tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post713442524909236622..comments2024-03-19T11:28:58.168-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: A few updatesDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-2972213862190383982008-09-07T16:11:00.000-04:002008-09-07T16:11:00.000-04:00DavidI think you have misunderstood Gore.He was no...David<BR/><BR/>I think you have misunderstood Gore.<BR/><BR/>He was not an early enthusiast of making that documentary. Nor did he control the content. The biographical stuff was the film maker's idea (the movie was bankrolled by Jeff Skoll, a Canadian who was one of the first employees of EBay and has produced several other films including 'Charlie Wilson's War').<BR/><BR/>Gore genuinely believes what he is saying. What's more, the scientific evidence that has piled up since that movie came out suggests Gore has, in the film, underestimated the dangers of global warming, rather than overestimating them.<BR/><BR/>What you see in that film is a man trying to save the planet, and the human race (or at least Western Civilisation). Read James Lovelock (or if you prefer fiction, JG Ballard's 'The Drowned World' and Cormac Macarthy's 'The Road') for an idea of how bad it could get.<BR/><BR/>Would Gore have been able to do something about global warming as president? Unclear. Congress was not on his side, and there wouldn't have been Al Gore touring the world, giving that talk. Hundreds of hours of thankless travel, speaking to groups of students and young people.<BR/><BR/>But we know from the history of our own Judeo-Christian religion, that a voice crying in the wilderness can change a world. The Wesley brothers did it, bringing modern protestantism to the English-speaking world.<BR/><BR/>If we do manage to tackle global warming before it is too late, then a big part of that will have been Al Gore.<BR/><BR/>Maybe America had to have this waltz with neoconservatism and with Bush and paleo-Republicanism, to wake up and realise what it had gotten itself into. The Clintons weren't wrong when they spoke of a vast right-wing conspiracy, enough people have 'come clean' since then to reveal that, yes, indeed, there was such a conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>But on the planetary climate, we have wasted 8 vital years. We may not have another 8 at least in the sense that the necessary sacrifices grow exponentially with the delay in action.<BR/><BR/>The Gore you see in that movie is the real mccoy. Somewhat stiff, yes, but a man who very early on in his career (how many Vice Presidential candidates have written a book about environmental issues?) committed himself to understanding about the environment. It is his ruling passion as a human being. It is for what his God made him.<BR/><BR/>For a televisual generation, it is their 'Silent Spring'.<BR/><BR/>Years of observing and dealing with cynical politicians has meant that you miss a sincere one when you see one.<BR/><BR/>ValuethinkerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-59931823521057555922008-08-03T12:34:00.000-04:002008-08-03T12:34:00.000-04:00I have a hard time figuring out why you're so hard...I have a hard time figuring out why you're so hard on Boomers in general. The progressive wing has never been in charge of society or politics and the two Boomer presidents got elected early only because the Silents had so little to offer. The era of cultural warfare (the Unraveling) was initiated and primarily conducted by the rightwing Silents with the help of younger, Boomer reactionaries (not to mention one rightwing GI generation elder). Given the times, a host of moderate to liberal to radical forces (Silent and Boomer) were drawn into struggle. But how, from all that, you deduce blame for Boomers, in general, is way beyond me.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, your steady critique ends up ignoring the fundamentally crucial role that Boomers, as elders, must play in the emerging Crisis era. It is up to Boomers to set the political agenda for these tense and dangerous times. The first thing that must be done is an all-out defeat of the social conservative/neocon agenda that managed to seize control (backed by Big Oil's dovetailing interests in a war in Iraq) as the Unraveling began to come to a close after 9/11. It is time for the progressive wing of the Boomers to assert themselves, as was last done during the mostly correct critique we raised in the Sixties. To assert now, however, means taking full leadership of society, something that was not possible when we were young.<BR/><BR/>Rather than bemoaning culture warfare (as though it were evenhanded when, in fact, it was heavy-handed from the right), you should point out the last great role left for our generation. We need to settle accounts with the ideological rightwing of our generation by uniting the country (and the world) in a concerted effort to address the unresolved issues we first asserted in our youth (peaceful conflict resolution, anti-imperialism, women's liberation, social equality and environmental preservation). <BR/><BR/>Steve ClarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-70191512258046928152008-08-02T19:35:00.000-04:002008-08-02T19:35:00.000-04:00So now, the point I wanted to make:The Democratic ...So now, the point I wanted to make:<BR/><BR/>The Democratic Party, as a sectional (not ideological) party, cannot be ideologically cohesive. The Republican Party has become cohesive as a result of an exogenous force, viz., the Conservative Movement. It is likely to face some catastrophic collapse in the future, owing to the fact that alternative paths along which it might evolve in the future have been eliminated. A non-neocon post-CM Republican Party has no potential embryo form; there's no room in the GOP for an alternative strategy of governance should the current one be decisively defeated politically. <BR/><BR/><BR/>In the meantime, however, unanimity in the Republican Party ranks acts as a force multiplier. It's like a small object, all of whose atoms have the same positive charge. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Impeachment of the president would be a crucial blow to the complex structure of party rule that the GOP set up in the 1980's; it would, however, require a vote in the House (by members invulnerable to executive blackmail) and a vote in the Senate, requiring many defections among Republicans. As we all know, Republicans don't defect; they have no incentive to do so. Democrats don't have an analogue to the CM, so they defect all the time. <BR/><BR/><BR/>A failed attempt to impeach would merely reinforce the appearance of Republican invulnerability and render Congress paralyzed. So defeat, in my view, would be a certainty and there would be dire consequences.James R MacLeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14721224895163793981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-73933919323191330632008-08-02T19:20:00.000-04:002008-08-02T19:20:00.000-04:00Just a thought:The Democratic Party remains, as it...Just a thought:<BR/><BR/>The Democratic Party remains, as it has for to centuries, a bi-sectional party. The geographic composition of the sections has fragmented, so that the former "South" now encircles most large metropolitan areas, in all states, and the "North" is the metropolitan center. This creates a balance between the pro-industry section (the Democratic Party, esp. since 1936) and the extractive section (the Republican Party, esp. since 1964). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Prior to the Civil War, and for almost a century afterwards, the Republicans were the majority party outside of the South, and stood for industry, hence, protectionism and public works. The Democrats in the "North" were the labor opposition, and in the South they were the party of the oligarchy; there was no opposition in the South.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The trend towards political consolidation of the managerial class in control of <A HREF="http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/mw/index.php/Usonian" REL="nofollow">Usonian</A> industry, and the post-Depression surge in labor-oriented politics, led to a Democratic Party that favored industry (minus the protectionism) and a Republican Party that was now wholly aligned with extraction, finance, and industrial farming. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Framed in this way, we can say that the parties aren't ideological, but sectional. The GOP has <I>become</I> ideological as a result of its conquest by the <A HREF="http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/mw/index.php/Conservative_Movement" REL="nofollow">Conservative Movement</A>. Both paleoconservatives and liberal Republicans have been purged. Meanwhile, because the Democratic-Republican struggle is sectional (as it were, analogous to a cold war between two superpowers), a rightward shift in one section tends to lead to a rightward shift in the other.James R MacLeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14721224895163793981noreply@blogger.com