My personal aim is superpolitical (or at least superelective)—our goal shouldn’t be to control the next couple of election cycles but to effect a long-term change in our country and especially in our relative municipalities. This takes guerilla education movements (teach-ins), real social movements and organizing beyond the current social media model.

Let me first state that I am not a “tea partier” in the contemporary sense, but I believe in and fully endorse secession. I would be ready for you to dismiss me right now based on that assertion, but let me jot down my current frustrations. I don’t believe individuals should be conscripted into supporting a government that is functioning far beyond its mandate nor constitutionally proscribed power—I don’t see that system changing without superpolitical, but non-violent intervention. I am also not a progressive—an empty label meant to ingratiate the Left and liberals to the centrist Democrats and other so-called moderates, conspicuously similar to the tea party misnomer and the cruder—albeit, self-made—label, “teabagger.” I can identify partly as a social libertarian in the sense that I distrust any concentration of power that sets up elite controls at the expense of the polity or the demos; but I also believe that government isn’t restricted to some fantastical vision of “originalism”—where the only valid functions are protective (military and police) and arbitrative (judicial). Conservatism is not necessarily conservative in the classical sense—because it has largely radicalized itself. However, those radical elements serve a purpose common to the present-day liberal establishment: the justification and maintenance of the Current Order, which may be viewed as fundamentally antidemocratic.

I think many of us have been operating under some aspects of mythology that can no longer be reaffirmed as beneficial or true. Here’s one:

The United States is a democracy and we hold a monopoly on that term and its exercise—other forms of democratic government around the world are not legitimate if it’s not like ours or not approved by our imperial involvement.

Conservatives counter that we are a “democratic republic” with a Constitution that places limits or checks on majority control. This is true, although this is largely used by conservatives as a talking point to a) argue from authority that the elitism instituted by the Founding Fathers is unquestionable and b) to discredit the idea of a democratic reform of that government. Yet we have a rhetorical democracy where we say we are a government of the people and must institute that form of government in foreign nations through the use of force. If there is a “democratically elected government” in other countries and the Empire does not approve of the government, we use either manipulation or direct force to eliminate or disable that government.


The Constitution and American form of government (with all its tributary institutions) are sacrosanct; we deify the American founders.

Because it is such a commonplace practice, many don’t notice or dismiss that we capitalize “Founding Fathers,” yet this is a very telling example of how we exalt elites and those “who know better” above ourselves. Incidentally, I also view it as a healthy form of mythologizing– sometimes this can be good, but when used to perpetually justify our Government’s gross misdeeds and enforced unaccountability without question, the healthy aspect of said mythologizing is no longer relevant. Conservatives have attacked liberal assertions that “the Constitution is a living document.” Most individuals, when arguing over wedge issue matters revert to the US Constitution as though it were scripture handed down to them like proverbial tablets from the mountain. No doubt the Founding Fathers were products of a great liberal age, the Intellectual Enlightenment, and that some sought increase the rights of the individual. (Interestingly, conservatives will deny this fundamental definition of liberal.) However, the American founders were a diverse group that shouldn’t be treated as having monolithic interests or intentions. But we can look at their product: The US Constitution. As Sheldon Wolin points out in Democracy, Inc. It provides for elite rule of the demos—a managed democracy where only the House was to be directly elected: the Electoral College chooses the President, State elites chose Senators, and the President chooses Supreme Court Justices and all of these institutions interpedently interdependently inhibit each other from instituting changes that empower individuals too rapidly.

The sacred birthright described here can be extended to our current government—where it is assumed that the elites in these institutions should be trusted to enact popular will with all evidence to the contrary. The executive has now inherited the sacrosanctity of the Founders and become “unitary”—gaining virtually unlimited deference from the other branches. The Supreme Court—by very definition, an elite institution—is aristocratic and antidemocratic (e.g. there is an accepted “protocol” of behavior going beyond law—e.g. no television cameras), removed from society (e.g. what is the difference between text messages and pagers?), and belligerently contemptuous of popular and State sovereignty (e.g. 2000 election). The Congress, while pandering to populist issues—will sell them out when the amount of the check from the multinational corporation [the only true constituency] is sufficient, participates in boundless pseudo-events meant to manipulate electoral politics, and has fully abdicated its oversight responsibility. Furthermore, the Congress exploits republican processes (e.g. filibuster) to actively deny popular will. Yet with these markers of fundamental and systemic corruption ever-present and growing, we still look to the removed, cynical elite in Washington, DC for solutions.

When I have time, I’ll try to explore in more detail the types of things I think matter when it comes to reforming the total system as it were. I’d like to get into topics such as: the American culture of militarism, factionalism as superior to politics, economy before society, and the cult of the self.

*Wolin, Sheldon. Democracy Incorporated. Princeton: Princeton Univ Pr, 2010. Print.

dirac

dirac

11 Comments