too long for comment fields (torture states love)

[solarbird]

llachglin commented here on my political post from last week, entitled torture states love. He finds my analysis of the current situation reasonable, but my analysis of events moving forward overly pessimistic. As my reply was rather too long for a comment field, I'm posting it here instead.

Some of the historical abuses that are similar to the current ones were not repudiated for decades after their institution. In terms of imprisoning Americans without trial, you need look no further than the imprisonment of Japanese Americans.
As above, I see these as a continuation of violent and racist acts long considered normal. Previous iterations included the mass slaughter and/or expulsion of Chinese immigrants, the decades of KKK violence and lynch mobs against blacks (and other minourities), and on and on. One of the memoirs I've read - by the daughter of an internment camp woman - talked about how glad her mother was that internment went down the way it did, instead of the way the Chinese immigrant wave got it. That doesn't make it good, the gods know, but it's a realistic position to take that the camps were an improvement over past cycles. And I'm halfway willing to believe that. And the eventual reaction to the camps was an improvement outright.

The power of the presidency has been increasing for a long time
Of course. But we are at a point when the Chief Executive and supporters are specifically and explicitly calling the President above the law, and getting away with it, with the effective co-operation of both major parties. That's a new low, and it crosses what I see as a critical, a crucial line. All sorts of things Nixon did, for example, were illegal. Some of his cronies made commentary about how the Presidency is the law, but got slapped down. Most of the real argument outside of the immediate Nixon circle was either that it wasn't actually illegal or - about as often - didn't actually happen, and not that the law didn't apply at all. The key failure is in the failure to repudiate this claim.

So I also have to reject the idea that the problem is the Baby Boom generation.
See above in the original post for my clarification, first. That said...

That generation is split and is not overwhelmingly in favor of these measures
But is perfectly willing to continue to allow them, which institutionalises them, whether they are in favour of them or not. The institutionalisation is critical. More to the point I was making, the dynamic between the sides of this split is fixed - or, as I said above, calcified. It will not resolve internally, but neither will they be forced to share power soon enough to prevent institutionalisation.

Ultimately, I think the problem is the rise of the current right-wing movement, which while at the height of its powers is beginning to exhaust itself.
That's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the failure to respond, a failure I have discussed - bitterly - here, often.

The real left in this country has been in decline since the end of WWII, providing no countervailing force to the authoritarians. Partly this is the result of McCarthyism. That broke the Popular Front alliance of liberals and socialists, leaving only a core of ultra-left ideologues who fell prey to Stalinism
i.e., authoritarianism
in one generation, Maoism
i.e., authoritarianism
in the next, and irrelevance ever since.
No argument there. However, I don't see where they have any kind of serious track record of helping, aside from the now-swept-away post-Nixon laws.

Demographics are changing. The country is becoming more urban, more diverse, more accepting of differing identities and ways of living.
I have a set of other thoughts on the long-term decay of the nation-state which interact with all of these questions. However, before that happens, the nation-state will reach out with all of its powers to prevent its own minimisation, and it will have significant capabilities of doing so. The new reality - or at least large components of it - will remain in place for a generation unless actively repudiated. The longer this repudiation takes, the less likely it becomes in a form other than systemic transformation.

All of this undermines the center-right majority, which is based on support by white males. Once that majority breaks apart, the social conservatives and authoritarians will both lose influence
Assumptions I do not find warranted, certainly not in the short term. These particular social conservatives and authoritarians might. Unless somehow there's a jump straight to a Grand Compromise of "we can't force what we want, so we agree not to fight about it" without the mess in between first, of course. I consider this unlikely.

While technology provides ways for governments to control the population, it also provides the means to counter government abuses. One could look at Burma and say that the people are going to lose
Yeah, the net went dark a few days ago; those bastards have learned a couple of things (said Napoleon).

but I'm with David Brin in believing that in the long run technology will make authoritarianism unsustainable, but with a loss in privacy that is unfortunately largely inevitable.
Yes, privacy in the traditional sense is pretty dead except as a social convention of politeness. The new (and critical) issue on this front is not privacy but secrecy, which, by no coincidence whatsoever, is reaching new heights with the current administration.

