But why are you surprised. These same folks were gleefully cheering unvaccinated people dying. They were GLOATING about it - (even though plenty of vaccinated folks were dying as well.) I don’t know exactly when my political tribe turned into a cult, but it seems like about 2015. I lost more friends than I can count for backing Sanders over Trump. People I’d known for a lifetime called me a Russian agent.
During the height of COVID, I was one of the few folks who admonished fellow liberals for that spiteful stance, if only because it wasn’t helpful. The more people were jeered at, the more they would dig in their heels — which meant that the “ozone hole” in masking (and, later, vaccine) coverage would remain too large to overcome. It was a self-defeating stance. But, you know, the owner of the site that I mentioned in this essay (Daily Kos) personally led a brigade of such jeering, effectively serving up agitprop. Not much one can do when it’s the owner of the site doing such things except avoid those articles (or leave the site altogether, I suppose).
Now, that’s not to excuse those people from not getting vaccinated or masking (or keeping six feet away, or washing hands, etc.). Their intransigence directly contributed to the situation that we have now. If we had all cooperated and come together to defeat the virus on these shores, we had an opportunity to batten down and allow the virus to burn itself out. Defiance kept us from emerging victorious, and now Covid will probably never, ever be eradicated. We had a chance to snuff it out right when it showed up, and that chance is gone forever.
Also, I want to push back on this idea that the Democratic Party is a cult. It’s not. It’s simply not. I’ve been studying cults for just shy of a decade now. One main feature that most cults have that the Democratic Party does not have is a charismatic leader. That’s simply is not existent on the Democratic side. That does not mean that there aren’t elements of ultra-conformity being pushed by some — there is, and as a nonconformist myself I find that trend alarming. However, the nature by which that pressure is occurring is completely different: it seems to be bubbling up from the grassroots instead of being instituted top-down, as normally would be happening in a cult situation.
What I believe I’m witnessing here — not from you, necessarily, S.L., but from other corners of the information sphere — is an attempt to “flip the script” on Democrats by bothsidesing being in a cult. It’s odd. It may simply be an attempt to balance political chatter; that’s been happening a lot in the last ten years. But what this appears to be is simply the old argument of “I’m rubber, you’re glue”, where it’s the Republicans who are in a political cult, hands-down, but now that they had a successful election result now want to cast their political opponents as being in one. It’s accusation in a mirror but done primarily (as I see it) as a form of gaslighting.
Anyway, I do think that the trends that we’re seeing in the Democratic Party should raise an alarm at this early stage, so that they don’t evolve into something even more virulent and more difficult to displace.
I'm very "conversational" to put it politely. The unpolite translation is, I could suck the oxygen out of a room in a matter of minutes. It would help if I had better understanding of you, in particular your Hitchcock reference in your profile, "A room with a sociological view." I thought perhaps you might be a sociologist.
We are animals of course, but we are, to our knowledge, the first species in 4.5 billion years that has had the opportunity to choose whether or not we go extinct. We have not yet made that choice.
When I write about the "predatory phase" of history I am using a phrase first coined by the sociologist Thorstein Veblen. For as long as we have been keeping records, approximately 4k years, or what historians call "history" as opposed to "pre- history" which defines events that took place before records were kept, larger civilizations have used conquest as a means to gather resources (wealth) into their own group. For the ancient empires, war making and slave retention was common place. All to enrich a regal that had a large army to feed and citizens to tax and slaves to administer. The further they spread their influence, the wealthier they became. However, through the advantage of hindsight, we now know that all empires self-destruct. Colonialism is self destructive.
Conquest as a means to gather wealth is what the USA has been doing from even before it was founded. This is not a surprise considering that the our founding fathers came from the British empire. This is simply how they learned to conduct business. It is still, by far, our biggest revenue generator and our favored method of wealth accumulation. We are a warrior nation.
"We’re humans, though, and aggressiveness is part of our nature." Yes, but now, due to the progressive development of our mental function (consciousness) as a species, we are not enslaved to the fight, flight, freeze mechanisms that are a part of our reptilian endowment. People will still act automatically to avoid being ran over by a speeding car, but that doesn't mean that we are automated to exercise wholesale slaughter of other human beings just to survive as a nation. War is not necessary function of contemporary societies. Humans on a global scale are beginning to realize our inherent interdependence on each other and have concluded that cooperation is a necessary function for us to survive on this planet. Veblen's contention was the we have to hurdle the hump of conquest, this predatory phase of human evolution, in order to survive. The longer we prey on other nations or groups of people (colonialism), this threatens not only global extinction but threatens our existence as a nation.
In the last election, which candidate of the 2 traditional parties was going to go to the podium at a campaign rally and talk about the elephant in the room i.e. the US/EU economic elites unipolar hegemonic plan to control the whole globe? Neither. Because they know that the quickest way to get fired or even exterminated, is to go against the plan of their bosses. So, no I don't vote for R's or D's at the federal level any more. I hope this helps.
My tagline is not necessarily referencing Hitchcock -- "a room with a view" is quite pedestrian and surely predates the fine film -- but certainly it references my academic background. My degree is in American Studies, with a core in sociology. The field of study itself is a branch of social science. It's just my lens. Even when I'm just talking about the United States, the world, things going on locally or among groups of people, I tend to view things sociologically. It's just part of who I am now.
Upfront, let me tell you that I am a pacifist and have been for decades. My statement about the aggressiveness of human beings is an artifact of reading about anthropology and ethology, trying to uncover what it is that differentiates humans from other species in this regard. Humans, along with chimpanzees, are one of the few “higher” animals that commit intraspecies violence. It's important to try to understand where that comes from.
But (even borrowing from my feminist ideals) I don't believe that biology is destiny. As you say, we have mechanisms that allow ourselves to rise above the heat of the moment. (Of course, that still leaves instrumental violence, that which is done in calculated fashion in pursuit of a goal, the hallmark of psychopaths and persons with antisocial personality disorder. For them, violence is a tool.)
As I understand it, writing has been around for about five thousand years, not four, which is why I was curious as to what event on the civilization timeline you might have been pointing. I even did a cursory search to see if there was anything that I was overlooking (I knew that there was a new Egyptian dynasty that was founded around that time, and I learned in my search that 4000 years ago is about when Abraham of the Abrahamic religions purportedly received a vision and began humanity's journey toward monotheism).
