This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Limelite
It's the silly season and the stench of politics perfumes the air. Some politician's perfume is too strong, though. However. . .After staying awake from yesterday 'til today watching the running tally of the Iowa Democratic caucus online, I got to thinking about political writers whose nonfiction books informed my thinking and the fiction that affirmed my increasingly liberal world view.
As a kid, I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage, which signaled my nascent political awareness. A little older, I read MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and have read it repeatedly since then for its clarity and argumentative form. He was one of the most persuasive writers I have ever encountered.
In h.s., I passed through my futuristic dystopian period that reduced to plain old dystopian by college, reading the Orwell, Bradbury, and Aldous Huxley classics, and later the anti-communist novels of Eastern Europeans, including Ribakov's Children of the Arbat, Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and Solzhenitsyn's A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
And many, many more, including evenings at the campus library when Earl Warren, his "Warren Report", and I spent a lot of quiet time together. But if I had to pick just two books on politics as my favorites, one fiction and one nonfiction, they would be. . .
Katherine Anne Porter's Ship of Fools, fiction.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.
What about telling the story of your political awakening and the political books that shaped you, giving you the views and philosophy you hold today?
As a kid, I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage, which signaled my nascent political awareness. A little older, I read MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and have read it repeatedly since then for its clarity and argumentative form. He was one of the most persuasive writers I have ever encountered.
In h.s., I passed through my futuristic dystopian period that reduced to plain old dystopian by college, reading the Orwell, Bradbury, and Aldous Huxley classics, and later the anti-communist novels of Eastern Europeans, including Ribakov's Children of the Arbat, Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and Solzhenitsyn's A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
And many, many more, including evenings at the campus library when Earl Warren, his "Warren Report", and I spent a lot of quiet time together. But if I had to pick just two books on politics as my favorites, one fiction and one nonfiction, they would be. . .
Katherine Anne Porter's Ship of Fools, fiction.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.
What about telling the story of your political awakening and the political books that shaped you, giving you the views and philosophy you hold today?
2Cecrow
Had my Ayn Rand phase. After reading everything by her, I started reading everything about her, and finally I discovered the Brandon story. Things unravelled quickly after that. Now Steinbeck is one of my favourite authors, go figure. The Grapes of Wrath is probably the best response to her I've encountered.
Generally I'm not of any particular political bent these days, although I'm pretty enthused about our new Canadian prime minister. That's interesting to me that Porter's novel is considered political. I'm reading some of her short fiction now and was contemplating that novel in future.
Generally I'm not of any particular political bent these days, although I'm pretty enthused about our new Canadian prime minister. That's interesting to me that Porter's novel is considered political. I'm reading some of her short fiction now and was contemplating that novel in future.
3geneg
I read logs, blogs, news articles and Reddit for my current news, including political news. It's a little harder coming up with books that have informed my politics.
When I was a youth I read three non-fiction books that have formed one prong of my political thinking: The Federalist, Notes on the State of Virginia, and Democracy in America. These have given me a solid foundation in the vision that informs my politics.
Another leg of my non-fiction political stool involves another four books that are only tangentially related to politics, but have helped center my world view and plunked it firmly down in the middle of the twentieth century: The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind, The Tao of Physics, Chaos: The Making of a New Science, and The Bible. Whatever you may think of the Bible, it is the foundation of Western Culture. In the realm of non-fiction there are the political philosophers Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant and Burke. Let me not forget Ayn Rand. She taught me a lot, all of it negative.
The third leg of my stool, the fiction leg, has so many supports that it's impossible to limit them. Remember, we're talking about near 65 years of ongoing political formation here: let's start with the Greeks and move forward through the Romans and on into the Chroniclers: The Venerable Bede and Froissart, then slip into Shakespeare.Then come the 19th/early 20th century writers: Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, Henry James and Edith Wharton, and into the Twentieth Century with Steinbeck. I found a kind of future view of politics in Vonnegut's Player Piano.
I'm sorry I can't tighten this list up, but I am the product of what I read in many, many ways, (it is for this reason, among others, that I avoid most, not all, pop fiction) and to me politics is not something that happens at election time, as much as it is in how I approach living my life and relating to people.
When I was a youth I read three non-fiction books that have formed one prong of my political thinking: The Federalist, Notes on the State of Virginia, and Democracy in America. These have given me a solid foundation in the vision that informs my politics.
Another leg of my non-fiction political stool involves another four books that are only tangentially related to politics, but have helped center my world view and plunked it firmly down in the middle of the twentieth century: The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind, The Tao of Physics, Chaos: The Making of a New Science, and The Bible. Whatever you may think of the Bible, it is the foundation of Western Culture. In the realm of non-fiction there are the political philosophers Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant and Burke. Let me not forget Ayn Rand. She taught me a lot, all of it negative.
The third leg of my stool, the fiction leg, has so many supports that it's impossible to limit them. Remember, we're talking about near 65 years of ongoing political formation here: let's start with the Greeks and move forward through the Romans and on into the Chroniclers: The Venerable Bede and Froissart, then slip into Shakespeare.Then come the 19th/early 20th century writers: Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, Henry James and Edith Wharton, and into the Twentieth Century with Steinbeck. I found a kind of future view of politics in Vonnegut's Player Piano.
I'm sorry I can't tighten this list up, but I am the product of what I read in many, many ways, (it is for this reason, among others, that I avoid most, not all, pop fiction) and to me politics is not something that happens at election time, as much as it is in how I approach living my life and relating to people.
