Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The new political narrative
#1
We need a new narrative, a new story, as George Monbiot says. An inclusive one that might even eventually win over some non-Democrats, and appeal broadly.

The new political story that could change everything

Perhaps I can write one in this space. I will work on it here, as if I can contribute to the "collective effort" Monbiot mentions toward creating the new story.

Today we are on a collision course with destruction. The policies of the last 40 years have left us up the creek without a paddle. We no longer have a working peoples' government we can trust. The last 70 years or more has revved up material growth and consumption beyond what our planet can tolerate. And yet most people get less and less from all this wild expansion of human power. Our society is broken; our sense of purpose and community is gone. Too many people look to sensational symbols and slogans, empty fantasies and false conspiracy theories to fill the void of distrust and explain what's happening, which only further disconnects us from realites. Plagues and pandemics, wildfires and floods, guns, crime and racial strife, drug epidemics, lonliness, despair, anger, closed opportunities, poverty and poor health, and spreading tyranny at home and abroad rage across the land.

Ever since the 1960s, the people of the USA and many countries have lost trust in their government and its politicians. The United States of America has waged wars based on lies that cost millions of lives. We spend so much on war and defense that we have no means to build peace. Since the 1980s, the ideology that says to unleash the market so that prosperity will trickle-down from phony job creaters has only served to create a grossly unequal and unhealthy society. The promised trickle was just a trick; it never arrived. We badly need rebirth and renewal now, in so many ways.

But riots, violent revolutions and occupations in the streets, although they might relieve our frustration or start conversations, do not build anything. Our democratic system has developed over two centuries, and we need to revive it and use it again now. We need to get political to overthrow the ruling oligarchy. Our laws and our government can only be of, by and for the people IF we rise up and make it so, and remain eternally vigilant and active. We need to believe in politics, government and society again, and rebuild democracy for all again, in which power and prosperity grows and rises up from the people, not trickles down from the top!

We will rise up and create this new world, and heroically and bravely defeat its enemies. We will by persuasion and law restore a decent society. This will happen because a new and higher value has arisen amidst all these years of chaos, mistrust and decline, like a new growth quietly bubbling up through the cracks. It is the ecological green principle and it will rule in place of the acquisitive and unending material growth principle.

In this green society all resources and power are recycled, and none are concentrated. Soon no resources will any longer be mined and extracted; no humans exploited. All our activities will be based on the ecological idea of inter-dependence on each other, all contributing to the whole. This is what we need to restore our lives!

We will see brilliant, inspired, inventive business leaders create the most incredible new enterprises that fill real needs. But the new green principle inspires mutual sharing and support, not ambitions for power over others. Labor-saving, productive technology will belong to everyone by law, as well as to patent holders; not to the owners alone, so that greater leisure and wealth can be guaranteed to all. We will band together in new local communities of common dedication to make our towns and cities whole again, and join idealistic political and cultural movements and peoples' organizations to uplift our nation and our world. We will use our political power to transform our corporations and businesses into contributors to a rich and fulfilling society in which workers and consumers have power within those companies. We will have vibrant public utilities, infrastructure, schools and services that lift people up, supported by generous public investment paid for by fair taxes and contributions. More and more we will hold our land and workplaces in common. Fairs and gatherings will proliferate.

The ecological principle invites us to let Nature back into our lives and create graceful living spaces. We will see restored and supervised forests and lands from coast to coast, new parks everywhere, electric-car highways, and fully-green renewable energy. We will build beautiful cities with great architecture, art and culture where people of all groups and incomes can live side by side and all can prosper. Our climate will be stable again soon too. No more floods and fires will destroy our cities after a while. We will rediscover the cycles of nature and the cosmos, and flow with them as ancient peoples once did. We will hold all of life as sacred, and act accordingly.

The ecological principle of restored life, means that we are all becoming more alive, more flexible, and more imaginative. We can depend on our limitless power of innovation, so we don't need an ever-grosser national product that our planet-home can't support. We'll have a national invention inventory instead. We'll be smarter, not bigger. In a society that provides for all, no-one needs to hoard money or capture it from others. If we can restore our own health through better, more youthful and more-natural diets and lifestyles, we don't need to spend so much for expensive health care.

Greed, racism, prejudice, superstition, fear, indulgence and anger may not be fully and forever abolished yet, so we still need fully-adequate rules and regulations, reformed police, multi-lateral foreign policies, fair taxes willingly paid, good education and spiritual guidance, and safety-nets for all in need, to keep our misbehavior in bounds. These will be developed according to the ecological, democratic principle in which all beings participate, and all are counted. We will think globally, in reverence of Planet Earth, our unique home, but act locally using local power and local politics as much as we can, growing and rising up from below among the people, and using national and state power too when we need it.