I find it interesting that you trace writing back to recordkeeping! It's my understanding that the first records ever created, on clay tablets, were tallies that had to do with trade. It wasn't "writing" as we understand the written word now -- it was math. They were in every respect receipts. But I think of commerce as being adjacent to that.
The type of exploitation that comes with systems of wealth could not have been formulated, I don't think, before the cultivation of crops (i.e., the exploitation and extraction of wealth from the landscape). If for no other reason, I don't think that hunter-gatherers could store up the type of goods that could later become wealth (items could have value, of course, such as furs, but it wouldn't be extractive, rather utilitarian). So I think we have to go back 10,000 to 11,000 years to really begin to trace where these systems of oppression, exploitation and intergroup warring as means of conquest began. I may be mistaken, as I'm still going back to the historical record to gain a better understanding.
Well, I also don't want to talk your ear off. :) Suffice it to say, I'm still learning. For example, you bring up economics. This past year has brought insight to my understanding of American economics through the 20th century (and I've explored a lot more of the 19th century, particularly the panics). I've come to realize in the last few weeks that I will need to hunker down and learn the ins and outs of neoliberalism, which, if my estimations are correct, will entail about a year's worth of dedicated study. It's a little daunting, but I think it's crucial to understanding the historical moment in which we find ourselves.
(Also, I get why you are cynical; and I am glad you still participate in the voting process, despite your misgivings.)
To close, I'll just echo your assertion that cooperation is our way out of our predicament, and that sentiment explains part of my bias. Every writer has a bias, and part of mine is trying to understand human behavior in order to foster better cooperation and communication. I appreciate the exchange!
Thanks for the detailed and thought provoking response, Nova.
“My degree is in American Studies, with a core in sociology.”
My grounding is situated in three disciplines, philosophy, literature, and psychology. It was the literary masters who instructed me when I attended the Franciscan University who insisted their students pay close attention to the archeologist, anthropologist, and sociologist if we were going to attempt sound literary criticism of sacred and secular text. These four disciplines were comrades in arms.
“But (even borrowing from my feminist ideals) I don't believe that biology is destiny.”
I have been complimented/accused of being a male feminist, depending on the disposition of the speaker. I cannot help it if the words of ecofeminist theologians, i.e., Rosemary Ruther, Elizabeth Johnson, and Ivone Gebara to name a few, strike me as some of the most profound words ever written. Their adamant intent to dismantle the patriarchal structures of their upbringings while re-establishing a sense of reference for Mother Earth is a necessary task for Western world to evolve toward global cooperation.
“(Of course, that still leaves instrumental violence, that which is done in calculated fashion in pursuit of a goal, the hallmark of psychopaths and persons with antisocial personality disorder. For them, violence is a tool.)”
This is exactly what is happening in Palestine as we speak, as I illuminated in my latest Substack writing. Know the only question that remains is, ‘How do we respond?’ as individuals and as a nation of supposedly humane people.
“As I understand it, writing has been around for about five thousand years, not four, which is why I was curious as to what event on the civilization timeline you might have been pointing.”
I was referring to the invention of phonetic/ alphabetical symbols that allowed the expression of complex thought processes, which language scholars estimate to have developed during the second millennium (BCE) in Mesopotamia. (Jack Goody’s, Literacy in traditional societies, and Walter Ong’s, Orality and Literacy, are good references for this.) Some Indian historians claim that the Bhagavad Gita was written around 3600 BCE which is still a matter of debate. This would have put Sanskrit emerging 1600 years earlier.
You have rightfully mentioned my use of the phrase “record keeping” which obviously obscures my point, (thanks for the correction). Certainly records were kept utilizing pre-alphabetic script. Ong states that, “The earliest script dates from only 6000 years ago.” It seems that the time line of “Pre-history” and “history” shifts around among scholars to accommodate new discoveries that have come to light. For example, the archeologist and biblical historian Philip King, states that Abraham and his clan “may have lived some time after 2000 B.C. since many details in the Genesis narratives reflect the social conditions of the era,” which concurs with your statement. The biblical scholar Lawrence Boadt places Abraham’s trek from Ur “in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500),” which is more definitive.
There is a solid consensus among Biblical scholars that the Adam and Eve narrative in found in Genesis 2-4B, was composed around 1000 BCE during the Davidic Dynasty. I often use this a reference point when reading the Pentateuch.
“Every writer has a bias, and part of mine is trying to understand human behavior in order to foster better cooperation and communication.”
When I read this I thought, ‘Yes, we are both headed to the same place, we’re just using different vehicles.’ Peace to you and your always, G
I have seen some of these comments on DK that celebrate suffering among certain groups. I have commented to oppose and got a hot response. I think some of it is part of online discourse. Not an excuse. But if these folks had a friend or family member who refused to mask, got covid, and ended up dead or disabled, they would feel differently I imagine.
I am extremely something over this election outcome. I might be angry or in shock. Worried. Or ALL of the above. I continue to hold the view that voting 3rd party in this election helped Trump win. A vote for Trump, obviously helped Trump win. Not voting at all, helped Trump win. This is an unshakable opinion on my part. Now, who to BLAME?? Lots of blame to spread around. Biden’s horrible and unforgivable support for Israel deserves a lot of blame. Maybe he should have stepped aside a year ago. Harris I thought, made the right call by accepting his endorsement. I thought having a primary process would be a disaster. I was even iffy about Biden announcing earlier he would not seek another term. It ended up with Nixon when we did that before. Not sure if there have been other success stories when the sitting president decides to not run. Of course, I am not a political expert. I was shocked when Clinton lost. Shocked when Kerry lost. Shocked when Gore lost. Shocked when Dukakis lost. I don’t remember Carter’s loss. I might not have voted that round. 🤣 Let’s just say nobody will be calling on me for political advice. I always think we are going to win.
I predict we are going to see Harris get demonized. Scapegoated. Going forward, I would like to see the Democratic Party move left. I would like to see us figure out how to help workers and how to make ANY job pay a living wage. I would like to see the work week reduced so people could have more time for family fun and friendly fun and relaxation. The issue with child care, which women have the greater responsibility for is like an anchor. Lower income earners can’t afford to work. By the time you provide for transportation, and child care, it doesn’t pay to work. We should support some sort of BIG child care program. Make it free. Our foreign policy is a wreck. I hope we figure out how to win and get better leadership.
