by on
Via Krugman, an excellent post by Amanda Marcotte on the power of the Republicans in controlling the negotiations on the debt. Basically, her point is that whatever you think of Obama, the reason the debt struggle goes poorly for liberals is, unsurprisingly, the Republicans.

Democrats who are upset at Obama—like Krugman himself—puzzle me. Many liberals demand to know why he doesn’t demand more left wing policies. Much the same complaint, as Marcotte notes, was directed at Bill Clinton.

 If we use my crude materialist/nationalist/cosmopolitan model, we get the following: Obama, like most Democrats, is cosmopolitan. That means, essentially, he is out to improve the world, promote multiculturalism and human rights across the world, increase tolerance, increase economic and social equality, and so on.

The Republican party is a coalition of materialistic business interests, who promote laissez-faire capitalism (when it suits them) and in general pursue the philosophy of maximizing material wealth, and of nationalistic groups who demand that strict traditional social roles and values be upheld.

Like most triumvirates, this model has resulted in two ganging up to defeat the other one. Obama, like Clinton before him, is therefore completely at the mercy of the Republican party when it comes to economic issues.

One thing that will be noted by anyone who examines the phenomenon is that the Nationalistic wing almost never gets its way on social issues. Note, for example, that under Obama gays have been allowed to serve openly in the military. (Again, this had been something Clinton had also taken steps towards achieving.) The Republicans allowed this, by not fighting with nearly the same fury they put into the debt deal.

Almost all of this is quite obvious, and I am hardly the first to notice any of it. (For an excellent description of how this system works, read Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas.)  
So, in short, Democrats get to win on social issues—sometimes—as long as they do not tamper with the business interests. If they attempt to, the business interests will remind the nationalists that the Democrats put all this social liberalism into effect, and the Dems will promptly be voted out.

Again, this is where Thomas Frank is excellent: he points out that this scheme has been going on for decades now, and apparently the nationalists refuse to see it. 

It’s impossible to overemphasize that business interests and nationalism are almost completely opposed by nature. Nationalists have no use for businesses that know no national loyalty, and business has no use for non-materialistic bounds on where it may build factories or whom it may hire. Nationalists are not natural allies of the rich businessman who swears allegiance only to profits.

The alliance, therefore, ought to be fraught with incredible tension. That it isn’t is almost shocking; that it is considered the more stable and ordered of the two parties verges on miraculous—or supernatural, at any rate.

I suspect the price they pay for this shocking discipline is the number of… shall we say…”colorful personalities” they seem to attract. Paul Graham once pointed out that Democrats seem to be “earnest, but dull” compared to Republicans. I think this is because it’s impossible to honestly believe all of the things in the Republican party line without being a rather confused person. At least, I don’t see how you do it.

That’s not to say it makes no sense to have this strategic alliance between the nationalists and the materialistic groups—that’s what politics is all about, after all—but it is bizarre that it is regarded as completely natural.

This, by the way, is why they make attacks like this against the President. The constant “he is not one of us” drumbeat may play to racial issues, but it’s more than that. Almost every Democratic candidate Presidential candidate faces an allegation of not being “American” enough for some reason. 

It is absolutely necessary for the survival of this coalition that the nationalists remain convinced that the government itself is anti-American, or at least run by people who are when they make any attempt to regulate business.  If they don’t believe that, the greedy interests will not have the clout they currently enjoy. Until that day, Liberals will have to content themselves with the Obamas and Clintons of the world–people who do what they can with a bad hand.


by on

I haven’t been keeping up with the comic book news, so I hadn’t heard about Superman renouncing his U.S. Citizenship till today. It’s not really an anti-American story, but nevertheless, it has sparked a Conservative backlash.

I think this nicely illustrates what I mean when I talk about cosmopolitanism vs. nationalism in politics. It’s not that Superman has become anti-American, he is merely “taking a broader approach”. But nevertheless, to the nationalist, the difference is significant.

by on

Probably not. But, via Hacker News, Scott Braddock relates an interesting anecdote about how the game might promote international co-operation. He concludes somewhat hopefully:

“Boys love to play soldier. They like to shoot guns and hunt targets. Maybe someday the fights will only happen in their video games and their opponents will really be their friends, even if they live in different worlds.” 

by on

The adherents of cosmopolitanism are, by definition, always quick to repudiate the nationalism of their own country.

But, (in my experience, at any rate) they are usually not quite capable of holding all nationalisms equal. In fact, they tend to be more sympathetic to foreign nationalists, if only as a reaction to the xenophobia and/or imperialism of the nationalists in their home country.

by on

As you may remember, I have in the past talked about three major philosophies that crop up often in politics: cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and materialism; or perhaps more simply, greed.

