A famous American Libertarian wrote about gadflies, power politics, religion, government secrecy and human nature.
Of course he slipped it between the covers of his most famous science fiction novel, so if you never read "Stranger in a Strange Land" you might have missed it.
We join irascible libertarian, lawyer, medical doctor and pulp fiction writer Jubal Harshaw talking to his friend, muckraking journalist Ben Caxton:
"Says who?"
"Says the infallible Jubal Harshaw, speaking ex cathedra from his belly button. See here, son, if a deputy sheriff beats a prisoner to death, it's sweepstakes odds that the county commissioners didn't order it, didn't know it, and wouldn't have permitted it had they known. At worst they shut their eyes to it-afterwards-rather than upset their own applecarts. But assassination has never been an accepted policy in this country."
"I'd like to show you the backgrounds of quite a number of deaths I've looked into."
Jubal waved it aside. "I said it wasn't a policy. We've always had political assassination-from prominent ones like Huey Long to men beaten to death on their own front steps with hardly a page-eight story in passing. But it's never been a policy here and the reason you are sitting in the sunshine right now is that it is not Joe Douglas' policy. Consider. They snatched you clean, no fuss, no inquiries. They squeezed you dry-then they had no more use for you . . . and they could have disposed of you as quietly as flushing a dead mouse down a toilet. But they didn't. Why not? Because they knew their boss didn't really like for them to play that rough and if he became convinced that they had (whether in court or out), it would cost their jobs if not their necks."
Jubal paused for a swig.
"But consider. Those S.S. thugs are just a tool; they aren't yet a Praetorian Guard that picks the new Caesar. Such being, whom do you really want for Caesar? Courthouse Joe whose basic indoctrination goes back to the days when this country was a nation and not just a satrapy in a polyglot empire of many traditions . . . Douglas, who really can't stomach assassination? Or do you want to toss him out of office? We can, you know, tomorrow-just by double-crossing him on the deal I've led him to expect -- toss him out and thereby put in a Secretary General from a land where life has always been cheap and political assassination a venerable tradition? If you do this, Ben, tell me what happens to the next snoopy newsman who is careless enough to walk down a dark alley?"
Caxton didn't answer.
"As I said, the S.S. is just a tool. Men are always for hire who like dirty work. How dirty will that work become if you nudge Douglas out of his majority?"
"Jubal, are you telling me that I ought not to criticize the administration? When they're wrong? When I know they're wrong?"
"Nope. Gadflies such as yourself are utterly necessary. Nor am I opposed to 'turning the rascals out' -- it's usually the soundest rule of politics. But it's well to take a look at what new rascals you are going to get before you jump at any chance to turn your present rascals out. Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried. Democracy's worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents -- a depressingly low level, but what else can you expect? So take a look at Douglas and ponder that, in his ignorance, stupidity, and self-seeking, he much resembles his fellow Americans, including you and me . . . and that in fact he is a notch or two above the average. Then take a look at the man who will replace him if his government topples."
"There's precious little choice."
"There's always a choice! This one is a choice between 'bad' and 'worse' -- which is a difference much more poignant than that between 'good' and 'better.'"
23 comments:
lotta people go broke betting on man's better nature. lotta people get rich betting against it.
Stranger In A Strange Land was a good book, tho I recall "Michael" was fond of "disappearing" people he grokked were bad. And weren't the Tate murders (along with the Beatle's Helter-Skelter) inspired by the book?
His idea of libertarian utopia of the Moon in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress had men ogling and whistling at women -a powerful minority- as a gesture of respect! He really seemed to think that's what women like & want.
I always keep a BIG salt-shaker around when reading his stuff.
KWillow, he could see social situations (and social morality right down to the core) vastly different from everything we know, and reading history taught me we really can live that differently from the here and now. The men of Luna in Mistress wouldn't socially survive actual oppression of a woman, and couldn't physically survive any type of sexual assault. While the whistles and wolf calls might have looked like the 1940's on the surface, it was fundamentally different beneath that.
Gotcha driftglass. You're pro-assassination. You're anti-gadfly. You're anti-democratic.
And Robert Heinlein is your idol. Really? Well, that does explain a lot, now, doesn't it?
I mean, who are you going to quote next to support your point, Ayn Rand?
Somebody once said something about giving the left shit for being right. Who was that? But I suppose I and the rest of the kids these days were born after you, so that must not apply.
You're definitely on the Troll radar now! Congrats!