So here's the thing, and I hope you will grant me some latitude to be frank:
Even before this election season, there were indications that DKos was getting vindictive. I'm not just talking about the use of the term that recalls fly larvae (though, you might recall if you were aware, I got a lot of pushback for calling that out). Do you remember when Mitch McConnell had his freezing episode and the spiteful glee that broke out? These were people who should know better. It was to the point where I penned a full diary and would have posted it, but I was still burnt from the previous controversy and so I held back. The groupthink and need for conformity there is off the charts, which was really noticeable about that time. This year has only been worse, in just about every way. People there embraced the term 'bedwetting' and did just about everything they could to bojo people who had the temerity to speak against conventional wisdom / the going groupthink at the time.
I bring all that up to say that I think your view of the folks over at DKos -- people for whom I still care -- is blinkered. This has been going on for some time.
I am not as stunned as other Democrats or progressives or liberals about this election outcome. I suppose that's because I saw the flaws in the campaign as they were occurring and took the time to note them. I consistently referenced where the Harris campaign was making mistakes. The number one mistake was not letting Ruwa Romman speak at the DNC, which would have been an olive branch to the Palestinian-American, Muslim American and Arab American communities, not to mention the youth vote and other discontented progressives. Her second mistake, in my view, was going after Republican votes at the expense of the Democratic base. The third was declaring herself a war hawk. (A significant runner-up of these errors would have been her declining to push back on devastating attack ads that, in retrospect, just about everyone acknowledges had a huge impact on the campaign.)
I feel bad for the people who were convinced that Harris would win, or even would cruise to victory. Outside of written articles, I stayed away from American press during the whole election season. I didn’t hear any pundits or follow any of the day-to-day jockeying. I see the current fallout and I wonder if certain media outlets or personalities installed a sense of false hope. I am hardpressed to otherwise see how so many were so crushed Election Night. (I was dismayed, of course, but nothing like I was in 2016.)
We may see Harris get demonized -- I mean, that already happened in right-wing circles. She was literally called a demon. As for the Democrats, I think there may be pockets here and there (though, honestly, the valorization of Harris is disturbing me more, to tell you the truth -- she did NOT run a flawless campaign, and those who are insisting upon this in the face of such a widespread loss are determined to live in an alternate reality). But I do not agree that Harris will be scapegoated. She can't be. She was the nominee. Ultimately, just like the head coach of a team, she's responsible for the loss.
(Add to that the DNC, for nominating Harris in the first place without a competitive process; and Biden, for putting his thumb on the scale when he endorsed her as a nominee twenty minutes after stepping aside in the race.)
I agree that there is more that the Democratic Party must do to help those at risk of falling through the cracks. I currently have a relative who fits the scenario that you describe. It's not tenable. I'm not an economist so I hesitate to offer solutions on that front, but I've been thinking about how we got to this point and whether we actually have any freedom of movement to make a pivot. I'm not encouraged. As for party leadership, I guess we'll find out which wing of the party is ascendant when the DNC chooses its chairman. This is why it's important to do these post-mortems now, so that the correct lessons can be learned before we install somebody who would continue us on a disastrous path.
My suspicion about DKos, and I have expressed it over there, is that there are some number of writers, who are quite gifted BUT see their most important job to be controlling the narrative. I lost confidence in Garland early on. Whenever any doubts about his handling of Jan6 were expressed, it got a hard smack down. I noticed it and secretly thought this smack down was coordinated and organized. One guy, with a marine type of handle would post a big diary about how wonderful Garland was and how his critics were stupid people that did not know anything about law and how these cases should be handled. Within seconds of the time the diary was posted, there would be 20-30 comments, usually by the big names, that could themselves be a diary, in lockstep agreement. I thought secretly, this is not organic. This group is organized, coordinated. Communicating via email or Kos mail. Anyway, I think there are significant numbers of big name accounts there who have decided that THEY should control the narrative. Of course, because they are great writers and have clout, the minions fall in line and so they get lots of defending. So if it happened with the Garland issue, and I am absolutely convinced it did, then it makes sense for there to be other coordinated, narrative shaping efforts happening. Anyone who expressed doubts over Harris skipping the primary process caught smack downs. I did not really know which choice would be best, short primary or contested convention both seemed risky. To me, getting quickly behind Harris seemed safer. 🤣 And I have already explained in my previous comments the depths of my political acumen!🤣So…
But yes, conformity is a HUGE thing there. And the fly larvae insult pops up everywhere. Lately I have noticed this excitement and celebration for the suffering of others. Of course McConnell gets no well wishes from me. I am not cheering for his suffering but then I sure don’t speak up in his defense either. So this is a moral weakness on my part. Idk. I think if I saw him having an obvious health crisis in the produce section of the grocery store, I would do my best to get him medical attention and seated and safe while waiting. And I think I would then want to check on him after the fact. Maybe. But… there is always a but 🤣, I see him as a Hitler adjacent type. Seriously. He has not orchestrated the direct slaughter of 9 million, but he is quite evil. So not only will I admit my moral weakness, I will also justify it!🤣
As we get some time and distance from Nov 5, I hope we see big changes with the Democratic Party. Right now, as you noted, LOTS of finger pointing.
I am not an economist either but the entire child care problem is one that keeps, mainly women, out of the workforce. During this part of their work life,
when they might want to be building their skills and knowledge, they are in the home, working hard, but uncompensated. This makes them dependent on a man for future economic security. I think it puts them at a great disadvantage. Now if any mother chooses the traditional wife role, after giving it careful thought, then good for them. I worry tho that this traditional
wife role, gets to be the choice because it gets put forward as the ideal. Social expectations. You can’t be a “good” mother if you pursue a career. I would argue that being a “good” parent while working 40 hours a week, requires extremely unhealthy sacrifice. And this is due to the weakened power workers have within our economic system.
