturity. There is a delicate balance between "knowing the system" and critiquing it. The chief thing to criticize is abuse either to individuals, groups, or the system itself because the goal of the system is to liberate the human being and encourage the widest range of activity as possible without losing connection to the system or society.

The problem with much of the academic ideas about what "America" is, defined through class, race, and gender is that most people do have dynamic experiences in the society. It is not one thing.

They are bottom dogs, they move into better positions, they join new groups and associations, they gain a sense of themselves through experience. Most academic ideas talk through the bottom, up and fail to understand everything that is between the bottom and the up. So the majority of people resist any change in the structure that would disenfranchise them or limit them or make them feel they are the problem.

The academic views would tend to incite people to absolute positions that would result in either, total exhaustion, therefore no meaningful change or two, a frontal attack on the society and its institutions.

In the poor communities I've lived in no one was more despised than the white liberal/radical from the university.

Ideas have to be put forward that call for reform, to open the bottom to more opportunity while preserving the successful structure so many are dependent on and sacrifice on behalf of.

America tries to teach mutual respect and that no one is better than anyone else. These are very fragile verities without a doubt. It does not prevent large amounts of grievance or resentment because of class or racial disparities, but it undermines the massive resistance that would bring on a revolution of some sort.

It is far better to stress respect for all people and the acknowledgment that no one is better than anyone else. than it is to create frozen classes that are immutable, especially through an agency no one can control.

In an ideal state "everyone" should encourage "all" to strive for their best and help them achieve it. The question is whether certain groups have truly benefited or not. From someone who is still at the bottom the answer would be no. But then most are not at the bottom. Not only should there be protests at the lack of upward mobility but it should appeal to all who know the true dynamics of the culture.

February 1, 2025

ELITES AND PEOPLES

What elite in history has ever been "for" democracy? Democracy has always been about organizing the disgust of the people for being "outside" the power of the elites. In a Republic this has to be done in a semi-orderly way but the ends must initiate change. Maybe the "end" results in the fall of one elite for another who knows. Or the elites take the responsibility to connect the disgusted public with the ongoing process of the society in ways that make people feel meaningful.

Projecting fear onto Trumpers is not the way to go. Supporting Trump is not the way.

I saw this polarity many years ago and I've learned not to have loyalty to one polarity or the other. These are standard, fixed roles. Change comes from those who run between the poles exciting the electrons from each polarity to join with them, in a conducting stream to a new future.

************

Many American citizens want a direct democracy. Or, they feel that is the only justification for the word democracy. Which means: The direct translation for political will on the part of large portions of the people, into political action. The liberal democracy works against it so it's a marginal fact most of the time. Trump represents a crude version of "direct democracy", at least from his supporters point of view. But direct democracy is liable to be the most abusive type of political will since even majorities who feel privileged as majorities, have enemies. Those, in other words, who they fear and hate.

Populism expands when the institutions are in disgrace. The question is where and how does a new liberal democracy arise?

************

Most of the nuttiness in the people's response to politics comes from ignorance, not of the political nuances they are called on to judge, but of the structure of power. The ego of the average American citizen is no different than the ego of the average Roman citizen or average citizen of medieval Germany. The structure of power is always bad for them. It takes the average citizen some time to figure out how to make the structure of power gift a few things their way.

Even at the height of the dark ages, if a powerful leader sensed the people were ticked off he'd institute some land reform to allow the toilers greater return on their sweat and toil. We've advanced it a bit, rationalized it a bit and certainly the living standard for the majority of people speak to some healthier relation between the free people and the structure of power.

It throws people off to see primitive responses to citizens seeking power, such bitterness and hatred as if the people are transformed into demonic creatures recently up from Hell to cause problems. At that level differences do not inspire thought but a kind of war where the stakes are "my view of reality, which I hold onto dearly, for without it what would I be but another nasty animal to die and be forgotten?"

This occurs when the people have destroyed any sense, secular or religious, of transcendence. Life has battered them down, their mouths and brains are pressed into the dirt and yell and screech because it feels the hot feet of other devils walking near them.

Yet, if one is not a devil then what chance does he or she have in this life?

And yet, the thing seems to muddle through.

January 23, 2025

INAUGURAL THOTS

As far as Trump. Well, he's now the establishment. He is now the power as are his minions and the MAGA movement. So let's see how he operates. Let's see if he solves problems or creates them. I have no part in it.

From a distance it looks like Putin's kleptocracy is in place with the wealthy types heading up his cabinet. He opens the future, not to more and better liberal democracy but, as people have stated over and over, a new form of tyranny. A catastrophe will occur unless those people are enlightened, angelic, nearly perfect beings which I seriously doubt.