If we hold to the ideal of a decent, living, organic society for all people and all of life, and to the Spirit within us and among us as our foundation, there's no limit to how far we can evolve and grow creatively and personally. Our longing for belonging will be answered. Love and harmony will spread across the land, as we all feel a part of the greater soul connecting us-- like a sphere of consciousness that rises like a sparkling, pulsing fountain of fireworks in the sky above, and in all our hearts.

https://philosopherswheel.com/politics-a...ution.html
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#2
George Monbiot's challenge: replace today's dominant political narrative with a new story.

Facts and figures are needed, but only narratives can change our lives and our world. The only thing that can replace an old story is a new story; a story with a basic plot of restoration. "Disorder afflicts the land, caused by nefarious forces. We revolt, and overthrow them and restore harmony to the land". It is the story of the hero's journey; it is the story of almost all religious and political movements that changed the world. We got the Keynesian story over 80 years ago, then the neo-liberal story 40 years ago. But after neo-liberalism collapsed in 2008, we got... nothing. That is why we are stuck. We fall into despair when our imagination fails. So, we need a new restoration story. Many are working together to create this. Monbiot offers his version here. My version is above.



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#3
George Monbiot with more on what could replace neo-liberalism



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#4
The above seems a less controversial, less confrontational version of the blue narrative.  I guess we do need a resolution, but I doubt it will come by just ignoring our differences.

Rachel Maddows came back from vacation this week, and basically asked (with tongue carefully in cheek) how dare they have news on the big issues while she was away?  Her three leading segments were on the Covid response, the Big Lie and fighting global warming in time.  My thought as she presented her segments, and rather convincingly with Dr Fauci and a senator on the relevant committee as guests, was that she was preaching to the choir.  The people watching her show were blue.  The people that need to save lives, reject the Big Lie and preserve the environment are not watching her show.  They are going to custom red media that will tell them what they want to hear.

Now the above isn't wrong, but we can't just sidestep the key issues.  The big meme of the crisis to be hammered home in the high is that we can't accept lies.  I don't care if it is some media wannabe or as S&H suggested the civic generation that reinforces the point, but it has to become basic and central.  We cannot live on the assumption that because it would be nice if something were so that it must be so.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#5
(08-09-2021, 09:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The above seems a less controversial, less confrontational version of the blue narrative.  I guess we do need a resolution, but I doubt it will come by just ignoring our differences.

Rachel Maddows came back from vacation this week, and basically asked (with tongue carefully in cheek) how dare they have news on the big issues while she was away?  Her three leading segments were on the Covid response, the Big Lie and fighting global warming in time.  My thought as she presented her segments, and rather convincingly with Dr Fauci and a senator on the relevant committee as guests, was that she was preaching to the choir.  The people watching her show were blue.  The people that need to save lives, reject the Big Lie and preserve the environment are not watching her show.  They are going to custom red media that will tell them what they want to hear.

Now the above isn't wrong, but we can't just sidestep the key issues.  The big meme of the crisis to be hammered home in the high is that we can't accept lies.  I don't care if it is some media wannabe or as S&H suggested the civic generation that reinforces the point, but it has to become basic and central.  We cannot live on the assumption that because it would be nice if something were so that it must be so.

If anythiing, I'm even less convinced.  The soft-squishy message has been a Democratic hallmark for decades. That's what isn't working.  The message doesn't have to be far to the left, but it has to be strong and pointed.  Even more to the point, the Dems need to take the fight to the enemy (sorry to have to use that designator, but the truth is the truth).  They need to worry less about offending and more aboujt supporting their own vision.

Noonefollowsaleader whoasks, "Where should we go now?"  It'sthe leader'sjobto supply that.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#6
(08-09-2021, 09:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The above seems a less controversial, less confrontational version of the blue narrative.  I guess we do need a resolution, but I doubt it will come by just ignoring our differences.

Rachel Maddows came back from vacation this week, and basically asked (with tongue carefully in cheek) how dare they have news on the big issues while she was away?  Her three leading segments were on the Covid response, the Big Lie and fighting global warming in time.  My thought as she presented her segments, and rather convincingly with Dr Fauci and a senator on the relevant committee as guests, was that she was preaching to the choir.  The people watching her show were blue.  The people that need to save lives, reject the Big Lie and preserve the environment are not watching her show.  They are going to custom red media that will tell them what they want to hear.

Now the above isn't wrong, but we can't just sidestep the key issues.  The big meme of the crisis to be hammered home in the high is that we can't accept lies.  I don't care if it is some media wannabe or as S&H suggested the civic generation that reinforces the point, but it has to become basic and central.  We cannot live on the assumption that because it would be nice if something were so that it must be so.

I agree, we can't accept lies in the future. I think that will be impossible for most of the current red tribe, but if the politics can just shift enough to the blue side, we can defeat the red and force them to either go along or secede. That means the recent pattern of electing a blue president and congress and then throwing them out 2 years later needs to shift too in the 2020s. We need a progressive decade, and that means blue victories in midterms, which also means millennials need to realize their civic duty and participate.