Sorry for this long post! Anyway, I always enjoy reading and thinking about your take on our circumstances. 😎
At this point, I think that there is no desire to improve material conditions in either party, with maybe a few exceptions. Instead, both are motivated by spite, ie I don’t care if my situation worsens as long as “the other side” is harmed even more so. There is no positive vision for the future, just fantasies of one’s enemies being slaughtered en masse or arrested.
The team sport nature of electoral politics is telling in these FAFO posts. If you voted for Harris, you’re automatically “good” even if the “you” in question happens to be a war criminal (ie Dick Cheney) or a chicken hawk war cheerleader (ie Bill Kristol). If you didn’t vote for Harris, you are automatically a bad person who deserves to killed or put in a camp, whether you are an underemployed Black man in Mississippi or a Lebanese woman in Dearborn who has lost two dozen family members due to a US-backed war. Maybe this is more secular Calvinism, where one has to believe that because one “votes the right way” one is “innocent” and doesn’t deserve to suffer.
Other common sentiment is that people in Red States deserve to suffer for being hopelessly backward leeches who mooch off of enlightened Blue State residents. The bottom of the Other Site claims that it “moves in solidarity” with Black people. Yet most Black Americans still live in the South (ie Red States). You can’t claim to be in solidarity with Blacks while sneering that they deserve to languish in poverty and ignorance for living in Red States. This view also illustrates a profound ignorance about race relations in Blue States. Boston, one of the bluest of blue cities, is regularly cited as being one of the most racist cities in America, and it definitely didn’t cover itself in glory during busing. MLK said that the worst racists he ever encountered were in Chicago during his “end the slums” campaign in 1966. I can guarantee you that there are more religious fundamentalists in LA than there are in the entire state of Mississippi.
At this point, the Trump derangement syndrome among liberals is so severe that I’m wondering what they even find offensive about him, since they’ve freely embraced his hatred of Others who don’t worship at their feet. Solidarity can’t be transactional. Rather than kick down at marginalized groups, liberals need to demand that the nursing home inmates who run the DNC get defenestrated. Say what you will about Republicans, but they won’t let losers linger around if they can’t deliver the goods or have outlived their usefulness. Instead, posters on the Other Site double down and insist that the party didn’t fail, it was the voters who were unworthy to support such a “flawless campaign.” It’s as if voters exist for the party and not the other way around. Such a bizarre view lends credibility to the notion that there is cult-like thinking among many ride or die Democrats, although I would not call it a political cult.
I know I use a lot of examples from the Other Site to illustrate points in my essays, but folks there are not the only ones indulging in this FAFO mindset. I was reading the Washington Post (which I will until my subscription expires, if only to find out what dreck the writers are churning out), whereupon I came across an article about Sebastian Gorka joining the Trump team. He's a Nazi and a fascist -- a two-fer -- yet the article danced all around this well-known pair of traits about the man. So I visited the comment section to say so. To my amazement, scores of responses were some version of FAFO. At some point, I just shrugged my shoulders and began pressing the ignore option against those posters, as it was so overwhelming. I had to have ignored twenty more more individuals. Once I was done and reloaded the article, the comment section read like a normal WaPO comment section! And I was amazed at the physical sense of relief I felt not to be confronted with such outright bigotry. It's unreal how widespread this sentiment is becoming.
You call what you're seeing TDS, but you know, surely, that that's a play on ODS that afflicted Tea Partiers a presidency before. Later, Trump supporters appropriated the term to throw it back in liberals' faces. What I think we're seeing, to be perfectly frank, is abject dread. Back in 2015 & 2016, liberals had a pretty good indication that Trump was going to be bad news, but I think few of us were aware of just how bad he would turn out to be. We suffered four years through that, and then we came out the other side with a middling president in Biden but someone who was reasonable and not entirely insane. We could breathe. Now, with Trump heading back, we KNOW how bad he was, and we're pretty sure he's going to be even worse than that! He won't have "guardrails" or "babysitters" -- and, as he's going to be constitutionally term-limited, he has no reason to hold back. He's going to go for broke, if only to see what he can get away with.
It's going to be bad, and Democrats, liberals and progressives alike see this. I would say many leftists see this, too, even though they may be so disgusted with the whole system that they call down a pox on both parties. But, realistically, we're in a state of danger, and I think people understand that.
As for what you say about regional prejudices and racial compositions of various states, I think the majority of folks (not all) over at the Other Site realize that the minority groups (especially Southern Blacks) don't choose where they live. If they're poor -- if they've been born into poverty and stuck in that cycle -- they don't have the means to just pick up and move. So they're rather trapped. The politics practiced in the South keep them subordinated socially and economically. This was exquisitely illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when nearly everyone deserted Louisiana except all those Black people who couldn't afford transportation and/or a place to stay out of the state. That's why we saw all those black bodies washing away in the floodwaters. The poverty is a structural problem. As for the fact that there are racist areas in the North, I think the view of that has softened over time, just as that view has for much of the United States. I will say that I think many Black Americans are aware of Boston's history, if only for self-protection.
Speaking of structural problems, I think we're stuck with not being able to provide real material improvements to the common folk due to neoliberalism. Our economy is simply not structured in the same way as it was when we actually manufactured things in this country. I'm still organizing my thoughts on this subject, but it's clear to me that we can't recapitulate the coalition of FDR, or even that of LBJ. The basis of our economy has changed too much since the late '60s -- we can't go back. So the Democratic Party will need to find another way to fashion together a coalition; and, if they're hard-headed, we may be wandering in the wilderness for some time.
Very nice analysis. I always vote. I have not voted for a D/R candidate for the last 4 election cycles. We have to get over this predatory phase of human evolution that we have been stuck in for 4K years or more. Our continuation of humanity depends on it. Neither party is interested in heading in that direction. I have not read your stuff before. Very nice work. Peace, G
Thanks for reading, Guy, and for boosting the signal! I look forward to interacting with you more, if you feel like conversing.
It’s a little outside the margins of the topic, but I agree that we need to circumvent a sense of preying upon each other. We’re humans, though, and aggressiveness is part of our nature. Civilization tames us, but in the final analysis we’re domesticated, socialized animals.
I am curious as to what you’re pointing to that happened 4000 years ago. Maybe I’m missing something very obvious!
