Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 3

From: richard-at-cyberjournal.org

Date: 16 Nov 2004

Subject: Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 3

To: newslog-at-cyberjournal.org

Copyright 2004 Richard K. Moore

_________________________________________________  

CHAPTER 3:    THE HARMONIZATION IMPERATIVE

* Adversarial systems and liberal democracy

If We the People are to respond effectively to our

Transformational Imperative, then we will need to do so by

means of an appropriate social movement. In the preceding

chapter I argued that a protest movement like the

anti-globalization movement cannot be our transformational

vehicle. I also suggested that electoral politics cannot be

our vehicle either, and I offered the Populist Movement as an

example of a promising popular movement that finally

floundered on the shoals of the political system. In this

chapter I'd like to take a deeper look at our 'democratic'

system, as a prelude to investigating what kind of movement

could serve our needs.

Liberal democracy is an adversarial system. Candidates compete

for party nominations, parties compete to get their candidates

elected, and elected representatives compete to get their

programs adopted in parliaments. In the U.S. Constitution,

adversarial dynamics are enshrined in the form of a carefully

worked out balance of powers among the executive, judiciary,

and legislature.

There is a naive democratic theory behind this system of

governance. When advocates for side each present their case,

there is some hope that all relevant information will emerge,

enabling good decisions to be reached. When candidates and

parties compete, there is some hope that their relative

success will be related to the size of their following --

leading indirectly to a democratic result. In a competition

among people, ideas, and programs -- the theory goes -- the

best will rise to the top.

But with any kind of system, theory is one thing and practice

is another. Systems tend to have inherent dynamics -- and the

way those dynamics play out is not always consistent with the

theory or purposes under which the system is established. In

the case of hierarchies, an inherent tendency toward

centralization of power inevitably pushes against whatever

mechanisms are set up to constrain the hierarchy. We can see

this in the gradual consolidations of power by the Federal

Government in the U.S. and by the Brussels bureaucracy in the

EU. In the case of adversarial systems as well, there are

inherent dynamics which we can observe wherever adversarial

systems are employed.

An adversarial process operates as a competitive game. The

objective of the game is to win. If you want to be a

successful player in the game, you need to be better at

winning than the other players. In the case of politics,

winning means getting elected. According to the naive theory

of democracy, the election of a candidate should reflect

general acceptance of the candidate's program. But in reality,

victory in the political struggle depends on the ability to

attract a constituency by whatever means prove to be effective

-- and selling programs isn't the means that works best in

practice. More important might be the charisma of the

candidate, or the vulnerability of the opponent to a smear

campaign, or the ability to focus public attention on

superficial but dramatic issues, or countless other propaganda

games we see played out in typical campaigns. When programs

are talked about, a candidate usually does best by evading

questions or by telling people the lies they want to hear. The

dynamics of the competitive game lead to results that have

little to do with the naive theories behind representative

democracy.

Electoral reforms can be attempted, and have frequently been

implemented, but reforms are like sand castles set against the

tide. The same political dynamics, and similar results, can be

seen in every nation that uses competitive elections. Indeed,

if we look back two thousand years to the Roman Republic we

can see the same patterns of corruption, complete with costly

campaigns, gerrymandering of districts, bought votes, etc.

What we need to understand here is that 'corruption' is the

wrong word for these phenomena. They are not distortions of

the system, rather they are the normal behavior of such a

system. It is the adversarial system itself that is a

corruption -- of democratic principles.

* Liberal democracy and elite hegemony

Liberal democracy is an ideal system to facilitate rule by

wealthy elites. In any adversarial game, the advantage goes to

the strongest players. On the school yard, the game of 'King

of the Mountain' is naturally dominated by the biggest and

strongest kids. In politics, the game of elections is

naturally dominated by those with the most campaign funds and

the most media support. By such means wealth can be translated

directly into political power and influence -- and by such

means every so-called 'democracy' is in fact ruled by wealthy

elites, either in office or from behind the scenes. There is

an ironic truth behind the neoliberal myth that capitalism and

'democracy' are closely related. In the myth the two are

related by a mutual respect for human freedom; in truth they

are related by their mutual friendliness to elite domination.

It is not by chance that we are governed by a system that

facilitates elite rule, nor was the system established due to

a mistaken belief in the naive theory of liberal democracy.

The naive theory is for school text books; it is part of the

establishment's supporting mythology. The elites who set up

these political systems understood very well how they actually

function.

When the American revolution was over, the result was thirteen

sovereign republics, collaborating under the Articles of

Confederation. But there were problems. So much was new that

unforeseen difficulties arose. There was no common agreement

to protect sea lanes, for example, and piracy became rife. The

States all agreed that the Articles required amendment. A more

collaborative framework was needed. The legislatures agreed to

sponsor a Constitutional Convention, empowered to amend the

Articles and bring them back for unanimous approval of the

States. The delegates were supposed to represent their States,

and the Constitution was to be an agreement among the States,

an amended version of the Articles. Such was the charter under

which the Convention was empowered to operate.

