All Things Michael Miles

I just have a couple of points to make about last night’s interview with Jon Stewart by Rachel Maddow. The internet is no doubt buzzing with similar discussions, but I think my points are salient. If you haven’t seen the interview, please spend the time to watch; it was good television. Here is the uncut version:

“Reasonable” people in the contemporary political landscape talk about bipartisanship and “finding common ground”, meaning solutions that look purple instead of red and blue. This perspective reeks of nostalgia, and is no longer useful. Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of common ground, but the rules of engagement have changed, so it won’t be found by trading chits on the floors of Congress. The first two years of Obama’s candidacy are a testament to the ineffectiveness of his healing strategy, and there is but one reason: on a macro level, the right-wing is disinterested in compromise. Our winner-take-all society, the harnessing of authoritarian followers, and the acceptance of a Manichaean world-view have combined to homogenize thought and values in America. Frankly, the era of the independent voter is dead, since the political offerings are so very distinct. Anybody flipping parties is either ambivalent or unaware of the product details. Reason thus becomes a matter of process, not platform.

In such an environment, it is perfectly acceptable to stake out a partisan position and defend it vigorously. Some times you will win, other times you will fail. The win/loss ratio is the compromise. Maybe you throw an occasional bone to the minority; a tactical move to advance the strategy. But it’s a mistake to assume that, on a given agenda item, both sides can move to a non-existent center.

Nor did I find Stewart’s intimation that the discourse would improve without cable news. In fact, he has it backwards: cable news didn’t create the environment, the environment enabled cable news. Do they feed off of each other? Sure. But the various social forces at work in America today are the same ones witnessed in the early 19th century, the Progressive Movement, and during the Red Scare. Maybe I’m misinterpreting Stewart’s message (because he’s obviously a very intelligent wonk), or maybe admitting that our society is stuck in an adolescent stage of development is too depressing, but I can’t believe that if cable news went away we wouldn’t immediately find a substitute.

Which illustrates the common thread between my points: process is what needs to be elevated in our current environment. The important difference between Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity is the quality of the information, not its ideological perspective. The important difference between Left and Right is not found in the strategy, it’s in the tactics.

As he mentioned in the interview, we need to rise above the demonization of our opponent. But calling Obama a threat to America is fundamentally different than calling Bush a war criminal. One statement is an aggressive assertion, while the other is supported by international law and the findings of expert investigators. Again, we need to embrace a respectful process.

The days of choosing between two closely-situated political platforms is past, at least for now. Our future entails learning to take the policy prescriptions fed to us by the majority. My hope is that we can do that in a civil, intellectual manner.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Entitlement \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\ n. 3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges.

The word entitlement is popular today, appearing often as the Tea Party and right-wing attempt to refashion its use in our society. There is an existing model for it: the word liberal being successfully redefined to mean socialist several decades ago, apparently to provide the right with an excuse to distance themselves from their roots (remember George H.W. Bush accusing Michael Dukakis of being liberal? I wonder how David Hume would have reacted to that.) However, as I have written in the past, words matter, and we can’t possibly understand the political process if we don’t understand the manipulation occurring behind the scenes.

In April of this year I asked the question, “Is the Right conservative?” I concluded that the right-wing in America resembled the French Jacobins more than any other group; French Rousseau liberals who believed that natural law provided them equality with the aristocracy, a radical notion at the time. Which brings me to the above definition.

The Tea Party meme is about taking back the government, creating a wave of populism, and ejecting the ‘elites’ from power. It’s about electing Christine O’Donnell – a woman with no political experience – to the United States Senate. It’s about replacing knowledge with common sense. While these are all fascinating ideas that have merit, it is important to note that there is nothing conservative about any of them. They represent a radical deflection from current political momentum.

But don’t take my word for it, there are centuries of political theory defining conservatism. Edmund Burke – the father of conservatism – believed that civilized society required classes of people, and that equality only existed in front of God, not within the realm of man. The notion that a common man with an internet connection might feel empowered to influence public policy without gaining the necessary expertise and knowledge was simply radical. Actually, it still is.

So, the next time someone rants about entitlement, point out to them the irony of their position. In American society, it’s pretty hard to avoid the presupposition of entitlement in our arguments. From Manifest Destiny to Christine O’Donnell, Americans have boldly taken what is ‘rightly ours’ in the name of God and freedom and righteousness.