4elenchus
A favourite and one I hope to re-read this year is Garry Wills' Inventing America, the subtitle really doesn't convey the interest and innovation it brings to my understanding of the U.S. Founding, and how some key ideas have changed despite keeping their "names". Not a potted history of the U.S., at all.
5artturnerjr
Goodness. So you want to know what made me the commie pinko bastard I am today, huh? ;)
It's a long story and one I will almost certainly not be able to tell to an extent that is satisfactory to me in the time this day allots me, but I'll try. (I may have to write up an addendum later.)
My journey begins with a subscription to Rolling Stone purchased for me by my apolitical mother and Republican father. Man, if they only knew what they were starting...
Next phase was reading a lot of political fiction - like >1 Limelite:, a lot of that was dystopian in nature: Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984), Huxley (Brave New World, Island, and (though it's neither particularly political nor fiction), The Doors of Perception), Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451), etc.
Reading the Gospels in my early thirties was a major touchstone (Jesus, in my reading, is basically a socialist, which makes the present usurpation of Christianity by the right wing in America that much more infuriating).
Um... I'll be back for part two. :)
It's a long story and one I will almost certainly not be able to tell to an extent that is satisfactory to me in the time this day allots me, but I'll try. (I may have to write up an addendum later.)
My journey begins with a subscription to Rolling Stone purchased for me by my apolitical mother and Republican father. Man, if they only knew what they were starting...
Next phase was reading a lot of political fiction - like >1 Limelite:, a lot of that was dystopian in nature: Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984), Huxley (Brave New World, Island, and (though it's neither particularly political nor fiction), The Doors of Perception), Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451), etc.
Reading the Gospels in my early thirties was a major touchstone (Jesus, in my reading, is basically a socialist, which makes the present usurpation of Christianity by the right wing in America that much more infuriating).
Um... I'll be back for part two. :)
6rocketjk
The first political book I read, and still one of my favorites, was On Beyond Zebra by Dr. Seuss. This lesser known Seuss book is about all the letters that come after Z. It contains such memorable lines as, "I'm telling you this 'cause you're one of my friends, but my alphabet starts where your alphabet ends," and "When you stop at the Z, you're stuck in a rut. But on beyond zebra, you're anything but." So I got an early grounding on thinking for myself and not worrying about going against the norm.
After that, hmmmmm. Johnny Got His Gun had a strong effect on me when I read it during high school (but not for a class). So did Catch 22.
In college I read A People's History of the United States in a Philosophy of History course. That helped me understand how much of U.S. history had been kept out of my high school history books (although, to be fair, I had excellent history teachers throughout junior high and high school). Also, I kid you not, I had Howard Zinn as a lecturer for freshman year World History.
After that, hmmmmm. Johnny Got His Gun had a strong effect on me when I read it during high school (but not for a class). So did Catch 22.
In college I read A People's History of the United States in a Philosophy of History course. That helped me understand how much of U.S. history had been kept out of my high school history books (although, to be fair, I had excellent history teachers throughout junior high and high school). Also, I kid you not, I had Howard Zinn as a lecturer for freshman year World History.
7March-Hare
Hard to pick favorites but in the spirit of "the stench of politics" I offer up Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, The Paranoid Style in Amercan Politics and Other Essays, and A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
8artturnerjr
(continued from >5 artturnerjr: above)
Around the same time I was reading the Gospels, a conservative friend (again, the irony) recommended an excellent film called Good Will Hunting to me, which got me going on the work of Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train, etc.) and Noam Chomsky (Understanding Power, Hegemony or Survival, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals"... everything I've ever read by the man, really).
Other writers that have significantly influenced my views on government, politics, and the world: Kurt Vonnegut, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Seuss (The Lorax, anyone?), Robert A. Heinlein (although I usually disagreed with them, his polemical science fiction novels have given me plenty of food for thought), John Steinbeck (The Grapes of Wrath may be the finest political novel written by an American), Margaret Atwood, Ursula K. Le Guin ("The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"), Alan Moore (V for Vendetta), Frank Miller (the underappreciated Give Me Liberty) ... it's a very long list. Even pop fiction writers like Stephen King (Guns) and John Grisham (The Street Lawyer) have had an impact on me.
By no means would I limit a list of artists who have had an influence on my political thought to writers of prose and comics, either: songwriters (John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen come to mind) and filmmakers (Stanley Kubrick and Michael Moore, to name only two) have had a profound impact on my worldview as well.
ETA: Fixed touchstones
Around the same time I was reading the Gospels, a conservative friend (again, the irony) recommended an excellent film called Good Will Hunting to me, which got me going on the work of Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train, etc.) and Noam Chomsky (Understanding Power, Hegemony or Survival, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals"... everything I've ever read by the man, really).
Other writers that have significantly influenced my views on government, politics, and the world: Kurt Vonnegut, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Seuss (The Lorax, anyone?), Robert A. Heinlein (although I usually disagreed with them, his polemical science fiction novels have given me plenty of food for thought), John Steinbeck (The Grapes of Wrath may be the finest political novel written by an American), Margaret Atwood, Ursula K. Le Guin ("The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"), Alan Moore (V for Vendetta), Frank Miller (the underappreciated Give Me Liberty) ... it's a very long list. Even pop fiction writers like Stephen King (Guns) and John Grisham (The Street Lawyer) have had an impact on me.