The legislatures, unfortunately, mostly appointed their

delegates from among their local wealthy elites. The delegates

then ensconced themselves in secret session and proceeded to

betray the charter under which they had been assembled. They

discarded the Articles, and began debating and drafting a

wholly new document, one that transferred sovereignty to a

relatively strong central government. The delegates reneged on

the States that had sent them, and took it upon themselves to

speak directly for "We the People" -- and thus begins the

preamble to their Constitution. In effect they accomplished a

coup d'etat. They managed to design a system that would enable

existing elites to continue to run the affairs of the new

nation, as they had before under the Crown -- under a

Constitution that for all the world seems to embody sound

democratic principles.

At every level of the new Constitution there were safeguards

against uprisings from below. The life-appointed Supreme Court

Justices and the six-year Senators provided a kind of

conservative flywheel against any kind of rapid change. The

President was to be elected indirectly by State Legislatures,

which provided a buffer from "mob" sentiments in each state.

Most significantly, the strongest protections in the

Constitution were granted to private property. The

Constitutional sanctity of private property guaranteed that

existing elites would be able to hold on to and continue

developing their fortunes. Whereas in most European nations

the financial system is controlled by a central government

bank, in the new American republic the private sector was

given a more influential role. This provides American elites

with a way to influence economic affairs outside of political

channels.

This may seem like a cynical assessment of the legacy of

America's "Founding Fathers". Have they not given us all those

noble sayings?... "Give me liberty or give me death.", "The

price of liberty is eternal vigilance.", .etc. Were they not

true democrats? Some were and some weren't. Even some of the

best of them, like Thomas Jefferson, were slave owners. The

worst of them, like Alexander Hamilton, would have preferred

rule by an American royalty. In general the allegiance of

colonial elites to democracy was tempered by their concern for

their own self-interest, and their notion of how society

should operate. They didn't want Royal interference in their

affairs, but neither did they want interference by what many

of them referred to as "mob rule".

By the very way they carried out the secret Constitutional

Convention they demonstrated how the new government was going

to operate. They were delegates, chartered to represent their

constituencies, and they were mostly from wealthy elite

circles. When gathered in their own company they represented

instead their own mutual interests -- yet they presented their

work as the embodiment of their charter. And they succeeded

politically in selling their product to the people and to the

States. Such has been the story of American politics ever

since.

After the Convention completed its work, a debate raged

throughout the colonies as to whether the new Constitution

should be ratified. As part of this debate, a series of

newspaper articles appeared that came to be known as the

Federalist Papers. These papers reveal with considerable

candor the elite reasoning behind the design of the new

government. Zinn writes:

      In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that

      representative government was needed to maintain peace in a

      society ridden by factional disputes... "Those who hold and

      those who are without property have ever formed distinct

      interests in society." The problem he said, was how to control

      the factional struggles that came from inequalities in

      wealth.Minority factions could be controlled, he said, by the

      principle that decisions would be by vote of the majority.

            So the real problem, according to Madison, was a majority

      faction, and there the solution was...to have an "extensive

      republic", that is, a large nation ranging over thirteen

      states, for then "it will be more difficult for all who feel

      it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with

      each other...The influence of factious leaders may kindle a

      flame within their particular States, but will be unable to

      spread a general conflagration through the other States."

The purpose of the new system, in other words, was to enable

the colonial elite to retain their economic and political

dominance by systematically preventing the ascendency of any

kind of popular democratic movement. The rules of the

adversarial game were carefully worked out so as to enable the

successful management of factionalism by the elite

establishment. The system was consciously designed to

facilitate elite rule and that is how it has functioned ever

since.

* Divide and rule

Directly after the ratification of the Constitution, two

elite-led political parties were established. Madison,

Jefferson, and Monroe joined the Democrat-Republicans, while

Hamilton, Washington, and Adams joined the Federalists. This

set the pattern for U.S. politics ever since: two mainstream

parties, both controlled by wealthy elites, and providing the

illusion of choice to voters. The two major parties had the

funding to carry out major national campaigns, and then as now

people were corralled into choosing between the lesser of two

evils when they cast their ballots.

From the beginning, the primary agenda of all mainstream

parties has been to facilitate economic growth and the further

enrichment of the wealthy elites who control both the economy

and the government. I do not mean to imply that the elite were

then, or are today, a monolith with a single consensus agenda.

There have always been ideological divisions and different

cliques competing for relative advantage. These differences

play themselves out partly in political campaigns, and lead to

rhetoric that attempts to attract voters to supporting one

clique rather than the other. Each party tries to convince

voters that the other party is to be feared, and that their

own party will lead to popular prosperity. Voters have a

choice, but it is always between two different elite agendas

which differ only in the tactics by which growth is to be

facilitated -- and by which the people are to be kept under

control.

As Madison anticipated, political stability in America has

been achieved through the management of factionalism. At any

given time, some sizable faction was always doing rather well

under the elite-managed system of economic growth, and these

more prosperous elements provided a solid base of support for

government policies. But there was always a mass of unrest

boiling up from the less advantaged segments of society.

