We wish.
Here are some sobering insights on our "Democratic" front runners and biggest proponents for an illusory change of politics.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16163
I must admit to a being tempted by the prevailing rhetoric of change. And Obama is a pretty seductive messenger.
Nevertheless, my political agenda remains unchanged.
Until Christ returns:
Wendell Berry for president!
6 comments:
Wendell Berry is too Kingdom oriented to ever accept the presidency, even if it were offered to him. I, too, doubt that under Obama much would change in relation to the topics in the article (NAFTA, healthcare, war). I'm not familiar with Z Net, Glen Ford or BlackAgenda, but the tone strikes me as oppositional rather than conciliatory. A description of this contrast and a favorable view of the _manner_ in which Obama might lead can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
While substantial change is unlikely, a difference in style could have a positive effect in this part of the world. J
...and a positive effect on American political discourse, perhaps. I am hope_ful_, but not hoping _in_. J
Jason,
Thanks for responding.
I take your point regarding Wendell Berry, and cast my vote knowing full well that American politics could not accomodate him, and that he could not accomodate public office.
Nontheless...
In regard to Glen Ford, BlackAgenda, ZNet, Zmag, etc., I must admit a certain ignorance. However, I am aware, and largely sympathetic with, the political godfather of these folks; one Noam Chomsky. Several if not all of the contributors to this vehicle of radical political dissent (Z) are Anarchists of one stripe or another. They cannot but be oppositional, as a conciliation with a fully corrupt system of governance only serves to perpetuate the status quo. This brings me then to Obama.
If, as you admitted, Obama will bring no real structural change to the way America operates in the world, what is the benefit? And for whom? I understand your point regarding perception, but I fear this poses a great danger rather than a value. If global capitalism as represented by NAFTA, WTO, the American military.. are allowed to continue in their current operations in the world, and are abetted by the American political system, then the underlying reasons for the hate America has garnered in the world will remain unchanged. Obama would then serve merely to "mask" the evil inherent in these operations, and no lasting change will be affected. This I fell is the great danger that we face in seeing Obama as the face of change for America.
I beleive that folks like Chomsky, Sheldon Wolin (Politics and Vision), and others are telling us a profound and disturbing truth about our political system. Democracy, as it is construed in this country, has been fatally undermined by global capitalism run amok, and must be abandoned in its current form. This is very despairing to me, but I am not without hope. The political alternatives put forth tend to look very similar to the theo-politics of John Howard Yoder in their emphases on locality, mutuality, interdependace, and accountablity. For these reasons, I remain hopeful.
-M
A few quick reflections: My initial response to what you wrote was to feel very conservative, something I haven't felt often since being at GC. :) Am I right that most anarchist-leaning people also gravitate toward socialism?
After pondering this more, it strikes me that the end result of the position you described is an idealism similar to trad. Menno dualism. Here's the connection I see: from what I've read the people of Isr. rarely, if ever, faithfully applied theocratic economic law (thinking specifically of Jubilee). Subsequent governments, even those claiming to serve in the best interests of their people, also don't have a good track record of economic justice in relation to their citizens, let alone other nations. It seems unlikely that _any_ large governing body will ever apply laws that are economically just, especially toward less powerful nations.
If it's true that we live with a "fully corrupt system of governance that only serves to perpetuate the status quo" and that there are powerful economic, military and spiritual forces who aim to maintain that reality, then the only proactice option we have is to live in small, politically theocentric communities that practice the economic justice and right relationships of shalom in witness to broader society. Sounds like the Amish, and other radical, though more socially engaged, groups.
Where I see the biggest difference between what you described and 'the quiet in the land' is that trad. dualist Mennos talk about their lifestyles only in terms of witness to others, expecting them to accept and enter the community and leave 'the world' behind. JHY, however, proposes 'middle axioms', based in discipleship but separated from the need to be a disciple, that make sense to those outside and might be adopted in broader society. But it seems, in practice, that the emphasis in both groups is similar: parallel communities that practice a different politic. And rather than working from within the "corrupt" structures, they work out of theo-communities to bring about change. Is that a fair assessment/comparison? J
J,
I'm sorry, but "conservative" is not for those who devise radical slogans and screen them onto t-shirts. You're out my friend.
As to anarchists who lean towards socialism, there are many. But the anarchism that is most hopeful and helpful as far as I'm concerned is that anarchism that shuns political labels of all kinds. The Anarchism that I envision and champion is the anarchism of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin - radical, pro-life, pacifistic, personalistic, and locally based. Such Anarchism has little in common with Marxist rhetoric because it eschews ideology in favor of persons.
I envision a vibrant politics that, as you mentioned, is based in the local and transcends it at the same time, but only accidentally if you will. By this I mean that a local politics that proves itself viable will impact the broader society and body politic in favorable ways. This I feel is the only way to maintain a politics that is able to be freer from abstraction, and one that sserves the people who are the body politic. You're right to say that "large governing bodies" wil never serve to execute justice nationally or internationally, which is why small communities must, and why politics must strive to be local. This is a point the Neo-Jeffersonians drive home time and time again. Agrarian based rural communities have the potential to forge a politics of neighborliness that is based upon interdependance and an intimate knowledge of people and place.
What I'm describing will be most fully lived out by theo-political communities, but not relegated to them. The church must form alliances that you hinted at that can fulfill the dictums of the "middle axioms." In this way, the church community extricates itself from the temptation towards isolationist Constantinianism (ie. Amish). This is a constant struggle for me in navigating this tight terrain, but I've seen this modeled in my church and the way that it engages grassroots politics here in Durham. This gives me great hope.
-M
Brothers, I'm fascinated by this conversation and glad I went searching for it again--I remembered reading the first post quickly after January 12 and making a mental note to come back to it. Thanks for all your thoughts. I'll have my own, but I feel way out of my league.
The thing that reminded me about your initial post, Martin, was that people have kept telling me to check out Ron Paul, so I finally got some time to do that today. I'm very impressed after first impressions :) and I'm rather surprised his name hasn't come up in your discussion up to this point. I'd be interested to hear both of your views on his politics.
Martin, I liked you voting J out of the Conservative party. haha.
More later...
-P
Post a Comment