I did write this much in my version: "Too many people look to sensational symbols and slogans, empty fantasies and false conspiracy theories to fill the void of distrust and explain what's happening, which only further disconnects us from realities."
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#7
(08-09-2021, 09:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The above seems a less controversial, less confrontational version of the blue narrative.  I guess we do need a resolution, but I doubt it will come by just ignoring our differences.

Rachel Maddow came back from vacation this week, and basically asked (with tongue carefully in cheek) how dare they have news on the big issues while she was away?  Her three leading segments were on the Covid response, the Big Lie and fighting global warming in time.  My thought as she presented her segments, and rather convincingly with Dr Fauci and a senator on the relevant committee as guests, was that she was preaching to the choir.  The people watching her show were blue.  The people that need to save lives, reject the Big Lie and preserve the environment are not watching her show.  They are going to custom red media that will tell them what they want to hear.

Now the above isn't wrong, but we can't just sidestep the key issues.  The big meme of the crisis to be hammered home in the high is that we can't accept lies.  I don't care if it is some media wannabe or as S&H suggested the civic generation that reinforces the point, but it has to become basic and central.  We cannot live on the assumption that because it would be nice if something were so that it must be so.

"The choir" is a predictable audience, and the only reliable audience in a significant number. The rest of us will decide based upon results and  the credibility of promises made by the challenger. Some incumbent Presidents are much stronger campaigners and have more events going in their favor, and only rarely does a solid President (Obama) face a strong challenger. Weak Presidents usually get stronger challengers because a likely loss to an incumbent President isn't a good prospect. If the incumbent President seeking re-election has a three-year economic meltdown working against him (Hoover in 1932), has never won a statewide election and is a continuation of a troubled Presidency (Ford in 1976), is enduring partisan fatigue (Bush 1992), or has bungled everything except consolidating the base (Trump in 2020), then a shrewd campaigner has an obvious chance to oust the struggling incumbent.  Davis 1924, Smith 1928, Landon 1936, Willkie 1940, Dewey 1944, Dewey 1948, Stevenson 1952 (loser of the previous election!), Goldwater 1964, McGovern 1972, Mondale 1984, and Dole 1996 all had obvious weaknesses as challengers that anyone could have seen -- from being political neophytes, being cheerless characters, or being seen as dangerous radicals. Dubya was vulnerable in 2004, but his opponent was weaker intellectually (as shown in his performance as Secretary of State) than usual for a Presidential nominee. Mitt Romney was stronger than any challenger to an incumbent president who was at least solid in performance. Romney was "close to being close" in the count of electoral votes, which says more about him than about Obama. 

In any event, Rachel Maddow has an audience largely convinced that Donald Trump is a despicable person. The difference between her and someone like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, or the late Rush Limbaugh is that she has fact-checked material that backs her.  Ideally the question is not so much what one wants to be the truth but instead what is the truth. We are all free to hold our opinions, but we have no freedom to choose the facts. 

Maddow's audience learned about COVID-19 the easy way through the consolidation of facts even of those facts are ugly and inconvenient. The opposite audience has found things out the hard way -- through the experience of truth at its harshest. Maddow's audience largely wore masks, washed frequently, did social distancing, and avoided the environments most likely to spread COVID-19. The other audience heard what it wanted to hear and is now finding out the hard way. One group has largely dodged COVID-19, and the other takes the disease at its harshest.   

Maybe what we learn from COVID-19 will select Humanity for respect for objective facts over convenient falsehoods. Some people will have learned that objective truth is a more reliable guide to life than is what one wants to believe. I might love to believe that I have far more in my bank balance that I have, and that I could pay cash for a better house, a nice new car, and some really nice clothes, appliance, furniture, and electronic goodies with a side dish of some memorable excursions abroad.  The reality is that I must struggle with some stark choices in life that I dislike. But if I should act on the assumption that I have a huge bank balance and do some wild spending, then I will be busted for writing hot checks.   But that would reflect a self-generated lie. Believing someone else's lie (such as that Donald Trump really won the 2020 election) could be even more harmful -- just think of Ashli Bobbitt. 

We are going to need to change our habits, and especially those of children, so that we can better discern truth-telling from lying or foolishness. We must also accept that telling the truth is less troublesome than is dodgy expression of something else. One can get away with lying until the truth becomes obvious. Just think of people who loudly lament their missing children and then are found to have murdered them and hidden their bodies. Truth need not be convenient, but it is certainly vital. That is how we will deal with all sorts of economic, political, and social distress.. and severe dislocations and tragedies. If you think COVID-19 troubling, then just think of horrors from the Holodomor and the Holocaust to the Bataan Death March and the horrific firebombing of Axis cities from Hamburg to Tokyo and finally atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think the death toll of the Second Punic War -- excuse me, World War II -- and some of the most egregious offenses against human life and dignity associated with that time, then just think of what AGW can cause. Susan Smith could get away for a short time with drowning her young sons, but eventually she could get caught. We won't have the chance to drown huge numbers of peasant farmers in decrepit cars driven into the rising sea and get away with it.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#8
I hope you have all seen this video; it should be required viewing for any concerned person. He cuts to the chase here.