We always wish every administration good luck before it begins, no matter its politics. We say the same for Trump. Let us have a thriving, freedom loving, expressive, honest, trustworthy society that points itself to an enlightened future. Let us have it.

Let's see much more efficiency in the process of getting poor people into a productive place.

Let's see an improvement in the health care system. Let us see great pride for what we build here, what we make here, what we do here.

And, of course, if it all blows up, even by degrees, Trump will be abandoned by one and all, beginning with his very ambitious vice-President. Trumpism and the MAGA will go down as a pox, as a dark stain on American history, and its' politics will be buried hard and fast for several generations.

After Trump will come the new elites as the newer generations fight for cultural power and place.

************

So the inside becomes the outside and the outside becomes the inside. Very interesting. Revealing. The outside, who were once inside, had better get creative and rethink this culture and society in the next four years. -

************

The Inauguration: I enjoyed the choir singing Battle Hymn of the Republic. It made me think of my great great grandparents and their participation in the Civil War. They were medical people and volunteered from the state of Wisconsin. My great great grandfather was captured in Huntsville, Alabama having stayed behind to help the wounded. Or so family lore says.

Trump extols what used to be called, "American know-how that used to build railroads, win World Wars, fly to the moon, etc etc." A lot of that energy has been missing the past forty years because the society was concerned with cleaning up after the building had been done.

It was actually kind of refreshing to hear.

He seems to be on a kind of crazy, one-man crusade. I do know this: that last forty years of political thought is becoming obsolescent by the moment. Those forty years were founded on civil rights, women's rights, environmental, and anti-war sentiments. It's all kind of curdled over and is only a real response in academia. The question is whether the Democratic Party stays connected to academia. The Republicans have gone the odd popular culture/right-wing think tank route. Their avatars are Pro wrestlers, awful actors, and cussin' pissin' rock stars among others. That will be the national culture. I have no trust or faith in it. I've lost faith and trust in academia so where am I? lol. Nowheresville.

It's amazing how well Trump presents himself and seems so stalwart and believable one moment and in the next moment totally undermines himself so you turn him off in disgust and say to yourself, "he has no credibility." "He's got incurable mental, emotional problems." It's bizarre that no one in his camp has ever tried to correct this self-sabotaging flaw in him.

I will follow the resistance although that's tiring in itself. They lie and exaggerate like Trump and are jealous of his power. They are of the upper middle professional class that is protected and padded and doesn't feel the sting of economic stagnation or crime and can afford to be "tolerant" and "objective". At least they try to read good books. Unless you've been trapped by this economy with no exit up ahead, for over a decade, you can't understand Trumps' appeal. And why no leadership arose to try and ameliorate this condition is a political flaw, if not tragedy.

The opposition to Trump can be intelligent and know where to hit. I think in some cases it should be relentless, as long as it gets the facts right. Don't go fishing for the confrontation, let it come naturally from simple observation and investigation. Restore human feeling and compassion, which is a very tall order in politics. If Trump is successful in, especially, cutting the budget, reducing the debt in a way that does little harm then give him the credit. If his harsh stand at the border allows for the space to develop a rational border then give him credit. But know where to hit.

January 20, 2025

Some general thoughts directed to no one in particular: How do people who hate the society, hate the people, hate the history, hate the means of production, hate the forms of organization expect to get anywhere?

I don"t want anything to do with "class warfare" or "race and gender" battles. These conflicts will never be resolved and so will undermine the strength of the democracy. And it's the same arguments, the same ideas, the same people often.

They do raise some good points. I want a full, free inclusive liberal democracy where all people feel that they can move from the place they find themselves in to a better one.

If there is no or little respect for your opponents in politics, then the thing starts to break down, it becomes an infection and toxic, nothing really changes and when that happens the culture itself has to be much more vital than the politics. That's the great saving grace in a liberal democracy.

Vitality away from the infection known as politics. That is the difference between a free society and a totalitarian one. And the politics are very toxic, the thinking classes are toxic and can't think themselves out of the box that the virus has forced them into.

Perhaps a new generation comes along and rolls it all over and something new appears on the other side. But the vitality has to keep going, the freedom has to keep manifesting and making.

So much easier for the "revolution" to give up the illusion and merge with the "reform" than the other way around. At least in a liberal democracy.

I think I tried to get to a non-alienated state. That to me was one of the goals of liberal democracy. A state where one was fully who one was going to be, one who had been tested by the modern world and had come out better than when he went in. Perhaps one falls way short but the attempt reveals many things.