But why are you surprised. These same folks were gleefully cheering unvaccinated people dying. They were GLOATING about it - (even though plenty of vaccinated folks were dying as well.) I don’t know exactly when my political tribe turned into a cult, but it seems like about 2015. I lost more friends than I can count for backing Sanders over Trump. People I’d known for a lifetime called me a Russian agent.
During the height of COVID, I was one of the few folks who admonished fellow liberals for that spiteful stance, if only because it wasn’t helpful. The more people were jeered at, the more they would dig in their heels — which meant that the “ozone hole” in masking (and, later, vaccine) coverage would remain too large to overcome. It was a self-defeating stance. But, you know, the owner of the site that I mentioned in this essay (Daily Kos) personally led a brigade of such jeering, effectively serving up agitprop. Not much one can do when it’s the owner of the site doing such things except avoid those articles (or leave the site altogether, I suppose).
Now, that’s not to excuse those people from not getting vaccinated or masking (or keeping six feet away, or washing hands, etc.). Their intransigence directly contributed to the situation that we have now. If we had all cooperated and come together to defeat the virus on these shores, we had an opportunity to batten down and allow the virus to burn itself out. Defiance kept us from emerging victorious, and now Covid will probably never, ever be eradicated. We had a chance to snuff it out right when it showed up, and that chance is gone forever.
Also, I want to push back on this idea that the Democratic Party is a cult. It’s not. It’s simply not. I’ve been studying cults for just shy of a decade now. One main feature that most cults have that the Democratic Party does not have is a charismatic leader. That’s simply is not existent on the Democratic side. That does not mean that there aren’t elements of ultra-conformity being pushed by some — there is, and as a nonconformist myself I find that trend alarming. However, the nature by which that pressure is occurring is completely different: it seems to be bubbling up from the grassroots instead of being instituted top-down, as normally would be happening in a cult situation.
What I believe I’m witnessing here — not from you, necessarily, S.L., but from other corners of the information sphere — is an attempt to “flip the script” on Democrats by bothsidesing being in a cult. It’s odd. It may simply be an attempt to balance political chatter; that’s been happening a lot in the last ten years. But what this appears to be is simply the old argument of “I’m rubber, you’re glue”, where it’s the Republicans who are in a political cult, hands-down, but now that they had a successful election result now want to cast their political opponents as being in one. It’s accusation in a mirror but done primarily (as I see it) as a form of gaslighting.
Anyway, I do think that the trends that we’re seeing in the Democratic Party should raise an alarm at this early stage, so that they don’t evolve into something even more virulent and more difficult to displace.
Thanks so much for the feedback, S.L.
I'm very "conversational" to put it politely. The unpolite translation is, I could suck the oxygen out of a room in a matter of minutes. It would help if I had better understanding of you, in particular your Hitchcock reference in your profile, "A room with a sociological view." I thought perhaps you might be a sociologist.
We are animals of course, but we are, to our knowledge, the first species in 4.5 billion years that has had the opportunity to choose whether or not we go extinct. We have not yet made that choice.
When I write about the "predatory phase" of history I am using a phrase first coined by the sociologist Thorstein Veblen. For as long as we have been keeping records, approximately 4k years, or what historians call "history" as opposed to "pre- history" which defines events that took place before records were kept, larger civilizations have used conquest as a means to gather resources (wealth) into their own group. For the ancient empires, war making and slave retention was common place. All to enrich a regal that had a large army to feed and citizens to tax and slaves to administer. The further they spread their influence, the wealthier they became. However, through the advantage of hindsight, we now know that all empires self-destruct. Colonialism is self destructive.
Conquest as a means to gather wealth is what the USA has been doing from even before it was founded. This is not a surprise considering that the our founding fathers came from the British empire. This is simply how they learned to conduct business. It is still, by far, our biggest revenue generator and our favored method of wealth accumulation. We are a warrior nation.
"We’re humans, though, and aggressiveness is part of our nature." Yes, but now, due to the progressive development of our mental function (consciousness) as a species, we are not enslaved to the fight, flight, freeze mechanisms that are a part of our reptilian endowment. People will still act automatically to avoid being ran over by a speeding car, but that doesn't mean that we are automated to exercise wholesale slaughter of other human beings just to survive as a nation. War is not necessary function of contemporary societies. Humans on a global scale are beginning to realize our inherent interdependence on each other and have concluded that cooperation is a necessary function for us to survive on this planet. Veblen's contention was the we have to hurdle the hump of conquest, this predatory phase of human evolution, in order to survive. The longer we prey on other nations or groups of people (colonialism), this threatens not only global extinction but threatens our existence as a nation.
In the last election, which candidate of the 2 traditional parties was going to go to the podium at a campaign rally and talk about the elephant in the room i.e. the US/EU economic elites unipolar hegemonic plan to control the whole globe? Neither. Because they know that the quickest way to get fired or even exterminated, is to go against the plan of their bosses. So, no I don't vote for R's or D's at the federal level any more. I hope this helps.
Thanks for coming back and expanding.
My tagline is not necessarily referencing Hitchcock -- "a room with a view" is quite pedestrian and surely predates the fine film -- but certainly it references my academic background. My degree is in American Studies, with a core in sociology. The field of study itself is a branch of social science. It's just my lens. Even when I'm just talking about the United States, the world, things going on locally or among groups of people, I tend to view things sociologically. It's just part of who I am now.
Upfront, let me tell you that I am a pacifist and have been for decades. My statement about the aggressiveness of human beings is an artifact of reading about anthropology and ethology, trying to uncover what it is that differentiates humans from other species in this regard. Humans, along with chimpanzees, are one of the few “higher” animals that commit intraspecies violence. It's important to try to understand where that comes from.
But (even borrowing from my feminist ideals) I don't believe that biology is destiny. As you say, we have mechanisms that allow ourselves to rise above the heat of the moment. (Of course, that still leaves instrumental violence, that which is done in calculated fashion in pursuit of a goal, the hallmark of psychopaths and persons with antisocial personality disorder. For them, violence is a tool.)
As I understand it, writing has been around for about five thousand years, not four, which is why I was curious as to what event on the civilization timeline you might have been pointing. I even did a cursory search to see if there was anything that I was overlooking (I knew that there was a new Egyptian dynasty that was founded around that time, and I learned in my search that 4000 years ago is about when Abraham of the Abrahamic religions purportedly received a vision and began humanity's journey toward monotheism).