Particularly with industrialization and the increasing

dominance of capitalist dynamics, wealth was very unequally

distributed, workers, women, and minorities were exploited,

and there were always movements of various kinds attempting to

influence the elite agenda. These movements were contained

either geographically, or else by means of pitting one faction

against the other. The Populists probably came closer than any

other movement to challenging elite hegemony, but they too

finally fell prey to adversarial dynamics when they cast their

lot in the electoral game.

Today the grassroots U.S. population is divided into two

primary factions, usually known as liberals and conservatives,

or left and right. This split represents a rather

sophisticated version of factional manipulation. It does not

represent any real difference of interests. It is not the case

that grassroots liberals and conservatives are from different

economic strata, or have different self-interest agendas for

fundamental national policies. The divisions, though deeply

felt, are not over matters of state, but over issues such as

abortion, gay rights, and the like. These kinds of issues,

according to the Constitution, are not even the business of

the Federal Government -- they are the kind that should be

dealt with locally or at the state level. But divisiveness is

so effective at controlling the population that the major

parties are happy to promote such issues to the national

level, where they can be exploited to generate fear and

anxiety. Campaigns and rhetoric are focused on these

peripheral issues, and fundamental issues of national policy

never even come up for discussion. Campaigns have no more

relevance to national policy than do high school debates, and

as in high school debates the winner is decided more on the

style of their presentations than on the validity of their

positions.

* The Harmonization Imperative

      It ain't left or right. It's up and down. Here we all are down

      here struggling while the Corporate Elite are all up there

      having a nice day!..

      - Carolyn Chute, author of The Beans of Egypt Maine and

      anti-corporate activist

For two tactical reasons, the pursuit of a 'progressive

victory' via the electoral system is a no-win idea. The first

reason is simply that such a project cannot succeed. The

divisive power of the establishment media and political

machines are too powerful. Elites have refined the management

of factionalism into a science. We all know this intuitively,

and that is why most progressives don't want to 'waste' their

vote on a Nader-style candidacy.

The second tactical reason is that a strong and aggressive

progressive movement -- within the context of neoliberalism

and adversarial politics -- would heighten the fears of the

right, fan the flames of polarization, and help facilitate an

overt fascist takeover. Indeed, if a progressive movement

showed any signs of gaining power, the elite regime would be

likely to play the fascist card in self-defense. This is why

I'm writing this book instead of campaigning for Nader.

There is also a more strategic reason why a 'progressive

victory' is a no-win idea -- even if it were achievable. Such

a victory would perpetuate hierarchy and the adversarial game.

The progressives would be on top for a while, but society

would remain divided. Progressive legislation would presumably

be enacted, but it would be enacted and enforced by a

centralized government. Those in opposition would rankle under

what they perceived to be a 'leftist dictatorship'. The forces

of reaction would exploit this divisiveness and there would

always be a danger that the political pendulum would swing

back to the right. This is in part how Reagan was able to come

to power -- an eventuality that would have seemed

inconceivable during the euphoric progressive resurgence that

followed the resignation of Richard Nixon.

If we want to transform society both economically and

politically, then we must first transform our culture. If we

want a non-dominator culture, we cannot achieve it by using

dominator methods. Such a culture cannot be imposed by a

centralized government, it must be grown from the grassroots.

The Soviet experience demonstrates what can happen when a

centralized government sets out to create a brave new world in

the name of 'the people'. A dictatorship of the proletariat is

just another kind of hierarchical rule by elites.

In order to escape from the trap of factionalism, we need to

find a way to get beyond the superficial issues that divide

us. Underneath our political and religious beliefs we are all

human beings who want a better and saner world for our

families and our descendents. Instead of focusing on what

divides us, and struggling to prevail over the 'other', we

need to find a way to focus on what unites us -- and learn how

to work together to achieve the kind of world we all want. We

face a common crisis as neoliberal capitalism destroys our

societies and threatens our life support systems. This crisis

presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to find our

common ground, as there is no sizable segment of the

population that benefits from the direction the regime is

taking us in. Factionalism no longer has any economic teeth --

the regime keeps us divided not by appealing to our self

interest but by means of manufactured and sensationalized

fears and anxieties.

If We the People are to respond effectively to our

Transformational Imperative -- to save the world and humanity

from its crisis -- we need first to actualize our common

identity as We the People. We need to learn to see one another

as human beings rather than as 'us' and 'them'. We need to

learn how to harmonize our deep common interests instead of

accentuating our superficial differences. In order to respond

to our Transformational Imperative, we must first respond to

this Harmonization Imperative.

Fortunately, there is a proven means by which we can move

effectively toward cultural harmonization and overcome

cultural factionalism. That means goes under the simple name

of 'dialog', and the next chapter is devoted to examining the

remarkable results that been achieved by appropriate kinds of

dialog -- and exploring how dialog might be employed to awaken

We the People and empower us together to respond to our

Transformational Imperative.

   _________________________________________________