Well, America is America what can I say? It's either a nightmare or a resource. It can trap you or liberate you with the right resources in hand. The more you try to control or think you have control the farther you are from actual power. It's a mind game.

************

Liberal democracy seems to be the most dispersed power system that still stays coherent. That calls on deft identities among the citizens, a commitment to continue the experiment through Constitutional law and the experience of freedom, not-freedom, outside of freedom. So that, in the end, there is the reality of freedom that can't be abstracted away.

January 18, 2025

The impurity of politics always trumps the purity of intent.

I think the idea behind the Constitution was this: We, the framers, want to establish a Republic. Done right, a Republic will deliver the best government, the most sound administration of law. In doing that it produces security, tranquility, and the ability of the democratic citizens to flourish, to pursue their happiness, to engage in a meaningful life, thus, supporting the nature of the system and wanting it to continue. The enemies to this scheme were, (a) corruption which is in the nature of human beings who want power or want to hold onto power, (b) mob rule which is often expressed in the democratic people, (c) foreign intrigue that manipulates policy against the well-being of the people.

In the places where this idea is apparently the case, the thing works. But in places where there is no tranquility or pursuit of happiness there is disruption in the form of protest, crime, drug use, criticism, adoption of anti-philosophies like cults or ideological foes of the liberal democracy. So the system has to respond, the system has to be aware and try to ameliorate the conditions that lead to the disruption. The people have the right to organize and "petition the government for a redress of grievance." I think that was basically true in 1787 and it's true today.

There are some added qualities that have impact on the perception of the citizens, their sense of well-being, such as large-scale capitalism, the full maturity of science and technology, instant communications to virtually everyone at-all-times, the consciousness of massive threats to humanity outside the boundaries of liberal democracy and/or the US.

What is the relation from the one to the other? How does the person evolve from a member of the angry, alienated group to a free, liberal democratic citizen?

************

The large scale at which people perceive often breaks down the careful boundaries necessary for a self as well as a liberal democracy. The inhuman perception of the world is more apt to produce a feeling of nihilism that can translate into panic on the one hand and fierce will to power on the other.

************

I can't say for certain why politics arises from, apparently, the first consciousness. I think Nietzsche is right that the "will to power" is the driving force in the universe. And that liberal democracy is the "best" system that can absorb that driving force and deliver a more stable and tranquil society. You can't ignore in the facts of a large land mass, protected by oceans, benign borders, vast natural resources, a tradition of freedom among other things that contribute to the success of the liberal democracy. It does have to have some integrity, both the system and the citizens.

Know Thyself and then extend out in wider and wider circles. Don't try to grasp it all with one glance. That's what freedom and wisdom seem to counsel.

Justice is necessary. Just because the system is operating and is not falling apart does not mean all is well. There are always problems, so a portion of the people need to pursue the solution or do fact finding in relation to the problems. The free citizens are their best solution if they live out their freedom justly, honestly, with respect for others and loyalty to basic principles.

Economy matters. The morale of the people matters. The suffering of people matters.

Of course, there isn't simply a "government", there is a Congress made up of a House of Representatives and Senate, an Executive or President, a Supreme Court and many quasi-governmental agencies. One operative in one agency could tell a hundred stories about the system that never get told.

The only contribution I could make to this area is the thought experiment involving a "free liberal democratic citizen" and all the processes and coercians that try and reduce that citizen. So what is his or her "fullness?" That to me is the key question. And that is skirting the edge of a literary project. There's no waste in studying the government or trying to fit its complexity inside the mind and imagination.

************

It's very difficult to have an ideal of "self-rule" when the self doesn't know what is going on and doesn't know the government or the ideas behind the government. What, exactly, is he and she going to "rule"?

I think it's true that the citizen does have instinct about survival, his own and the societies survival.

The baby boomers had a central flaw. They dismissed and evaded the reality of politics and the necessity to develop leadership. This was a result of the disillusionment of Vietnam, Watergate, civil rights, historic abuses, corporate malfeasance etc. They more times escaped political reality than engaged it after Carter.

What is needed is for the younger generation to free itself of whatever hold that generation has and find its political core and enrich it with many items until political leaders emerge out of that core. The baby boomers did wonderful things but in that aspect fell way short. Unless you tell me that Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump are the epitome of American political life.

************

I often return to the beauty I found in the world, the good I found, the richness I found. It is there.