I find it interesting that you trace writing back to recordkeeping! It's my understanding that the first records ever created, on clay tablets, were tallies that had to do with trade. It wasn't "writing" as we understand the written word now -- it was math. They were in every respect receipts. But I think of commerce as being adjacent to that.
The type of exploitation that comes with systems of wealth could not have been formulated, I don't think, before the cultivation of crops (i.e., the exploitation and extraction of wealth from the landscape). If for no other reason, I don't think that hunter-gatherers could store up the type of goods that could later become wealth (items could have value, of course, such as furs, but it wouldn't be extractive, rather utilitarian). So I think we have to go back 10,000 to 11,000 years to really begin to trace where these systems of oppression, exploitation and intergroup warring as means of conquest began. I may be mistaken, as I'm still going back to the historical record to gain a better understanding.
Well, I also don't want to talk your ear off. :) Suffice it to say, I'm still learning. For example, you bring up economics. This past year has brought insight to my understanding of American economics through the 20th century (and I've explored a lot more of the 19th century, particularly the panics). I've come to realize in the last few weeks that I will need to hunker down and learn the ins and outs of neoliberalism, which, if my estimations are correct, will entail about a year's worth of dedicated study. It's a little daunting, but I think it's crucial to understanding the historical moment in which we find ourselves.
(Also, I get why you are cynical; and I am glad you still participate in the voting process, despite your misgivings.)
To close, I'll just echo your assertion that cooperation is our way out of our predicament, and that sentiment explains part of my bias. Every writer has a bias, and part of mine is trying to understand human behavior in order to foster better cooperation and communication. I appreciate the exchange!
Thanks for the detailed and thought provoking response, Nova.
“My degree is in American Studies, with a core in sociology.”
My grounding is situated in three disciplines, philosophy, literature, and psychology. It was the literary masters who instructed me when I attended the Franciscan University who insisted their students pay close attention to the archeologist, anthropologist, and sociologist if we were going to attempt sound literary criticism of sacred and secular text. These four disciplines were comrades in arms.
“But (even borrowing from my feminist ideals) I don't believe that biology is destiny.”
I have been complimented/accused of being a male feminist, depending on the disposition of the speaker. I cannot help it if the words of ecofeminist theologians, i.e., Rosemary Ruther, Elizabeth Johnson, and Ivone Gebara to name a few, strike me as some of the most profound words ever written. Their adamant intent to dismantle the patriarchal structures of their upbringings while re-establishing a sense of reference for Mother Earth is a necessary task for Western world to evolve toward global cooperation.
“(Of course, that still leaves instrumental violence, that which is done in calculated fashion in pursuit of a goal, the hallmark of psychopaths and persons with antisocial personality disorder. For them, violence is a tool.)”
This is exactly what is happening in Palestine as we speak, as I illuminated in my latest Substack writing. Know the only question that remains is, ‘How do we respond?’ as individuals and as a nation of supposedly humane people.
“As I understand it, writing has been around for about five thousand years, not four, which is why I was curious as to what event on the civilization timeline you might have been pointing.”
I was referring to the invention of phonetic/ alphabetical symbols that allowed the expression of complex thought processes, which language scholars estimate to have developed during the second millennium (BCE) in Mesopotamia. (Jack Goody’s, Literacy in traditional societies, and Walter Ong’s, Orality and Literacy, are good references for this.) Some Indian historians claim that the Bhagavad Gita was written around 3600 BCE which is still a matter of debate. This would have put Sanskrit emerging 1600 years earlier.
You have rightfully mentioned my use of the phrase “record keeping” which obviously obscures my point, (thanks for the correction). Certainly records were kept utilizing pre-alphabetic script. Ong states that, “The earliest script dates from only 6000 years ago.” It seems that the time line of “Pre-history” and “history” shifts around among scholars to accommodate new discoveries that have come to light. For example, the archeologist and biblical historian Philip King, states that Abraham and his clan “may have lived some time after 2000 B.C. since many details in the Genesis narratives reflect the social conditions of the era,” which concurs with your statement. The biblical scholar Lawrence Boadt places Abraham’s trek from Ur “in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500),” which is more definitive.
There is a solid consensus among Biblical scholars that the Adam and Eve narrative in found in Genesis 2-4B, was composed around 1000 BCE during the Davidic Dynasty. I often use this a reference point when reading the Pentateuch.
“Every writer has a bias, and part of mine is trying to understand human behavior in order to foster better cooperation and communication.”
When I read this I thought, ‘Yes, we are both headed to the same place, we’re just using different vehicles.’ Peace to you and your always, G
I have seen some of these comments on DK that celebrate suffering among certain groups. I have commented to oppose and got a hot response. I think some of it is part of online discourse. Not an excuse. But if these folks had a friend or family member who refused to mask, got covid, and ended up dead or disabled, they would feel differently I imagine.
I am extremely something over this election outcome. I might be angry or in shock. Worried. Or ALL of the above. I continue to hold the view that voting 3rd party in this election helped Trump win. A vote for Trump, obviously helped Trump win. Not voting at all, helped Trump win. This is an unshakable opinion on my part. Now, who to BLAME?? Lots of blame to spread around. Biden’s horrible and unforgivable support for Israel deserves a lot of blame. Maybe he should have stepped aside a year ago. Harris I thought, made the right call by accepting his endorsement. I thought having a primary process would be a disaster. I was even iffy about Biden announcing earlier he would not seek another term. It ended up with Nixon when we did that before. Not sure if there have been other success stories when the sitting president decides to not run. Of course, I am not a political expert. I was shocked when Clinton lost. Shocked when Kerry lost. Shocked when Gore lost. Shocked when Dukakis lost. I don’t remember Carter’s loss. I might not have voted that round. 🤣 Let’s just say nobody will be calling on me for political advice. I always think we are going to win.