By no means would I limit a list of artists who have had an influence on my political thought to writers of prose and comics, either: songwriters (John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen come to mind) and filmmakers (Stanley Kubrick and Michael Moore, to name only two) have had a profound impact on my worldview as well.
ETA: Fixed touchstones
9Cecrow
>6 rocketjk:, >8 artturnerjr:, Howard Zinn has been close to landing on my TBR pile in the past; thanks for the nudge!
10enaid
>8 artturnerjr: I love your list - for myself, I would have to include Doonesbury. I read it daily from a very young age and have to give Gary Trudeau credit for his influence. Like John Grisham in some sense but, of course, Grisham is writing actual novels. I think between Doonesbury and watching the Watergate hearings, I just could not see myself fitting into the conservative mindset. Who wouldn't prefer to be like cool Jackie Kennedy over poor Martha Mitchell?
11Limelite
>2 Cecrow:
It's really only my opinion because it's set on the eve of WWII and the ship is sailing from the New World (albeit SA) to Germany.
On board are all kinds of people, representing all strata of society, economic philosophies, character, and even religions. The rank bigotry and classism on shipboard is a main theme and a microcosm; the irony is the disembarkation in Germany and what it spells for the passengers.
It's really only my opinion because it's set on the eve of WWII and the ship is sailing from the New World (albeit SA) to Germany.
On board are all kinds of people, representing all strata of society, economic philosophies, character, and even religions. The rank bigotry and classism on shipboard is a main theme and a microcosm; the irony is the disembarkation in Germany and what it spells for the passengers.
12Limelite
>3 geneg:
I find it very interesting that you mention Chaos: The Making of a New Science as a book that influenced your political development. It's one of my favorite pop sci books, right up there with Calvin's The River That Flows Uphill.
I'd like to hear you discuss further the how of Gleick's book on your political outlook.
I find it very interesting that you mention Chaos: The Making of a New Science as a book that influenced your political development. It's one of my favorite pop sci books, right up there with Calvin's The River That Flows Uphill.
I'd like to hear you discuss further the how of Gleick's book on your political outlook.
14rocketjk
>13 Limelite:
Yes, it was really something. It was a huge lecture hall, but Zinn, already a world famous political philosopher, seemed completely present, always crafting fascinating lectures, even though he was only addressing a lowly freshman class. My theory is that John Silber, the very conservative university president (this was at Boston University; some may remember that Silber later ran unsuccessfully for governor) made him do it to rub his nose in something or other. At any rate, Zinn was a great teacher who seemed to genuinely care about reaching us befuddled freshmen, even within the limiting confines of a large lecture class.
Yes, it was really something. It was a huge lecture hall, but Zinn, already a world famous political philosopher, seemed completely present, always crafting fascinating lectures, even though he was only addressing a lowly freshman class. My theory is that John Silber, the very conservative university president (this was at Boston University; some may remember that Silber later ran unsuccessfully for governor) made him do it to rub his nose in something or other. At any rate, Zinn was a great teacher who seemed to genuinely care about reaching us befuddled freshmen, even within the limiting confines of a large lecture class.
15southernbooklady
>10 enaid: I think most of my concept of politics when I was a kid came from Doonesbury. It was like the Daily Show of the 70s.
16LolaWalser
I got my politics from the spectacle of the homeless in the world's only "superpower".
17enaid
>15 southernbooklady: "It was like the Daily Show of the 70s.": perfect!
18geneg
>12 Limelite:
Chaos is the study of dynamic systems, and how these systems fight against entropy by organizing themselves into systems that process inputs into outputs by the most effective means available. When more energy is input the system can change to a new state that effectively handles the increased energy, or it collapses to a point where it is no longer affected by the energy. This is way oversimplified.
Human politics is a dynamic system. Consider issues as energy for the political system. When the perfect storm of issues arises it can put the kinds of stresses on the system that render it unstable, then we must be careful how we approach the issues. If we press too hard in one direction the system will collapse and we find ourselves in a previous social condition possibly ranging from the neolithic to the fifties. With our current set of issues and the mind set of many people I can see anything from feudalism to sexual based discrimination as the landing point. However, if we press the system in other ways it could reorganize itself to a system that can handle the perfect storm of issues without too many ruffled feathers, and move on from there. We don't know which way a system will break until it happens. Once again, this is way oversimplified.
(Not) Finally, lurking in the weeds is this little gem, all dynamic systems, when they are born, or newly reorganized carry the seeds of the next systemic crisis. I refer to this as the Curse of the Garden.
Let me know if this helps. It's way oversimplified, leaving out one of the most crucial aspects of this whole issue: continuous systemic feedback loops. These loops create the distance between reality and make believe in politics. The further apart these are, the greater the strain on the system. Reality doesn't handle make believe very well. The idea that one can simply believe oneself into a new reality, such as Barach Obama was born in Kenya, create tension within the system. The more lies, self chosen facts, and ideologies that are valued over reality the greater the tension in the system, the more likely a change will take place. That's what bothers me about politics, the denial of inconvenient truths. It seems to me one party plays this game harder and with more abandon than the other. Nothing good can come of this. As the line of reality separates further and further from the line of action, action becomes less related to the basis for its existence (legislating on issues based on falsehoods. Planned Parenthood is a great example. Without PPH Women's Health Services collapse to a previous state.) The more we, in this country, go along with government by desire, the greater the likelihood we will become a third world country. As a great, and wise political philosopher once said, "The Truth will set you free."