Faced with a multifaceted global crisis of resources, people will grab the power they need to survive at the expense of centralized executive power.
I actually consider this one of the optimistic attainable scenarios, and is why I like various regionalist institutions and co-operative agreements, particularly those which span nation-state borders, as they will be able to practice central-government avoidance more adroitly than single-country institutions.

This will transform existing social institutions, including moribund political parties.
Which is rather my point with the Democrats in particular; they are moribund. As is the national media. I further do not really believe they are reformable. Otherwise, I agree.

I am, by the way, praying that the fundamentalists make good on their threat. Pleasantly, the local theocrats in the Faith and Freedom Network have endorsed Dobson's position. A fractured GOP will make room for the shattering the Democratic Party needs.

The result will incorporate the best aspects of libertarianism and social democracy.
Could. Not will. And all this depends upon a surviving and ubiquitous communications infrastructure. One of the lessons from the Iraq resistance is that these can be developed in rather ad-hoc ways very effectively, so there is hope.

But we have to make this happen; we can't just wait around for someone to save us. The whole point is that we have to take our own lives into our own hands.
Well, what do you think I've been doing? Until people see the extent of the problem, people will not react. Hence, I scream from rooftops. Or Livejournal, which, funnily, is ... at least a little more effective.

Comments

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Answer, part two:

But [the Boomer generation] is perfectly willing to continue to allow them, which institutionalises them, whether they are in favour of them or not. The institutionalisation is critical. More to the point I was making, the dynamic between the sides of this split is fixed - or, as I said above, calcified. It will not resolve internally, but neither will they be forced to share power soon enough to prevent institutionalisation.


I don't understand how the Boomers institutionalize this when they're no more likely to oppose many of these powers than other generations. I don't see how moving these people out of power and replacing them with younger people equally or even less resistant to increased presidential powers is going to help. Your larger point about calcification has some merit, but I really think the calcification is political, not generational. The conservative movement may have started its march to power in 1964 (and as such preceded the rise of the Boomers to power), but it's a multi-generational movement. While there are certainly less right-wing authoritarians (from center-right Clinton on some issues and the sectarian hard left on many more), the bulk of liberals, progressives, and leftists are anti-authoritarian, and they have not contributed to the overall trend except as hapless victims.

Things will begin to change when the multi-generational conservative movement falls apart. On a range of issues, things look good for the long term. On social issues, there is a generational shift in a gradient from oldest to youngest, with the youngest being least conservative. The religious right will not be able to sustain itself in the face of this demographic reality; we just have to limit the damage in the meantime. I think their failure to find a presidential candidate this year, and their potential willingness to sabotage the conservative movement's decades-old coalition in a fit of purist pique are signs they're running out of steam. The more worrisome part of the conservative movement is that surrounding issues of government abuses of power and government secrecy. Call them the Giuliani-Lieberman faction, which includes some right-leaning Democrats. They favor empire abroad and repression at home, and play to fears and prejudices to gain power for themselves. The ray of light with this group is that a lot of their influence rests on a successful outcome to both the debacle in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism. They might be able to gain short-term support for increased presidential power when they can still convince enough people that they're protecting the country, but as both of these efforts continue to fail they will lose influence, and in any case without the electoral support of the theocons they'll have a hard time putting together a governing majority. The key to encouraging this in the short run is to marginalize the key people who support this faction, including everyone associated with Bush, the neocons, Giuliani's supporters, and the right-wing Democrats. Electing Democrats in 2008 from the president on down will help tremendously on every count. The key is to make the continued support of Democrats conditional on rolling back the Bush-era expansion of powers.

[solarbird]

I don't understand how the Boomers institutionalize this when they're no more likely to oppose many of these powers than other generations.
The calcification is of the argument itself, not the contents thereof. The actual facts, the data, aren't relevant. What's relevant is what side they're on and with whom there are perceived scores to settle.

I mean, if content didn't matter, would you have ended up with a "conservative" movement - Goldwater's conservative movement! - supporting the lawless, unchecked executive, foreign war adventurism, and religious government? Would you have seen it throwing its weight behind the biggest government advancement of spending since LBJ, the very President and actions that Goldwater rallied against?