If only we had airlocks...
COME ONE DG!
I've been reading here for years now, and for real, for serious, you're spot on 99.99 % of the time.
But Obama broke a popular campaign promise, and his overall campaign theme when he continued operating the MIC and when he appointed clintonites.
Yes, we know, Fox News, Jimmy Carter, blah blah blah blah blah.
Well listen DG sometimes I think you let yourself take an impression as fact.
Well the fact is that Gore won florida, and the supreme court gave it to Bush instead.
and the truth is that Gore let it slide! If it had been ruled the other way - which would have been just as wrong - Bush and Co would have burned half the country down fighting the ruling.
You can argue he did himself a favor because he's been big on the environment, but wtf Obama has completely FORGOTTEN about the environment; why do you think he never talks about it? He talked about the deficit until he was forced by OWS to talk about jobs.
Well shit DG pardon me for thinking that Obama should face some sort of fucking consequence for it.
A primary challenge is not the same as a primary defeat! Having Sanders or Warren or SOMEBODY run against him would have reinvigorated the base into political action.
Well DG, we live in dangerous times, the christian right is organized by their churchs and fox news and the 24/7 hate cycle.
What has been the Democratic alternative?
IT'S ALL HAPPENED OUTSIDE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND IN SOME CASES (OWS) AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE LEADERSHIP!
There are VENUES for change, and expressing popular will on important fucking issues.
Greenwald isn't burying his head in the sand here, neither is Taibbi, or Hamsher.
What happened to the Obama caucus (blue dogs) in 2010 based on their record? They were fucking slaughtered.
That's the system for you.
Those are American values for you.
Sure the Democrats were in safe districts, but they weren't enduring primary challenges or needing to go further to the left like the GOP had to do. Grayson was so liberal in a super conservative district so that one almost isn't fair. But overall the liberal caucus was left unshaken. Well what did Obama to? he acted like he was being too liberal and now we've blown up more muslim countries than we did under BUSH!
These are facts man, you cannot deploy your rhetoric against the Republicans and then say that the Democrats can be forgiven because they arbitrarily like gay people.
Did you know a recent sociological experiment revealed that national democrats vote with the interests of the middle class voters exactly at the same rate as Republicans, or in other words, 0% of the time?
The Democratic party needs to clean house, not arrange the trash to be prettier.
DG: Just as an experiment, post an excerpt from say, Grims Fairy Tales. I just want to see how it will be reinterpreted as you being a proponent of the new Democratic Totalitarian State.
I started a blog about the same time you started this one, with much the same over all direction. I abandoned mine about 3 years in due to troll pollution. Bless for having the tenacity to put up with it. You are a better man than I.
Then again, a wolf in sheep's clothing gets away with much more than an open predator. Or as the old saw goes, only Kirk could broker a deal with the Klingons.
"A primary challenge is not the same as a primary defeat! Having Sanders or Warren or SOMEBODY run against him would have reinvigorated the base into political action."
So why come to me?
I don't have a Ouija board. I don't have their staffs on speed dial, the number of my policy suggestions the WH has taken up is currently zero, and in case you hadn't noticed virtually no A-list bloggers even acknowledge my existence, so why are you asking me?
Why not don't drop them a line and ask each of those worthies why they're not doing the right thing and going after this weakened and vulnerable President hammer and tongs just like you want them to?
Because this isn't hacky sack we're talking about. NOBODY is going raise and spend the millions of dollars it would take to run a serious primary challenge -- especially against the sitting Prez of their own party -- without a burning desire to win, and a willingness to mow down anyone who stands between them and the WH. Nobody would be be stupid enough to put themselves through the Hell of a presidential primary and burn their professional bridges just to "send a message" to please the blogosphere, right?
So you tell me, why didn't these able, admirable, smart people do just what you say?
Why didn't Feingold, who is a fine public servant? Or Al Franken? Or Alan Grayson, from whom I get two emails every day asking for $$$.
I've got comments in my archives from 1-2 years ago stating flatly that Hillary Clinton would almost certainly primary Obama if his numbers were down and unemployment was up, so where is Hillary?
(Shit, for that matter why hasn't Lieberman jumped in? I mean, the guy who you may have forgotten happily shivved is running mate Al Gore in the back in 2000 doesn't strike me as the sort who would let anything stand between him and power, so where is Holy Joe?)
Why not Barney Frank?
Eliot Spitzer?