Sorry for the rambling response. This is a very complex (Pun intended) issue. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Chaos is the study of dynamic systems, and how these systems fight against entropy by organizing themselves into systems that process inputs into outputs by the most effective means available. When more energy is input the system can change to a new state that effectively handles the increased energy, or it collapses to a point where it is no longer affected by the energy. This is way oversimplified.
Human politics is a dynamic system. Consider issues as energy for the political system. When the perfect storm of issues arises it can put the kinds of stresses on the system that render it unstable, then we must be careful how we approach the issues. If we press too hard in one direction the system will collapse and we find ourselves in a previous social condition possibly ranging from the neolithic to the fifties. With our current set of issues and the mind set of many people I can see anything from feudalism to sexual based discrimination as the landing point. However, if we press the system in other ways it could reorganize itself to a system that can handle the perfect storm of issues without too many ruffled feathers, and move on from there. We don't know which way a system will break until it happens. Once again, this is way oversimplified.
(Not) Finally, lurking in the weeds is this little gem, all dynamic systems, when they are born, or newly reorganized carry the seeds of the next systemic crisis. I refer to this as the Curse of the Garden.
Let me know if this helps. It's way oversimplified, leaving out one of the most crucial aspects of this whole issue: continuous systemic feedback loops. These loops create the distance between reality and make believe in politics. The further apart these are, the greater the strain on the system. Reality doesn't handle make believe very well. The idea that one can simply believe oneself into a new reality, such as Barach Obama was born in Kenya, create tension within the system. The more lies, self chosen facts, and ideologies that are valued over reality the greater the tension in the system, the more likely a change will take place. That's what bothers me about politics, the denial of inconvenient truths. It seems to me one party plays this game harder and with more abandon than the other. Nothing good can come of this. As the line of reality separates further and further from the line of action, action becomes less related to the basis for its existence (legislating on issues based on falsehoods. Planned Parenthood is a great example. Without PPH Women's Health Services collapse to a previous state.) The more we, in this country, go along with government by desire, the greater the likelihood we will become a third world country. As a great, and wise political philosopher once said, "The Truth will set you free."
Sorry for the rambling response. This is a very complex (Pun intended) issue. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
19elenchus
>18 geneg:
I enjoyed reading your simplified summary. I'm not as deeply read in Chaos theory or self-organising systems, but they are each of interest to me. My central concept is that of Batesonian cybernetics, which treat of many of the same concerns but I imagine is not always in agreement. Gregory Bateson is good about relating the implications of systemic thought to social relations, too, though usually not at the level of political parties so much as social dynamics broadly taken.
I enjoyed reading your simplified summary. I'm not as deeply read in Chaos theory or self-organising systems, but they are each of interest to me. My central concept is that of Batesonian cybernetics, which treat of many of the same concerns but I imagine is not always in agreement. Gregory Bateson is good about relating the implications of systemic thought to social relations, too, though usually not at the level of political parties so much as social dynamics broadly taken.
202wonderY
>18 geneg: That is a valuable way to look at politics. Thanks for that summary.
22Limelite
>18 geneg:
I didn't at all find it rambling, but see why you apply chaos theory to politics. I had misunderstood you to mean that you regarded Gleick's book, Chaos: Making a New Science as, in itself, a political book.
Yes, I appreciate the extension and association as well as agree, fundamentally, with your conclusions and implications. Yet, I observe in this election cycle a fondness for chaos and the destructive consequences inherent in the extreme ends of both parties.
There is inherent and implied in your mini-essay an argument for moderate political philosophy as opposed to radical same. We have seen throughout the history of the 20th C. radical political organizations birth and die in the former Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany, and in the ME and SE Asia. Yet, we know that collapse and regeneration of alternative political systems can give rise to stability over long time. So, there has to be either an accommodation or an inability to resist extreme change for it to happen at all.
There seems to be an element requisite to successful political "rebooting" that is amorphous and vague in my mind, but it has to do with a body politic's readiness and self-perceived need for upheaval of a present system. In addition, the armature for the replacement system has to be widely viewed and accepted as better than what came before by that body.
I don't think those intangibles (and probably others) are in place for a "political revolution" by either the far left or far right in this election cycle.
If our feedback loops (safeguards to our present system) fail us and a few radicals are able to assert their vision of a new realpolitik in this cycle, it will be interesting -- if one lives long enough --to read what the political books (nonfiction and fiction) of the future have to say when they "look back" and evaluate the Chaos of 2016 That Changed America.
I didn't at all find it rambling, but see why you apply chaos theory to politics. I had misunderstood you to mean that you regarded Gleick's book, Chaos: Making a New Science as, in itself, a political book.
Yes, I appreciate the extension and association as well as agree, fundamentally, with your conclusions and implications. Yet, I observe in this election cycle a fondness for chaos and the destructive consequences inherent in the extreme ends of both parties.
There is inherent and implied in your mini-essay an argument for moderate political philosophy as opposed to radical same. We have seen throughout the history of the 20th C. radical political organizations birth and die in the former Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany, and in the ME and SE Asia. Yet, we know that collapse and regeneration of alternative political systems can give rise to stability over long time. So, there has to be either an accommodation or an inability to resist extreme change for it to happen at all.
There seems to be an element requisite to successful political "rebooting" that is amorphous and vague in my mind, but it has to do with a body politic's readiness and self-perceived need for upheaval of a present system. In addition, the armature for the replacement system has to be widely viewed and accepted as better than what came before by that body.
I don't think those intangibles (and probably others) are in place for a "political revolution" by either the far left or far right in this election cycle.