Of course not. This was possible only because the content had become irrelevant. Only the labels and sides - the tribes - mattered. And while there's some splintering off here and there one way and the other, these two sides have been mostly locked in place. The content itself doesn't matter. That needs to break up before reality can change.

Your larger point about calcification has some merit, but I really think the calcification is political, not generational.
And for the Boomers, generational==political. They are a politically identified generation, and have been pretty much since always.

The religious right will not be able to sustain itself in the face of this demographic reality
In this case, I marginally agree; I've stated a few times that I think they're on the way down, at least for now. There will be a resurgence, tho'; they are aware of the situation and are working very hard to form a generationally sectarian political base. I think this will work less effectively than it has in the past, but I could be wrong. Hopefully I am not.

their potential willingness to sabotage the conservative movement's decades-old coalition in a fit of purist pique
The reaction to Giuliani is not a fit of purist pique. I completely agree with them on that. They cannot support him without betraying the religious core causes of their movement. That's not "purism," that's "do we betray what we are?" What they are is sad, but it's still what they are. The idea that "refusal to abandon core beliefs for power" can be considered "a fit of purist pique" makes no sense to me.

The ray of light with this group is that a lot of their influence rests on a successful outcome to both the debacle in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism.
See above, seriously - I have a four-part reply to technoshaman's comment which is directly applicable to this question. I also think that the Democratic Party is not going to prevent the style of "success" I discuss above. I'd link to it but it's four links. :-p Just go to the post level view here and scroll down.

They might be able to gain short-term support for increased presidential power when they can still convince enough people that they're protecting the country, but as both of these efforts continue to fail they will lose influence, and in any case without the electoral support of the theocons they'll have a hard time putting together a governing majority.
This, to me, confuses content and side, again. Have they lost if they've achieved their goals? They individually may no longer be in power, but as long as the goals they desired are still in place, how have they actually lost?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

would you have ended up with a "conservative" movement - Goldwater's conservative movement! - supporting the lawless, unchecked executive, foreign war adventurism, and religious government

Yes. Goldwater had some integrity, but his influence has been subject to a lot of revisionism. This is a guy who wanted to take a more active military posture in Vietnam, possibly as far as ordering a nuclear strike, without a formal declaration of war. That's the sign of someone willing to increase executive power so long as it was in line with his principles. What happened with the conservative movement is that the Goldwater folks made common cause with the neocons and theocons starting in the 1980s. The factions compromised on principle in order to sustain power. That is, far from calcifying, they showed political flexibility in order to expand their coalition.

You're right that the fiscal irresponsibility of conservatives in power is at odds with Goldwater's general posture, but Goldwater did support increased military spending and lower taxes, which are the root cause of the current deficit. What happened there isn't that the movement changed in anyh essential way, but that it came to power. The party in power will seek to expand government unless it is checked by a strong minority party. One reason Clinton was so fiscally responsible is that he was a triangulator checked by a vigorous conservative Congress.

To your other points:

There are plenty of apolitical Boomers, and I don't really see that they are political. If anything, they are associated with the decline in the power of political parties. Their parents were more politically active, and for good reason--their experiences of WWII and the Depression made politics impossible to ignore. Boomers were born to relative affluence, and for many of them that enabled a retreat into introspection, religious experimentation, the counter-culture, the self-help culture, and all sorts of distractions from political life. Just because recent generations are arguably more apolitical does not make the Boomers particularly political.

The religious right reaction to Giuliani is purism in the same sense that the support of Nader was purism. Yes, it was an honest reaction to the mainstream candidate rejecting its traditional values in both cases. But it's also counterproductive in the long run because it empowers the opposition coalition. It's self-defeating. Your calls for a third party and theirs are bad ideas for the same reason.

I don't see how the conservative coalition can achieve its goals if it loses power and its biggest projects (Iraq, the war on terrorism, the creation of a theocracy, the destruction of the welfare state) are correctly seen as failures. So I guess I don't understand the side/content distinction you're making. The sides enable the content. When the content fails, the side loses power, and cannot advocate for its content until the content of the other side fails. They're linked.