I'd guess that, being professionals, they remember what Ted Kennedy's primary challenge did to the incumbent Jimmy Carter and what Pat Buchanan's primary challenge did to the incumbent GHW Bush but that would just be speculation on my part.
Why not write them and find out?
Goodness, lots of goofy noise here. Tom do you seriously think Driftglass is any of the things you accuse him of?
And it seems to me that people aren't just talking of primarying Obama. They are actually suggesting people vote for a libertarian who is everything but when it comes to social issues. Look I'm Australian, so like Andrew Sullivan, I don't have a good grasp of the social history behind your nation's politics. But even a foreigner like me can see the danger in putting your hopes into an Ayn Rand acolyte.
I'm going to re-post the comment I left on the thread a couple posts ago, because it's the same topic:
All of these concerns (and rants), while I tend to agree with the sentiment behind them, and while I have found Obama to be bitterly disappointing myself on several issues, do not change the political calculus of January 2012: we stand on the edge of the abyss. The Teabagger-infected GOP must be denied political power, by any means necessary and possible. The alternative is unthinkable. No passionate defense of civil liberties nor damning indictment of Obama's misdeeds can change this awful calculus. Every single person reading this KNOWS this to be true. And that knowledge is painful.
An Obama administration (or any Democratic administration) is, at the very least, AMENABLE to being influenced by progressives. Pressure brought on Democrats can have SOME effect, if not the full effect desired.
Progressives will have ZERO influence on any GOP administration. In fact, it will have NEGATIVE influence, since anything progressives favor will be automatically opposed. (We've all seen this effect clearly for the last three years.)
So here's the choice: support Obama's re-election, even though it feels like tearing out a piece of your soul (here I show my empathy for those CAPS LOCK commenters who's passions are, IMHO, wild overreactions) in order that we have a *possibility* of moving our political reality in a progressive direction, OR "vote your conscience" (or not vote at all) and be instrumental in bringing about the horrors to come.
When the bombs fall on Tehran, the blood will be on your hands.
And once Obama is re-elected, THEN is the time to turn up the heat. It's time for a full court press to elect more and better Democrats in 2014.
The reason the Blue Dogs lost their seats is because so many of the liberal and progressive base sat out the election. The RESULT of that poor political choice was Speaker of the House Cryin' Orange Julius replacing NANCY SMASH! Was this a gain for progressives? Did it move the Left agenda forward? Did it result in more liberal legislation? No, it had exactly the opposite effect. THIS IS REALITY.
Listen to Doctor Dean: it's the 50 State Strategy. More and better Democrats. That's he way forward, not "punishing Obama".
However, if it means that in some districts the Democratic Party must run a candidate that 30 years ago would have been a moderate Republican, in order to win back those seats from teabaggers and win back the Gavel, that's what needs to be done.
There is no other choice, except to let the house burn to the ground.
The reason the Blue Dogs lost their seats is because so many of the liberal and progressive base sat out the election.
I voted, but my liberal friends were so disgusted with Obama breaking nearly all his promises, they stayed home. Shame on them, I guess, but they saw no point in electing or re-electing people who did NOT keep their promises: instead they kow-towed to the Wall Street Hogs.
But who knows, maybe if we'd kept the House Democratic Nancy ("Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE) Pelosi in charge, maybe the "Military can imprison American Citizens forever" bill would not have been passed.
What is the iron law of democratic politics? You work for the vote, and if you don't get it your probably don't deserve it.
Obama supporters have twisted themselves into knots trying to get around this law.
Obama breaks a shitton of promises, makes a mockery of his own criticism of Hillary's 'pro-war' record, and lets rife criminality continue in the finance sector...
Well what the FUCK do you think people will do? You can't just say, "hey, vote for me because the other guy is nuts." as if that's going to be a successful campaign platform.
Obama has banked with the Blue Dogs just like Carter went with right-down-the-middle muddy centrism.
What happened? He lost.
If the people in a democracy don't like what you're doing what is their only recourse?
Saying you gotta "vote for them anyway" isn't at all in the spirit of democracy. Obama doesn't want the Left's vote; why else does he not pursue leftist policies? Why did the health insurance industry go absolutely giddy about the ACA? Why are bank profits up so obscenely? Because Barack Obama does not identify with the goals of liberals and progressives.
Well if he doesn't represent them, why should he get their vote? When you can answer this question you'll also know life's deepest meaning.