If our feedback loops (safeguards to our present system) fail us and a few radicals are able to assert their vision of a new realpolitik in this cycle, it will be interesting -- if one lives long enough --to read what the political books (nonfiction and fiction) of the future have to say when they "look back" and evaluate the Chaos of 2016 That Changed America.
23geneg
Thank you all for your positive statements with regard to my previous post.
It is this undersranding of Chaos theory that informs my disgust with what I understand as one of the pillars of Post Modernism, that nothing is as it seems and nearly anything can be made to appear as something other than what it is. Remember, the most important lesson we can take from chaos theory is to accept as much as we can the reality of an issue. The reality line and action line must be kept as close together as possible or, well, chaos ensues. Consider a top trying to spin around two vertical axes, one representing the reality and the other the actions. As the two lines grow farther apart, the top begins to wobble, then slows as it attempts to do the impossible, until it finally determines a state of rest, utter collapse, is the only way to deal with competing requirements.
Once again, the closer action fits the requirements laid out by reality, the less energy is expended in maintaining the system. As these lines deviate, more energy is required until, finally, there is not enough energy available to the system to maintain its current state.
When one of Dick Cheney's minions referred to a journalist as being in the real world and BushCo was creating their own reality, I knew we were in for a long haul. I just prayed the damage would be minimal. Well, the current Middle Eastern situation comes of people, in both parties, attempting to wrench reality out of place and replacing it with an ideological, or dream, reality. Remember we'll be welcomed as liberators?
It is this undersranding of Chaos theory that informs my disgust with what I understand as one of the pillars of Post Modernism, that nothing is as it seems and nearly anything can be made to appear as something other than what it is. Remember, the most important lesson we can take from chaos theory is to accept as much as we can the reality of an issue. The reality line and action line must be kept as close together as possible or, well, chaos ensues. Consider a top trying to spin around two vertical axes, one representing the reality and the other the actions. As the two lines grow farther apart, the top begins to wobble, then slows as it attempts to do the impossible, until it finally determines a state of rest, utter collapse, is the only way to deal with competing requirements.
Once again, the closer action fits the requirements laid out by reality, the less energy is expended in maintaining the system. As these lines deviate, more energy is required until, finally, there is not enough energy available to the system to maintain its current state.
When one of Dick Cheney's minions referred to a journalist as being in the real world and BushCo was creating their own reality, I knew we were in for a long haul. I just prayed the damage would be minimal. Well, the current Middle Eastern situation comes of people, in both parties, attempting to wrench reality out of place and replacing it with an ideological, or dream, reality. Remember we'll be welcomed as liberators?
24Limelite
>23 geneg:
Again -- your ex. is very clear illustration of chaos applied to politics.
I also remember "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the deck of a warship.
As if. "Chaos Accomplished," I might have admired Bush for on the basis of its superior "truthiness." But he and his administration of war criminals were smitten in the backside by unknown unknowns they arrogantly regarded as known knowns.
Again -- your ex. is very clear illustration of chaos applied to politics.
I also remember "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the deck of a warship.
As if. "Chaos Accomplished," I might have admired Bush for on the basis of its superior "truthiness." But he and his administration of war criminals were smitten in the backside by unknown unknowns they arrogantly regarded as known knowns.
25rolandperkins
Of political FICTION. my favorites are
Francis Fieldʻs "McDonough"*;
Edwin OʻConnorʻs The Last Hurrah**.;
and Francis Irby Gwaltneyʻʻʻs "A Step
in the River"#
*New Jersey state and national politics in 1948.
** Boston politics of the late 1960s, although some
say OʻConnorʻs city is a composite of Boston and Providence/. His anti-hero is a thinly disguised
James M. Curley, former Mass. governor, former
Boston mayor.
#Arkansas politics in the late 1950s. One character is a
thinly disguised Orval Faubus.
Francis Fieldʻs "McDonough"*;
Edwin OʻConnorʻs The Last Hurrah**.;
and Francis Irby Gwaltneyʻʻʻs "A Step
in the River"#
*New Jersey state and national politics in 1948.
** Boston politics of the late 1960s, although some
say OʻConnorʻs city is a composite of Boston and Providence/. His anti-hero is a thinly disguised
James M. Curley, former Mass. governor, former
Boston mayor.
#Arkansas politics in the late 1950s. One character is a
thinly disguised Orval Faubus.
26Limelite
>25 rolandperkins:
Your post reminds me of a classic work of political fiction that I can't believe I overlooked.
It's the essential novel about American politics written by Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men.
And it also reminded me of the great nonfiction take-off on Warren's title -- All the President's Men, which has to be the principle book that most influenced my emerging adult political animal.
(Touchstones not working.)
Your post reminds me of a classic work of political fiction that I can't believe I overlooked.
It's the essential novel about American politics written by Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men.
And it also reminded me of the great nonfiction take-off on Warren's title -- All the President's Men, which has to be the principle book that most influenced my emerging adult political animal.
(Touchstones not working.)
27rolandperkins
". . .written by Robert Penn Warren: "All the
Kingʻs Men" (26)
Right; I forgot Warren, too.
Kingʻs Men" (26)
Right; I forgot Warren, too.
28rocketjk
Another very good political book is Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. I tried reading one of the sequels, though, and Drury's virulent right-wing bias* came out with a vengeance in the second installment so I gave up. But I do recommend Advise and Consent.