January 14, 2025

I always ask questions of those who want my loyalty or some authority over me:

• Could a Constitution have been born through you?
• Would you have attempted to discover the length and breadth of the US?
• Would you have defended Little Round Top?
• Would you have done all you could to develop tolerance and stamp out the many instances of hatred that plagued the history of the US?
• Would you have refused the immoral order?

Among other questions that you address to people who want power or loyalty. Not that there is right or wrong answer but the answer itself would tell me what I wanted to know.

************

The weakest minds are susceptible to the strongest theories. It's uncanny how that rolls out each generation.

************

Media is not Society. It is more Culture. Society is my experience plus my knowledge in a self-conscious group. I just drove on a freeway with many others and their cars and trucks. I intermingled a bit with some in the pharmacy. I interacted with persons at the hotel. My society. This is dynamic, this is worth reflecting and meditating on. Culture is something that either has credibility or it doesn't. Media presents itself as the fount of culture and fights with itself to see who will dominate the cultural narrative for this bit of time. It changes several times in one lifetime.

I have never been in a period of time where all Media lacks the credibility it has now. It's not trustworthy and the words are hollow. Whether this represents a threat to democracy is another question. Perhaps it is a sign we are evolving into a new form of democracy, a new form of narrative that puts everything up in the air so to speak. It would explain the pervasive extremism "on all sides", as well as the need for a new consensus.

Some culture offers up good, intelligent, creative energy. Most culture fakes it. Most culture is created and produced, in this country, by people who are too young, too inexperienced, too lacking knowledge to be of use. The two pervasive expressions of energy are rebellion and sexuality. These are the components of the great modern rut.

************

I generally agree with this statement: "America is arrogant and needs to learn from criticism and examples from other countries and cultures."

It's arrogance or more likely ignorance and isolation.

************

In a democracy you want all to be represented, all who feel they have a stake in the future. But you'd think and hope that the democratic people would mature to the point where they don't vote and support those who "look like me." Doesn't that trivialize the very nature of a democracy?

************

Media and academia will have to adjust because they lack total credibility at the moment. They are equal with government and corporation in the eyes of the despising people. They have lost their ability to "tell the truth" since they begin with a skewered point of view.

When politics gets toxic you simply let it go and let it fall into the exhausted heap it will disintegrate into.

New politicians and new ideas emerge out of the disintegration to those who are alert and aren't taken down into the fires so to say. Withdrawal, reinvestment, emergence. That sounds about right.

************

Politics is short-term, a 2-4 year horizon that has both good and bad elements. There are investments such as infrastructure, that have long-term benefits that are hard to implement because no one wants to be responsible for the increase taxes. On the other hand, each policy that comes up in the short-term is given a great deal of due diligence, so that the people are fully educated about the policy. It becomes part of the political culture. It may not hold in one cycle but at a later cycle it may, the policy, be fully understood and accepted. The short-term insures that new blood, new ideas will cut through the political culture.

************

The political culture would improve greatly if the people actually embraced the Constitution and understood how advantageous it is. For one thing it prevents politics from becoming absolute. The dominance of one political idea will invariably generate a counter political idea that, if credible, will challenge the dominance of the rival political idea. Politics changes quickly, it is transitory. It is not a steady state line that goes in one direction. The Constitution also has a Bill of Rights that tells power, in essence, to allow the people to develop as they will, as they can. The challenge to the Constitution is, ironically enough, in the financial system that has developed over the past few centuries. Money has become what determines the free people rather than the freedom itself. Only small numbers of people each generation can try to find new freedom. It can only occur when the determination of money, its hypnotism, is broken. While progressive politics can make some inroads to the money system, it can not and will never transform it into a socialist one. There isn't enough demand for it and would only occur with the overcoming of the Constitution, thus ending this phase of American political life.

If change, that trite but magical word, is radical and fast, the resistance then becomes radical and strong. You may have a prong or two into the future but that will all be pushed back by the resistance. Whereas if change is slight, resistance is slight. One slight change is added to another and another, not increasing the resistance until at point D you look back at point A and realize much has changed and the resistance is small because the advance and its resistance allowed people to assimilate the change.

January 9, 2025

---

Click here to send your comments on what you read here.

Old Events/First Columns:

Post-election 2004

Election 2004

On Political Culture

On the Debates

War on Terrorism

The California Recall

The Progressive Era

What is a perfect President?

On Political Culture

On JFK Assassination

The Clinton Bubble

The state of things

IRAQ

Affirmative Action

Liberals and Nuders

The Trent Lott Affair

Why the Democrats are in Trouble

The Uncertain Decade

Back to Media Resource page

eide491@earthlink.net

Copyright 2024