As to you DG, it's not about expecting you to do anything. It's about fighting back against this idea that we have to keep ourselves loyal to the Democratic party because it isn't the Republican party.
Well when the gays let Obama handle DADT on his own he punted, and it was only with Dan Choi bashing Obama on media tours and getting arrested multiple times on the white house lawn that Obama began to put any capital behind the DADT repeal at all, and even then it was still super flawed and designed to placate a bunch of bigoted military leaders.
Well shit DG, at some point you either make it clear you're fighting for me, or like Wasserman Shultz on Hardball, you're going to sound and look awfully dishonest when you boldy proclaim that "Obama has been fighting for you this whole time."
You want to blame Kennedy for Reagan? Blame Carter for Reagan.
He had a centrist Governing philosophy, and not even the rational kind: sometimes his decisions were based simply on the fact that it was the most middle option, not anything else like effectiveness.
He also had the misery index, and he told Americans how sick and tainted they were.
That was also when the progressive tax code had 20 brackets, and people like my father had to face the choice of paying higher taxes and getting a raise or staying in the same bracket and paying less taxes. Well again DG context is everything and Carter was pissing everyone, especially in Congress, off so bad that NOBODY liked him.
what reason did the Republicans have to like him? None.
What reason did Kennedy have to like Carter? Well since he made daily deals with satan himself in the spirit of compromise, he probably did not have very many!
In years before democratic and republican presidents faced primary challenges and this was good for the party as it was good for the nation.
Now everyone is so stuck on loyalty that heresy is all anyone can think if you mention the primaries anymore.
You yourself, DG, have been the victim of disloyalty to the social codes of civility, which left-and-right in American political discourse is pretty much the most important thing there is in ensuring you get your voice out there.
Does that explain Feingold, or Warren, or anyone else?
Each individual has their own individual reasons; Feingold for instance lost his senate seat defending the Obama record which is not what people would want him to run a primary campiagn on.
Besides that, I'm betting that everyone has been told that a primary challenge for Obama is a sure fire way to get priamried themselves, and I'm sure there exists a threat also about funding.
Otherwise I can only assert with confidence, that because people in America have turned a blind eye to reality.
The reality is that every bomb Obama has dropped in the brownwer parts of the world each have a chance of creating a determined, hardened terrorist. Why should anyone have to suffer those consequences later on?
Pakistanis shouldn't have to die, and Americans in the future shouldn't have to die because Pakistanis have had to die.
Well I don't buy it. change will come in spite of the Democratic party, not because of it.
This post seems appropriate here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/04/duverger-kushner-bonhoeffer/
Fred's good at clarifying.
Also too: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Jubal Harshaw: single most annoying character in the history of sci fi.
I'm sorry to say that not a damn thing you've written, even if I posit that you are 100% right on all counts (which I don't) changes the awful political calculus by one decimal point.
How many MORE brown people will President Mittens or Frothy Mix bomb in the Middle East? After all, they've campaigned on it! And I'm quite sure they intend to keep those promises. If you want it in stark terms, that's the equation: either dozens of brown people bombed, or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
All your idealism and righteous indignation and appeals to the sanctity of the sacred voting process changes NOTHING.
It's Obama, with all his faults, or a descent into a hell on earth of unimaginable horror by which Obama's faults pale in comparison.
Maybe you think that's not fair. Maybe you HATE being put into such a position. Maybe you feel abused and taken advantage of and ignored and taken for granted. Maybe you hate feeling like some politician that deeply disappoints you has got you by the balls.
And maybe you're right! THAT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE EQUATION.
I'm not even sure I read this correctly. see yas manana.
After all the pissing and moaning (how has Obama let YOU down today?), there is one nugget of wisdom to be gleaned here (paraphrased):
The difference between bad and worse is MUCH greater than the difference between good and better.
Perfection is a nice ideal, but votes do make a difference. You have the right to vote for whomever you choose, but pouting about perfection and "protest votes" for that egomaniacal, hypocritical asshat Ralph Nader went a long way towards putting George W. Bush in the White House in 2000. Yes, with some help from the Supreme Court, but those Nader votes would have tilted the election to Gore, no question. A lot of people would be alive today if that had been the case. You want progressive perfection? Don't we all. You're going to jump up and down and hold your breath and withhold your vote because Obama doesn't match up to your pristine ideals?
Grow the fuck up.
RAH was also one of the preachiest manufacturers of straw-man opponents ever to burn pulp.
Post a Comment