* I don't mind reading books of authors with a different opinion than mine, as long as that opinion is presented somewhat even-handedly.
* I don't mind reading books of authors with a different opinion than mine, as long as that opinion is presented somewhat even-handedly.
29Crypto-Willobie
Steppenwolf's 'Monster' album...
30Limelite
>28 rocketjk:
You're right. I read A&C when 15 or so, and reread it a couple years ago. Definite tone of self-righteousness but still a strongly impressing tale.
Talking about this novel reminds me that many of the movies I most enjoyed have been made based on political novels. Perhaps one of the best of them is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which i learned, after Googling, is based on Lewis R. Foster's unpublished story, variously titled "The Gentleman from Montana" and "The Gentleman from Wyoming."
The performances in the film of Drury's novel were excellent. But two that really stick out are All the King's Men and (I hope this is considered a political novel) Inherit the Wind.
I'm disinclined to classify To Kill a Mockingbird as a political novel; it's more of a moral tale. Others may believe differently.
You're right. I read A&C when 15 or so, and reread it a couple years ago. Definite tone of self-righteousness but still a strongly impressing tale.
Talking about this novel reminds me that many of the movies I most enjoyed have been made based on political novels. Perhaps one of the best of them is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which i learned, after Googling, is based on Lewis R. Foster's unpublished story, variously titled "The Gentleman from Montana" and "The Gentleman from Wyoming."
The performances in the film of Drury's novel were excellent. But two that really stick out are All the King's Men and (I hope this is considered a political novel) Inherit the Wind.
I'm disinclined to classify To Kill a Mockingbird as a political novel; it's more of a moral tale. Others may believe differently.
31artturnerjr
Very interesting discussion. It has occurred to me on several occasions in recent months that, in America at least, citizens no longer seem to share a consensus reality. That's a profoundly disturbing state of affairs.
>10 enaid:
Thanks! I think my politics are, more than anything, based on a faith in the essential goodness of people. I've always felt that if you level the playing field and lift people up, if you ensure that their essential needs are met, most people will respond in kind and work to benefit society at large. This worldview has come to be portrayed as radical and ideological - I see it as neither.
>10 enaid:
Thanks! I think my politics are, more than anything, based on a faith in the essential goodness of people. I've always felt that if you level the playing field and lift people up, if you ensure that their essential needs are met, most people will respond in kind and work to benefit society at large. This worldview has come to be portrayed as radical and ideological - I see it as neither.
32AsYouKnow_Bob
>18 geneg: Finally, lurking in the weeds is this little gem, all dynamic systems, when they are born, or newly reorganized carry the seeds of the next systemic crisis.
geneg, you've reinvented the Dialectic!
geneg, you've reinvented the Dialectic!
33Cecrow
>31 artturnerjr:, really like this term "consensus reality". Speaking as a Canadian observer, I find Trump has progressed from just obnoxious to absolutely terrifying, largely because of the underlying implications about these differences among American voters.
34elenchus
A little farther out from the primary question, but: has anyone read any Ward Just novels? I have Jack Gance unread on my shelves, I picked it up precisely because I'd read Just writes careful and insightfully about life in politics. Perhaps that's all it is, the setting and action, but I'd anticipated there will be commentary on politics generally.
ETA I've read one other Just novel, An Unfinished Season, and liked it quite a bit, but it's not strictly speaking a political novel.
ETA I've read one other Just novel, An Unfinished Season, and liked it quite a bit, but it's not strictly speaking a political novel.
35artturnerjr
>33 Cecrow:
Yeah, half the things that come out of Trump's mouth are just complete fantasy, not to mention completely unconstitutional. Here's Paul Ryan's (our current Speaker of the House of Representatives (and a Republican - same party as Trump)) response to Trump's recent call for a ban on Muslim immigrants to America:
https://youtu.be/4eVoXT9OJpg
And yet, millions of people love this guy. His supporters are among the most fervent I've ever seen. Truly scary stuff.
Yeah, half the things that come out of Trump's mouth are just complete fantasy, not to mention completely unconstitutional. Here's Paul Ryan's (our current Speaker of the House of Representatives (and a Republican - same party as Trump)) response to Trump's recent call for a ban on Muslim immigrants to America:
https://youtu.be/4eVoXT9OJpg
And yet, millions of people love this guy. His supporters are among the most fervent I've ever seen. Truly scary stuff.
36geneg
>32 AsYouKnow_Bob:
Didn't know you were here. Long time no talk. I reckon you and I must be pushing ten years on LT.
Not being a dialectical sort of guy (maybe, I never studied much Marxism) the seeds of its own destruction just seems incredibly obvious to me. Everything is input to the system, small changes occur over time as the system adjusts for the long haul, these changes accumulate and the system begins to be unstable, the instability builds until the only thing that can solve the problems is a major reorg. Societies go through these changes as well. Consider the Pax Romana followed by the Dark Ages, the result of a massive systemic collapse.
>33 Cecrow:
Trump is trolling the American people. I don't know if it's the Democrats or the Republicans, or both, but we are witnessing the grandest troll in history. He has said several times that he can be whatever he wants to be, he can change his persona at the drop of a hat. If he becomes President, I don't expect it to be as bad as it currently sounds. Of course I, myself, am feeling the Bern. Not because I think he would make a great president, but because he has changed the political conversation in a way that might save this country, maybe not this time or next, but it's coming.
Didn't know you were here. Long time no talk. I reckon you and I must be pushing ten years on LT.