I predict we are going to see Harris get demonized. Scapegoated. Going forward, I would like to see the Democratic Party move left. I would like to see us figure out how to help workers and how to make ANY job pay a living wage. I would like to see the work week reduced so people could have more time for family fun and friendly fun and relaxation. The issue with child care, which women have the greater responsibility for is like an anchor. Lower income earners can’t afford to work. By the time you provide for transportation, and child care, it doesn’t pay to work. We should support some sort of BIG child care program. Make it free. Our foreign policy is a wreck. I hope we figure out how to win and get better leadership.
So here's the thing, and I hope you will grant me some latitude to be frank:
Even before this election season, there were indications that DKos was getting vindictive. I'm not just talking about the use of the term that recalls fly larvae (though, you might recall if you were aware, I got a lot of pushback for calling that out). Do you remember when Mitch McConnell had his freezing episode and the spiteful glee that broke out? These were people who should know better. It was to the point where I penned a full diary and would have posted it, but I was still burnt from the previous controversy and so I held back. The groupthink and need for conformity there is off the charts, which was really noticeable about that time. This year has only been worse, in just about every way. People there embraced the term 'bedwetting' and did just about everything they could to bojo people who had the temerity to speak against conventional wisdom / the going groupthink at the time.
I bring all that up to say that I think your view of the folks over at DKos -- people for whom I still care -- is blinkered. This has been going on for some time.
I am not as stunned as other Democrats or progressives or liberals about this election outcome. I suppose that's because I saw the flaws in the campaign as they were occurring and took the time to note them. I consistently referenced where the Harris campaign was making mistakes. The number one mistake was not letting Ruwa Romman speak at the DNC, which would have been an olive branch to the Palestinian-American, Muslim American and Arab American communities, not to mention the youth vote and other discontented progressives. Her second mistake, in my view, was going after Republican votes at the expense of the Democratic base. The third was declaring herself a war hawk. (A significant runner-up of these errors would have been her declining to push back on devastating attack ads that, in retrospect, just about everyone acknowledges had a huge impact on the campaign.)
I feel bad for the people who were convinced that Harris would win, or even would cruise to victory. Outside of written articles, I stayed away from American press during the whole election season. I didn’t hear any pundits or follow any of the day-to-day jockeying. I see the current fallout and I wonder if certain media outlets or personalities installed a sense of false hope. I am hardpressed to otherwise see how so many were so crushed Election Night. (I was dismayed, of course, but nothing like I was in 2016.)
We may see Harris get demonized -- I mean, that already happened in right-wing circles. She was literally called a demon. As for the Democrats, I think there may be pockets here and there (though, honestly, the valorization of Harris is disturbing me more, to tell you the truth -- she did NOT run a flawless campaign, and those who are insisting upon this in the face of such a widespread loss are determined to live in an alternate reality). But I do not agree that Harris will be scapegoated. She can't be. She was the nominee. Ultimately, just like the head coach of a team, she's responsible for the loss.
(Add to that the DNC, for nominating Harris in the first place without a competitive process; and Biden, for putting his thumb on the scale when he endorsed her as a nominee twenty minutes after stepping aside in the race.)
I agree that there is more that the Democratic Party must do to help those at risk of falling through the cracks. I currently have a relative who fits the scenario that you describe. It's not tenable. I'm not an economist so I hesitate to offer solutions on that front, but I've been thinking about how we got to this point and whether we actually have any freedom of movement to make a pivot. I'm not encouraged. As for party leadership, I guess we'll find out which wing of the party is ascendant when the DNC chooses its chairman. This is why it's important to do these post-mortems now, so that the correct lessons can be learned before we install somebody who would continue us on a disastrous path.
My suspicion about DKos, and I have expressed it over there, is that there are some number of writers, who are quite gifted BUT see their most important job to be controlling the narrative. I lost confidence in Garland early on. Whenever any doubts about his handling of Jan6 were expressed, it got a hard smack down. I noticed it and secretly thought this smack down was coordinated and organized. One guy, with a marine type of handle would post a big diary about how wonderful Garland was and how his critics were stupid people that did not know anything about law and how these cases should be handled. Within seconds of the time the diary was posted, there would be 20-30 comments, usually by the big names, that could themselves be a diary, in lockstep agreement. I thought secretly, this is not organic. This group is organized, coordinated. Communicating via email or Kos mail. Anyway, I think there are significant numbers of big name accounts there who have decided that THEY should control the narrative. Of course, because they are great writers and have clout, the minions fall in line and so they get lots of defending. So if it happened with the Garland issue, and I am absolutely convinced it did, then it makes sense for there to be other coordinated, narrative shaping efforts happening. Anyone who expressed doubts over Harris skipping the primary process caught smack downs. I did not really know which choice would be best, short primary or contested convention both seemed risky. To me, getting quickly behind Harris seemed safer. 🤣 And I have already explained in my previous comments the depths of my political acumen!🤣So…
But yes, conformity is a HUGE thing there. And the fly larvae insult pops up everywhere. Lately I have noticed this excitement and celebration for the suffering of others. Of course McConnell gets no well wishes from me. I am not cheering for his suffering but then I sure don’t speak up in his defense either. So this is a moral weakness on my part. Idk. I think if I saw him having an obvious health crisis in the produce section of the grocery store, I would do my best to get him medical attention and seated and safe while waiting. And I think I would then want to check on him after the fact. Maybe. But… there is always a but 🤣, I see him as a Hitler adjacent type. Seriously. He has not orchestrated the direct slaughter of 9 million, but he is quite evil. So not only will I admit my moral weakness, I will also justify it!🤣
As we get some time and distance from Nov 5, I hope we see big changes with the Democratic Party. Right now, as you noted, LOTS of finger pointing.
I am not an economist either but the entire child care problem is one that keeps, mainly women, out of the workforce. During this part of their work life,
when they might want to be building their skills and knowledge, they are in the home, working hard, but uncompensated. This makes them dependent on a man for future economic security. I think it puts them at a great disadvantage. Now if any mother chooses the traditional wife role, after giving it careful thought, then good for them. I worry tho that this traditional
wife role, gets to be the choice because it gets put forward as the ideal. Social expectations. You can’t be a “good” mother if you pursue a career. I would argue that being a “good” parent while working 40 hours a week, requires extremely unhealthy sacrifice. And this is due to the weakened power workers have within our economic system.