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#9
Neoliberalism is simply mirror-image Marxism -- the idea that people exist solely to enrich and indulge the economic elites or to enforce the will of those elites. Even if greater prosperity usually means more human happiness, such prosperity as neoliberalism engenders requires great suffering from the masses and has no idea of when to start sharing the rewards. Supposedly people exist solely for their own economic gratification, but neoliberalism in practice denies economic gratification to any but the elites. Such happiness as people have comes from better times as a store of utility.

The usual calculus of economics is that consumption (as what one pays) defines happiness, so paying $20 to use a recently-privatized toll road that one recently paid $4 to use is an improvement of $16. (Paying less and getting more is progress, which means that spending $200 to get a 32
flat-screen TV that could easily last twenty years without a repair in 2021 dollars is a huge improvement over paying $600 in 1981 dollars for a 25" console TV that one must call a repairman every four years to replace the picture tube. Getting more for less as the result of technological progress is boon. Paying more for something monopolized on the cheap so that its rapacious owner can extract every possible penny for use is oppression.

The neoliberals also ignore that marginal utility means more toward the bottom end in society. The gruel that prevents starvation is much more precious to its recipient than is the indulgent repast of caviar to some plutocrat. To add to this, the more inequitable the social order, the more it must rely upon threats and punishments instead of economic rewards to win compliance, such implying the need for extreme brutality in enforcing the rules.

The neoliberal ideology may have little more to offer the common man than pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die, which seems to contradict the self-indulgent behaviors that people commonly attribute to people who can buy all the pie that they want easily. As someone who takes the moral teachings of the Bible seriously, I interpret Thou shalt not steal" to also include "Thou shalt not exploit".

Donald Trump is the purest expression of neoliberal ideology, but he has shown a complete absence of any novelty in thought.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#10
(08-10-2021, 12:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope you have all seen this video; it should be required viewing for any concerned person. He cuts to the chase here.




It's unsurprising that we're not winning the war of words. We, as George Bernard Shaw once noted, refuse to use the ones with real power.  For example, on the COVID issue we have GOP governors making political hay on "freedom to choose" -- nevermind that exercises of freedom as they see it endangers the lives of all of us.  It's atomic Me versus communal Us.  A good counter narrative is simple: exercising their freedom is killing their own children and ours too.  That may seem unwarranted, but it's no more extreme than the rhetoric Republicans use every day.  Maybe turnaboubt is fully justified this time.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#11
(08-11-2021, 11:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-10-2021, 12:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope you have all seen this video; it should be required viewing for any concerned person. He cuts to the chase here.




It's unsurprising that we're not winning the war of words. We, as George Bernard Shaw once noted, refuse to use the ones with real power.  For example, on the COVID issue we have GOP governors making political hay on "freedom to choose" -- nevermind that exercises of freedom as they see it endangers the lives of all of us.  It's atomic Me versus communal Us.  A good counter narrative is simple: exercising their freedom is killing their own children and ours too.  That may seem unwarranted, but it's no more extreme than the rhetoric Republicans use every day.  Maybe turnaboubt is fully justified this time.

Absolutely justified, yes.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Catalist: findings on age-cohorts and political activity pbrower2a 1 523 05-20-2023, 03:51 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Biden is using a racial narrative to obscure the class character of police violence Einzige 10 3,872 04-25-2021, 10:26 AM
Last Post: David Horn
  Bread and Circuses with California’s Political Hypocrisy SusanSusan 0 841 02-02-2021, 07:11 PM
Last Post: SusanSusan
  The cancer infecting the political Left Mickey123 310 82,612 02-01-2021, 11:41 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Will a nationalist/cosmopolitan divide be the political axis of the coming saeculum? Einzige 66 49,642 03-21-2020, 05:14 AM
Last Post: Blazkovitz
  New York bill would ban anonymous political ads on Facebook nebraska 0 1,336 01-29-2018, 07:03 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Study: Political Polarization is Mainly a Right-Wing Phenomenon Odin 0 1,583 03-19-2017, 01:27 PM
Last Post: Odin
  Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights? Anthony '58 21 16,382 02-04-2017, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Galen
  Calls by elected officials (other than Trump) for political violence pbrower2a 3 3,865 09-13-2016, 02:52 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  celebrities at political conventions Dan '82 3 3,492 07-29-2016, 11:01 PM
Last Post: MillsT_98

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)