Well, it occurred to me today that it so happens that these philosophies are all represented by the major factions in Bethesda Softworks and Obsidian Entertainment‘s video game Fallout: New Vegas. I realize this may sound odd, but hear me out:

The New California Republic represents cosmopolitanism, or at least a Social-Democratic government that believes in modern-day values. They do to some extent impose Democracy by force, but nonetheless seem to hold more “enlightened” ideals.

Caesar’s Legion, meanwhile, represents Nationalism. They are a reactionary, semi-Fascist force that believes in primitive rituals, very traditional–even barbaric–social and gender ideas, brutal punishments, and a sort of Nietzschean romanticizing of power.

Finally, Mr. House represents wealth, greed and materialism. His reliance on science, technology, wealth, and mathematics (in the form of the gambling in the casinos) demonstrates this.

These aren’t all perfect fits, of course, and I have no idea if any of the writers consciously thought about any of these choices or not when they wrote the game. But it’s an interesting allegory, and I personally think it shows that more thought and care went into F:NV‘s storyline than goes into your typical video game plot, making it far more sophisticated than the typical “pure good vs. pure evil” archetype.

by on
“The boys are all ready;
They’ve laid out the plan,
They’re setting the stage
For the man-made man.
We’ve worked out the kinks
In your DNA
So sayonara, kid
Have a nice day.”
—Warren Zevon and Larry Klein. “Sacrificial Lambs“. 2002.  

So, some researchers did a study and found out that there is a gene that predisposes people towards a “liberal” political stance. James Fowler, the lead researcher, said:

“The way openness is measured, it’s really about receptivity to different lifestyles, for example, or different norms or customs… we hypothesize that individuals with a genetic predisposition toward seeking out new experiences will tend to be more liberal.” 

This is kind of what I mean when I talk about Cosmopolitan thought vs. Nationalist thought. As I said here: “nationalism places far higher importance upon symbols and traditions than does… cosmopolitanism.” So, Liberalism, or what I call “Cosmopolitanism”, is much more willing to experiment with different customs, symbols and societal norms.

Interestingly, however, I am politically what people consider a “Liberal” on most issues, yet I don’t particularly enjoy “seeking out new experiences” in my personal life. I very much enjoy having a routine and sticking to it.

by on

Kathleen Parker has an interesting column discussing politicians’ appeals to “small-town values”, in which she criticizes them–Sarah Palin, in particular–for making it seem as if small towns are superior to cities. She writes: “In the politician’s world, small towns are where “real Americans” live, as opposed to all those other people — the vast majority of Americans — who live in urban areas.”

She then details the feeling of community she experienced living on Olive Street in Washington D.C. She sums up thus: “small-town values have nothing to do with small towns.”

Predictably, the website “Conservatives4Palin” has ridiculed Parker, saying that Palin’s new book has done nothing to criticize those who live in urban areas. The critique of Parker laid out by “Conservatives4Palin” attempts to dodge the real issue; they claim that Parker was merely criticizing Palin’s upcoming book, when in fact she was criticizing Palin’s very worldview. Because Parker was writing not of Palin’s book, but rather of her infamous quote from the 2008 campaign:

If you can’t see the video: Palin said, in part: “We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call ‘the Real America’.”

Does this not imply that small towns are superior? “The best of America” seems to me to leave little up to interpretation. Of course, this sparked a firestorm of outrage from the Left at the time; and Palin “clarified” (retracted) her remarks.

I am reminded, whenever anyone alludes to this incident or to Palin’s “elitist” bashing in general, of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, wherein he draws the distinctions between Culture and Civilization. As the Wikipedia article says:

“He [Spengler] contrasts the “true-type” rural born, with the nomadic, traditionless, irreligious, matter-of-fact, clever, unfruitful, and contemptuous-of-the-countryman city dweller. In the cities he sees only the “mob”, not a people, hostile to the traditions that represent Culture (in Spengler’s view these traditions are: nobility, church, privileges, dynasties, convention in art, and limits on scientific knowledge). City dwellers possess cold intelligence that confounds peasant wisdom, a new-fashioned naturalism in attitudes towards sex which are a return to primitive instincts, and a dying inner religiousness.”

This is no surprise; for Spengler was a Nationalist, albeit a very pessimistic and fatalistic one. The Nationalist always seems to find the people of the countryside preferable to those of the city; and hence it is to be expected that Palin feels the same. She, and the Tea Party, are nationalists through and through, as I have said before.

Parker, on the other hand, is not. Her outlook is rather one of cosmopolitanism, (which is Greek, literally, for “Universal City”) the opposite of Nationalism. And thus Palin’s words hold no meaning for her. Nationalists and Cosmopolitans cannot understand one another even when they speak the same language.