Sorry for this long post! Anyway, I always enjoy reading and thinking about your take on our circumstances. 😎
At this point, I think that there is no desire to improve material conditions in either party, with maybe a few exceptions. Instead, both are motivated by spite, ie I don’t care if my situation worsens as long as “the other side” is harmed even more so. There is no positive vision for the future, just fantasies of one’s enemies being slaughtered en masse or arrested.
The team sport nature of electoral politics is telling in these FAFO posts. If you voted for Harris, you’re automatically “good” even if the “you” in question happens to be a war criminal (ie Dick Cheney) or a chicken hawk war cheerleader (ie Bill Kristol). If you didn’t vote for Harris, you are automatically a bad person who deserves to killed or put in a camp, whether you are an underemployed Black man in Mississippi or a Lebanese woman in Dearborn who has lost two dozen family members due to a US-backed war. Maybe this is more secular Calvinism, where one has to believe that because one “votes the right way” one is “innocent” and doesn’t deserve to suffer.
Other common sentiment is that people in Red States deserve to suffer for being hopelessly backward leeches who mooch off of enlightened Blue State residents. The bottom of the Other Site claims that it “moves in solidarity” with Black people. Yet most Black Americans still live in the South (ie Red States). You can’t claim to be in solidarity with Blacks while sneering that they deserve to languish in poverty and ignorance for living in Red States. This view also illustrates a profound ignorance about race relations in Blue States. Boston, one of the bluest of blue cities, is regularly cited as being one of the most racist cities in America, and it definitely didn’t cover itself in glory during busing. MLK said that the worst racists he ever encountered were in Chicago during his “end the slums” campaign in 1966. I can guarantee you that there are more religious fundamentalists in LA than there are in the entire state of Mississippi.
At this point, the Trump derangement syndrome among liberals is so severe that I’m wondering what they even find offensive about him, since they’ve freely embraced his hatred of Others who don’t worship at their feet. Solidarity can’t be transactional. Rather than kick down at marginalized groups, liberals need to demand that the nursing home inmates who run the DNC get defenestrated. Say what you will about Republicans, but they won’t let losers linger around if they can’t deliver the goods or have outlived their usefulness. Instead, posters on the Other Site double down and insist that the party didn’t fail, it was the voters who were unworthy to support such a “flawless campaign.” It’s as if voters exist for the party and not the other way around. Such a bizarre view lends credibility to the notion that there is cult-like thinking among many ride or die Democrats, although I would not call it a political cult.
Thanks for the food for thought, LM.
I know I use a lot of examples from the Other Site to illustrate points in my essays, but folks there are not the only ones indulging in this FAFO mindset. I was reading the Washington Post (which I will until my subscription expires, if only to find out what dreck the writers are churning out), whereupon I came across an article about Sebastian Gorka joining the Trump team. He's a Nazi and a fascist -- a two-fer -- yet the article danced all around this well-known pair of traits about the man. So I visited the comment section to say so. To my amazement, scores of responses were some version of FAFO. At some point, I just shrugged my shoulders and began pressing the ignore option against those posters, as it was so overwhelming. I had to have ignored twenty more more individuals. Once I was done and reloaded the article, the comment section read like a normal WaPO comment section! And I was amazed at the physical sense of relief I felt not to be confronted with such outright bigotry. It's unreal how widespread this sentiment is becoming.
You call what you're seeing TDS, but you know, surely, that that's a play on ODS that afflicted Tea Partiers a presidency before. Later, Trump supporters appropriated the term to throw it back in liberals' faces. What I think we're seeing, to be perfectly frank, is abject dread. Back in 2015 & 2016, liberals had a pretty good indication that Trump was going to be bad news, but I think few of us were aware of just how bad he would turn out to be. We suffered four years through that, and then we came out the other side with a middling president in Biden but someone who was reasonable and not entirely insane. We could breathe. Now, with Trump heading back, we KNOW how bad he was, and we're pretty sure he's going to be even worse than that! He won't have "guardrails" or "babysitters" -- and, as he's going to be constitutionally term-limited, he has no reason to hold back. He's going to go for broke, if only to see what he can get away with.
It's going to be bad, and Democrats, liberals and progressives alike see this. I would say many leftists see this, too, even though they may be so disgusted with the whole system that they call down a pox on both parties. But, realistically, we're in a state of danger, and I think people understand that.
As for what you say about regional prejudices and racial compositions of various states, I think the majority of folks (not all) over at the Other Site realize that the minority groups (especially Southern Blacks) don't choose where they live. If they're poor -- if they've been born into poverty and stuck in that cycle -- they don't have the means to just pick up and move. So they're rather trapped. The politics practiced in the South keep them subordinated socially and economically. This was exquisitely illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when nearly everyone deserted Louisiana except all those Black people who couldn't afford transportation and/or a place to stay out of the state. That's why we saw all those black bodies washing away in the floodwaters. The poverty is a structural problem. As for the fact that there are racist areas in the North, I think the view of that has softened over time, just as that view has for much of the United States. I will say that I think many Black Americans are aware of Boston's history, if only for self-protection.
Speaking of structural problems, I think we're stuck with not being able to provide real material improvements to the common folk due to neoliberalism. Our economy is simply not structured in the same way as it was when we actually manufactured things in this country. I'm still organizing my thoughts on this subject, but it's clear to me that we can't recapitulate the coalition of FDR, or even that of LBJ. The basis of our economy has changed too much since the late '60s -- we can't go back. So the Democratic Party will need to find another way to fashion together a coalition; and, if they're hard-headed, we may be wandering in the wilderness for some time.
Very nice analysis. I always vote. I have not voted for a D/R candidate for the last 4 election cycles. We have to get over this predatory phase of human evolution that we have been stuck in for 4K years or more. Our continuation of humanity depends on it. Neither party is interested in heading in that direction. I have not read your stuff before. Very nice work. Peace, G
Thanks for reading, Guy, and for boosting the signal! I look forward to interacting with you more, if you feel like conversing.
It’s a little outside the margins of the topic, but I agree that we need to circumvent a sense of preying upon each other. We’re humans, though, and aggressiveness is part of our nature. Civilization tames us, but in the final analysis we’re domesticated, socialized animals.
I am curious as to what you’re pointing to that happened 4000 years ago. Maybe I’m missing something very obvious!
Best regards.