(this was posted, without some edits, as a comment in another diary)
People throw the word "pragmatism" about, and then take stances based on what context they see they are working in. Some would like to reserve the word purely for themselves, and think they understand it. That anyone who disagrees has something wrong with them. They might be mistaken.
- Our legislative class lives a life unrelated to ordinary Americans. Even in that they have future career opportunities, knocking at their door every day, gives them a sense that things are going to be fine.
- Our legislative class depends on Corporate money to buy the expensive ads on Corporate TV, which fee is set by Corporations, whose boards interlock with the Corporations supplying the money. Then the Corporate Media constructs narratives which either build or destroy candidates. And issues. Which part of "corporate dominance of our Congress" do you not understand?
(Points 3 & 4 over the jump)...
- Our legislative class, with 1 & 2 above always at the base, develops their conventions on what is "political reality." Which is then amplified and solidified by Media Central. (Media Central being that entity which, in actual practice as we have it, delivers any given message to 300 million people in a day or two. Whether they go looking for that message or not. Even if they don't have tv or listen to the radio.)
- These "conventions" now being solidified, we have in effect a political map. One which shows all that is possible and known in our political life. Here's the left, here's the right. And beyond that, there be dragons. Or elfs, UFOs, getting tough on the banks, or a Public Option, but certainly -- nothing of practical consideration in this most pragmatic of all worlds.
The result: We have a legislative class which has no true independence; a personal stake (unconscious or not) in the conventional map of politics; and in an environment where... well anybody here voting "no" on "power corrupts"?
(btw, on the Official Political Map, in that Map's Political Center, there are two areas of agreement: We need to project force or the threat of force to every place on the planet; the Financial Class must have their interests kept whole, no matter the cost to everyone else. This is so widely agreed upon that it is never brought up for debate by either Serious Politicians or Media Central. Ever. )
Power corrupts not only in the cold cash kind of way. It can also corrupt the character of a person. It becomes easy to lie, be gripped by arrogance, become too vain to look outside or inside, confirmed in ignorance, indulge your worst appetites, etc.
Basically, we've ended up with an out-of-touch, self-satisfied, greedy, dirty (if only by virtue of swimming in a cesspool), ignorant, pack which senses itself as an Aristocracy of sorts. Plus there's that wide streak of people on the take and crazies mixed in.
Alright, so there's pragmatism and then there's pragmatism.
One kind says, "look these people are the game, so you have to play their game." One problem with that. The game is rigged to lose for us. Always. We've got a long track record on that, so I don't see how that's an astonishing thing to say.
Yes, you can get some minor things thrown to you. After all, even the Divine Augustus. master of the world, prioritized getting cheap bread to the plebs his entire reign. Politicians understand you blunt the edge of popular discontent. (And if you can't do that, advertise the enemies all around you, and maybe start, or continue, a War.)
Then there's the other pragmatism. The one that doesn't start with accepting insanity as the prudent thing to build upon, the only possible way to affect the political environment. The other pragmatism starts with "how do we get The Village's sobered attention on the matters before us?"
Well, anyone is free to pursue their dreams and even their delusions. You want to think we'll get what we actually need by accepting as our premise the bizarre political conventions of the day, then please go ... what? call up a Republican and ask what (s)he'll let you put in a law, seems to be the option there. And good luck to you on that.
But consider this:
"actually need" is not an issue of purity, no more than "must have food" is when you are starving. You really, really, really have to meditate on this important distinction if you are serious about being practical.
So while you wait to see what you will be allowed to have by an Establishment that is so fixed as to leave you with nothing, just let other people take other approaches, other emphasis.
Just to close out, people are talking about outside organization, the traditional and proven way to pressure established Parties. And there's a rich tradition there which we'll need to mine.
Today, people often suggest marches, but there's not a lot of enthusiasm for that. We've had plenty of failed marches, after all.
Maybe in this day, where we're atomized by our electronic socialization, air-conditioning, and home entertainment centers, and effectively excluded from Media Central's content, we need something different.
A whimsy perhaps: everybody in the US, who wants to, goes and stands outside of where they work or live anywhere between say, noon and 6 pm on a given day. Whatever they can manage, 10 minutes, or 6 hours. And holds up "We Are Not Represented in Washington" on a piece of paper for as long as they can. Might spark some conversation. Even if totally ignored by the media, if people did it, the whole nation would know the "news." There could be youtube channels with thousands of shots taken of the demonstration. Even our legislative class would hear that we all know they stand naked.
Where ever you think the real political action is, there is no way to pretend that the actual humans in the United States, compared to 2 years ago, are not experiencing this:
a) more unemployed
b) more earning less
c) more working fewer hours
d) depending on food stamps more
e) experiencing food insecurity more
f) facing serious rises in the cost of daily items
g) having fewer public services, with the prospect of having less
h) seeing their home values decrease
i) seeing their asset values decrease (a relative few have seen recent, and weak, increases)
j) see no plan, whatsoever, to address these issues.
k) living paycheck-to-paycheck
l) lost even their unemployment pittance
m) (more could be added, but you get the drift)
Since it has been the rule that economic conditions trumps all other political considerations, since like all of human history, this is what will decide electoral outcomes in the real world. Not lock-stepping on narrowly-focused, one-step-forward, one-step back, kind of results.
There is an active class war going on. It is not on our Official Political Map.
Regretfully, I have a number of matters to attend this evening. But I had a feeling to get this out now. I will check in as I can. Thank you for your time and attention.