Not being a dialectical sort of guy (maybe, I never studied much Marxism) the seeds of its own destruction just seems incredibly obvious to me. Everything is input to the system, small changes occur over time as the system adjusts for the long haul, these changes accumulate and the system begins to be unstable, the instability builds until the only thing that can solve the problems is a major reorg. Societies go through these changes as well. Consider the Pax Romana followed by the Dark Ages, the result of a massive systemic collapse.
>33 Cecrow:
Trump is trolling the American people. I don't know if it's the Democrats or the Republicans, or both, but we are witnessing the grandest troll in history. He has said several times that he can be whatever he wants to be, he can change his persona at the drop of a hat. If he becomes President, I don't expect it to be as bad as it currently sounds. Of course I, myself, am feeling the Bern. Not because I think he would make a great president, but because he has changed the political conversation in a way that might save this country, maybe not this time or next, but it's coming.
37elenchus
he has changed the political conversation in a way that might save this country, maybe not this time or next, but it's coming
Precisely for the concerns and intentions he raises, or despite them? That is, will the conversation change as a result of the necessity for confronting the threat he poses were we to follow through in earnest on his concerns, or by pursuing them?
I suppose that's an unfair question, I don't mean to troll myself but sincerely am unsure what you mean there. I also believe he is trolling and at root Trump is motivated by the Trump brand, and what being President will do for Trump. I acknowledge Obama was also personally motivated to become President, but believe the underlying issue was a belief in public policy. Obama (and anyone else) can be mistaken or deluded about that belief in public policy, but I find it qualitatively different than being motivated primarily in order to address a personal goal.
Anyway, I write all that in a good faith effort to avoid making my question seem an attack, and acknowledge my own position can be criticized. I'm most interested in clarifying your position, not forcing you to defend it!
Precisely for the concerns and intentions he raises, or despite them? That is, will the conversation change as a result of the necessity for confronting the threat he poses were we to follow through in earnest on his concerns, or by pursuing them?
I suppose that's an unfair question, I don't mean to troll myself but sincerely am unsure what you mean there. I also believe he is trolling and at root Trump is motivated by the Trump brand, and what being President will do for Trump. I acknowledge Obama was also personally motivated to become President, but believe the underlying issue was a belief in public policy. Obama (and anyone else) can be mistaken or deluded about that belief in public policy, but I find it qualitatively different than being motivated primarily in order to address a personal goal.
Anyway, I write all that in a good faith effort to avoid making my question seem an attack, and acknowledge my own position can be criticized. I'm most interested in clarifying your position, not forcing you to defend it!
38geneg
>37 elenchus:
Two things: people on both sides are fed up with the status quo and the establishments of their parties valuing wealth over good governance. Now what good governance means is variable depending on your beliefs. The Republicans are tired of seeing their preferred candidate being steam-rolled by the conservative establishment. The Democrats are realizing what that means. I just read about the DNC withdrawing Obama's ban on contributions to super pacs by ex-government officials. Who will this benefit (or so DWS thinks it will help)? Bernie? He's famously not taking pac money. The Democratic establishment is firmly in the camp of the status quo. After all, Republicans and Democrats have their roles to play in this farce. Don't want to interfere with the upward redistribution too much. How will we finance elections if we make the wealthy mad? We are sunk in oligarchy to the point the oligarchs feel quite comfortable extorting obeisance from the government. Folks don't like it much.
Secondly, there is a feeling that we the people are on the bottom rung of the political gravy train and we don't like it. It smacks of good old boyism and crony capitalism.
Trump has found a way to tap in to this discontent. Bernie is just trying to bring liberals back to relevance.
Frankly, I would be surprised if Trump engaged in a program of xenophobia as he says he would. I think he has been very successful in what he has set out to do: unmask the rabid ugliness of the Republican party and its rhetoric. As I said he's trolling.
I think the national conversation will change to address the concerns Bernie brings up. Not run from them. Thirty plus years of an essentially conservative approach to things is why we are where we are. The status quo is no longer working for all Americans. People will put up with a lot, but sliding out of the middle class into poverty has opened an awful lot of eyes.
One of the biggest impediments to keeping the action line together with the reality line is ideology. The Democrats were rejected in 1980 because their ideology was creating too much pressure on the system. Now, the same thing is beginning to happen to the Republicans. It seems thirty to sixty years is about all one side can count on before the other side gains the advantage.
I read a very interesting book once, The Fourth Turning, which laid out the nature of each generation and except for the years after the Civil War when a couple of generations were lost, America pretty faithfully follows a pattern of generational behavior. Essentially, Americans tire of the things that make us prosperous, turning instead to authoritarianism and greed.
I hope somewhere in this I've answered your question.
Two things: people on both sides are fed up with the status quo and the establishments of their parties valuing wealth over good governance. Now what good governance means is variable depending on your beliefs. The Republicans are tired of seeing their preferred candidate being steam-rolled by the conservative establishment. The Democrats are realizing what that means. I just read about the DNC withdrawing Obama's ban on contributions to super pacs by ex-government officials. Who will this benefit (or so DWS thinks it will help)? Bernie? He's famously not taking pac money. The Democratic establishment is firmly in the camp of the status quo. After all, Republicans and Democrats have their roles to play in this farce. Don't want to interfere with the upward redistribution too much. How will we finance elections if we make the wealthy mad? We are sunk in oligarchy to the point the oligarchs feel quite comfortable extorting obeisance from the government. Folks don't like it much.
