higher modalities

one of my favorite phrases from the last presidential election came from John Kerry. apparently, when he failed to fully articulate himself to his opponent, he was fond of levying the accusation that s/he "failed to understand the higher modalities of the situation." what an ingenious trump card to hold in your back pocket! (I have tried to use it many times myself on unsuspecting persons). (I imagine that now they's beginnin' to s'spect sump'n).

I am suspicious of the two-party political system in America, as well as its non-binary collegiate counterpart, social fraternities and sororities. part of this may well be my individualist nature; I resent being told what to believe and whom to befriend (although if Michel Foucault is correct, I've probably been socialized much more insidiously...there's an interesting new article about him here). one of JD's friends from college is a fascinating case study: a staunch Republican in college, he now campaigns on behalf of the Democratic party. he's an issue-voter for sure, but I can't help but think that his political enthusiasm is merely an outlet for his sociable nature (one of those "joiner" types Tocqueville praises) rather than any manifestation of idealism, lofty or otherwise (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that...)

what I resent is the increasing centrism of the two-party system to the point where the parties are hardly distinguishable. politics have certainly made for strange bedfellows, and the resultant offspring are so discordant that the purportedly big tents don't represent anyone very well right now. in large measure, one feels that s/he is compelled to endorse the lesser of two evils, or to take a principled stand and vote third-party (also known as "throwing away your vote") . the dichotomies (that is, all the various permutations of voting your conscience/voting your pocketbook, along with all the "a-vote-against-me-is-a-vote-for-terrorism" bullshit) ought to be false ones. enter cynicism and political disengagement.

the farmer-statesman is certainly a romanticized trope, but it's one that seems increasingly desirable in this age of the career politician. I am dumbstruck by the insatiable hunger for power of those in high political office, and by the parallel lust for money (and power) of those in the executive suite who use the former to their personal advantage (in case you can't tell, I caught part of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington last weekend). [If you want to read a very interesting article about income distribution in America, check this out--it will give you a good visual.]

in the last post, I alluded to a possible shift toward populism. a few nights ago, JD and I listened to a rather fascinating exchange between Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Casey Mulligan, an economist at the greatest school on earth, but an awfully dismal scientist, in my view. this was moderated by Milt Rosenberg (also a greatest school affiliate, and quite an engaging radio host, I might add). summarily, Dorgan is considered a populist by many, and has written a book entitled "Take This Job and Ship It", while Mulligan is your basic free-market libertarian. as one who voted libertarian in the last election, I am increasingly dissatisfied with that position and thought Mulligan's position was lacking...cojones. it's easy enough to trot out economic theory whenever you're asked a pragmatic question, but when he kept referencing an unlikely example involving Barcelona when every listener knew he was being asked about Baja California and Shanghai--well that's pretty evasive and intellectually dishonest, if you ask me...as usual, I digress...

I guess the sociopolitical question for me is this: is it preferable to promote a laissez faire policy of free trade with the expectation that this will "flatten" the world economically (this proposition is dubious--some argue that it will yield a "pointy" world of a fabulously wealthy few living amidst masses of the poor) or is a somewhat protectionist policy favorable? (I can't wait to read JBE's Gifford Lectures on Sovereignty, but I've already been convinced by Hannah Arendt, and Reinhold Niebuhr, and to some extent, Bonhoeffer, that state sovereignty is legitimately sanctioned in Christian ethics ). one of Dorgan's many good points was that when big businesses in america search the globe to find the cheapest labor possible, they are really promoting slave labor, undoing the considerable reforms fought for in the united states for over a century by bypassing them entirely. I do think it's unconscionable that such businesses should in any way be rewarded for doing so (via tax breaks and other political favors) and for exporting jobs that have historically paid a living wage. I certainly don't think that state sovereignty precludes our duties to those around the globe--but I think it's doubtful we'll help many raise their standard of life by lowering those of "the last great hope" (note: I'm not necessarily speaking consumption-wise).

my main reservation with populism is that it may well tend to a tyranny of the majority. according to wikipedia, the opposite of populism is elitism, and I'm all for that, too. perhaps I'm really a communitarian?

until next time, here's to striving to understand the higher modalities of the situation.