Secondly, there is a feeling that we the people are on the bottom rung of the political gravy train and we don't like it. It smacks of good old boyism and crony capitalism.
Trump has found a way to tap in to this discontent. Bernie is just trying to bring liberals back to relevance.
Frankly, I would be surprised if Trump engaged in a program of xenophobia as he says he would. I think he has been very successful in what he has set out to do: unmask the rabid ugliness of the Republican party and its rhetoric. As I said he's trolling.
I think the national conversation will change to address the concerns Bernie brings up. Not run from them. Thirty plus years of an essentially conservative approach to things is why we are where we are. The status quo is no longer working for all Americans. People will put up with a lot, but sliding out of the middle class into poverty has opened an awful lot of eyes.
One of the biggest impediments to keeping the action line together with the reality line is ideology. The Democrats were rejected in 1980 because their ideology was creating too much pressure on the system. Now, the same thing is beginning to happen to the Republicans. It seems thirty to sixty years is about all one side can count on before the other side gains the advantage.
I read a very interesting book once, The Fourth Turning, which laid out the nature of each generation and except for the years after the Civil War when a couple of generations were lost, America pretty faithfully follows a pattern of generational behavior. Essentially, Americans tire of the things that make us prosperous, turning instead to authoritarianism and greed.
I hope somewhere in this I've answered your question.
39elenchus
You have, and better than I'd hoped. I find especially interesting your observation that "Americans tire of the things that make us prosperous". I can see that, though I'm not yet ready to say that's particularly American. I also wonder if historically, that trend was countered by immigrants taking up those very same things, and keeping them going. Or perhaps: immigrants + the younger generation.
40Limelite
Will there come a historian able to embody the common reality consensus when (s)he writes the history of these times, particularly this election cycle?
Or will the seeming lack of equality, liberty, and fraternity that the French enshrine and we seem to have kicked to the curb and stomped on, forever keep us Balkanized such that our written "history" will forever be opinion screeds representing the radical ends of the political spectrum?
There has been, since the time of Newt Gingrich's "Contract for (some say 'on') America," an increasing inability to adopt a shared vision of what America's long ago past, recent past, and present are. No event can be presented without its recorder's agenda, overt or sub rosa, taking pride of place in the recording of it.
I am not a Bernie fan precisely because I remember what the last political revolution that was going to give power back to the people, get rid of corrupt politicians, and the establishment elite actually did to our country. Religious and political fanatics of all stripes are best steered clear of. I see no difference in the danger an offensive rightist clown like Trump poses to domestic and world stability than in what a curmudgeonly distributor of leftist fairy dust like Sanders does. They're both politically ignorant candidates, without realistic plans, blind to the reality of global interdependence, and full of ego and ideology who believe that once the people get to know them, the people will rise up and somehow bend our Constitution to do his, or his, will and "Make America Great Again."
America is a pretty good country without either of their brands of extremism, and will be a lot better off if we can escape them both. Which is not to say we can't be a lot better, or that we are entitled, or special among the sphere of nations. It is to say that no revolution that is healthy ever comes from the top down. The leader doesn't emerge first; the common man and the common woman do, and from them and their need a leader is pushed forward.
I don't see millions in the streets united in a revolution of common cause. No Civil Rights marchers, no Vietnam War protesters. So, fomenting one is neither admirable nor unifying, nor reinvigorating. It is only the repackaged divisiveness Newt Gingrich slipped over on us in a fit of Napoleonic delusion.
Somebody should write this book.
Or will the seeming lack of equality, liberty, and fraternity that the French enshrine and we seem to have kicked to the curb and stomped on, forever keep us Balkanized such that our written "history" will forever be opinion screeds representing the radical ends of the political spectrum?
There has been, since the time of Newt Gingrich's "Contract for (some say 'on') America," an increasing inability to adopt a shared vision of what America's long ago past, recent past, and present are. No event can be presented without its recorder's agenda, overt or sub rosa, taking pride of place in the recording of it.
I am not a Bernie fan precisely because I remember what the last political revolution that was going to give power back to the people, get rid of corrupt politicians, and the establishment elite actually did to our country. Religious and political fanatics of all stripes are best steered clear of. I see no difference in the danger an offensive rightist clown like Trump poses to domestic and world stability than in what a curmudgeonly distributor of leftist fairy dust like Sanders does. They're both politically ignorant candidates, without realistic plans, blind to the reality of global interdependence, and full of ego and ideology who believe that once the people get to know them, the people will rise up and somehow bend our Constitution to do his, or his, will and "Make America Great Again."
America is a pretty good country without either of their brands of extremism, and will be a lot better off if we can escape them both. Which is not to say we can't be a lot better, or that we are entitled, or special among the sphere of nations. It is to say that no revolution that is healthy ever comes from the top down. The leader doesn't emerge first; the common man and the common woman do, and from them and their need a leader is pushed forward.
I don't see millions in the streets united in a revolution of common cause. No Civil Rights marchers, no Vietnam War protesters. So, fomenting one is neither admirable nor unifying, nor reinvigorating. It is only the repackaged divisiveness Newt Gingrich slipped over on us in a fit of Napoleonic delusion.
Somebody should write this book.
41artturnerjr
>38 geneg:
I love The Fourth Turning. I read it when it came out in the 1990s, and there probably has not been a week that has past since in which I didn't think about it.
I love The Fourth Turning. I read it when it came out in the 1990s, and there probably has not been a week that has past since in which I didn't think about it.
