Thursday, July 19, 2007 Notes on Abstract Rants Some rambling Notes on Ideology, with Reasons for its Avoidance, with particular Emphasis on those Species afflicting America. Thursday 19 July 2007 1. LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE. First lets notice that these labels, as they applied, do not mean what the words themselves seem to say. That is, a "Liberal" in America does not believe in maximum freedom of the people, nor does a "Conservative" favor tradition and caution. Notice, in America, which has a tradition of liberty, these terms are synonymous, not opposite. If these labels don't mean what they say, it's reasonable to suppose that the persons who wear them don't mean what they say, either. 2. LEFTISTS AND RIGHTISTS. Taken another step, ideology isn't even ideology, but only varnish over partisanship. So leftism, whatever its pretence of a philosophical justification, amounts to sympathy to the victim. Rightism, from any of its various foundations, amounts to loyalty to the establishment. 3. BEAR WITH ME, HERE. The preceding argument is not new or shocking. But it is important to write it out in black and white, without hedging or qualification. By recognizing ideological partisanship as pervasive, enduring, and fundemental, it should relieve a person of any hope of overcoming it. To achieve social or political goals, it is necessary to either trick ideologues into cooperating, or avoid them altogether. Complaining about the rigid illogic of a particular ideologue is not effective. It only invites him to devise an elaborate justification that shows how smart he is, which is what he wants. Arguing against ideology in general quickly changes a discussion into a whirlwind of hazy generalities, enabling a fact-free debate. As a debate tactic, it is effective for defense only, because it repels the audience. 4. THE CLOAKED-SOURCE METHOD. When presenting a reform measure to a rigid ideologue, the important thing to disguise is the source of the plan, rather than its philosophy or even its practical details (which few persons bother to read, anyway). Remember, ideology is a varnish over partisanship. Though a person might think he has constructed a justification which the ideologue could deny only along with his core beliefs, there is always an ingenious reason why he is wrong. While ideologies are simplistic and repetitive, they are large bodies of thought and contain in them some obscure principle which has results opposite the core idea. This is why Rightists believe that a person has the right to do absolutely anthing he wants with his land, until he wants to build a homeless shelter. The trick is to find a suitable person willing to betray his own kind (trenchcoat optional) to be the source of the plan. To trick a Leftist, a lesbian "of color" is an obvious choice. (Professorship of Comparative American Cultures, optional. Officer of several "non-profit" organizations, mandatory.) Other choices should not be overlooked: idealistic-looking students, trade-union officers, teachers, illegal immigrants, any person from a poor country, any cripple, or ideally: Nazi Holocaust survivors, Japanese internment survivors, or Negro-league baseball players. Finding a disloyal Leftist is easy, because a spokesman is a person of prominence, and having some success under the System, is not really so opposed to it as he may appear. (In fact, Leftists often observe that the world would be a wonderful place, if only they were running it. Vladimir Lenin springs to mind. So does Jewel.) To trick a Rightist, one must find a disloyal businessman (in Rightist dialect, "entrepreneur.") This is more difficult, because Rightists are not beset with the internal contradictions of successful Leftists. When possible, exploit the secret personal inadequacies of closet homosexuals or drug addicts, or prior revealing slips of the tongue. This doesn't mean blackmail, it means finding a secret sympathy with an oppressed group. Don't despair, one business interest often opposes another, so someone may support your plan for material gain, and in a pinch you can always use a priest. For example, suppose a Leftist reformer wished to break up the local taxicab cartel and allow the drivers to keep their profits. A two-step approach would be reasonable, to play one interest off another. First, let the drivers be defined as contract workers, so that the companies can screw them out of benefits and overtime. Since this will appear to hurt the drivers, the companies may support so long as they don't anticipate step two, which is to then deregulate the industry, to gouge higher prices and hobble the customer complaint system. Perhaps the reformer discovers that one of the cartel bosses has terminal cancer or his son just came out as gay or something, and may be vulnerable to persuasion. Bury in the proposition some legal definition of company. Six months later, the drivers form a co-operative, begin their own dispatch, and hire a million-dollar lawyer to show that under the new definition of "company" they are entitled to operate on their own. The bosses scramble to have the law repealed, while the public comes to expect the improved service and reduced fares. 5. THE LUNCH-HOUR METHOD. To a person of some influence, a more straightforward method is available. For anyone who doesn't know, a committee meeting is ended before it is begun: that is to say, that the negotiations of a decision before a committee are done beforehand, away from the formal meeting. No measure is brought to a vote that the sponsors do not know if it will pass or fail. The key is to talk to the decision makers on their lunch breaks, when all the real work is done. The drawback is the need for access and money. Briefly, a corporation wants a tax exemption. It hires a lobbying firm to bribe Congress. A heated debate ensues, evoking the loftiest principles of freedom and humanity, which the executives may safely ignore, knowing that their Chairman has already secured enough votes. The banality of the exemple makes its elaboration needless. 6. COMMENTATORS AND BLOGGERS. What's the difference between a commentator and a blogger? Commentators get paid. And what makes the opinion of Sean Hannity more valuable than that of the humble present writer? Venom and loquacity--the ability to fill airtime with outrage. There was a time when broadcasting corporations had some vague feeling of responsibility to report the news. Perhaps they took the public interest requirements of their FCC licenses too literally. The problem is, reporting facts costs money. There's travel and production costs, and a team of reporters, writers, and researchers to support. Not only is it expensive, it's boring, and does not attract the key audience that broadcasters want: the young, rich, and gullible. They have money to spend, time to keep spending it, and are amenable to unreason. The networks never earned a profit on news reporting. Because broadcasting is a branch of the advertising industry, networks produce minimal news and get it over with early, to move on to lucrative shows during prime time. So as an alternative to news programming, opinion shows became popular. They appear similar superficially, but the differences are fundemental. Instead of reporting the news, commentators merely talk about the news. It costs nothing, since commentators have a parasitic relationship to reporters. The average commentator has never so much as typed an obituary in his life. More important, commentators draw an audience that responds to inflammatory blather and can be convinced to buy gold shares and penis pills. It's not a majority of the public, but it doesn't have to be. There are people who follow ideological bickering like some people follow football. Actually, it's a fair comparison, since both sports and ideology feature permanent conflicts and unreasoned loyalty. Both are hobbies of passive entertainment. Both are diversions from weightier issues. The success of Rightist talk radio can be explained simply. People listen to the radio while driving. Suburbanites with long commutes also tend to be Right-wing. Leftists communicate elsewhere. Still, it's amazing to think that many of these radio hosts started twenty or thirty years ago spinning records on AM radio, and by slick career transitions, have transformed themselves into opinioneers on any matter that travels the AP wire. And so the disk jockeys became experts on the world and everything in it, but it would have made about as much sense if it were the bartenders, or morticians. 7. PUT ANN COULTER ON A DIET. There's nothing to do about what's in Mrs. Coulter's head--that's incurable. But she could be made skinnier if she were on welfare. Broadcasting has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a state-sanctioned monopoly. So if the licenses aren't free, there's no reason the content has to be, either. The government can and should tax and regulate it out of existence. This would open the airwaves for free or subscription broadcasting, where viewers pay the costs and advertising is strictly illegal. This could be done immediately with cable televsion. For broadcast television and radio, a decoder box can be designed so people have to pay. This has a subtle, tremendous impact. Programming must be designed to attract a paying, demanding audience rather than the gullible with time to waste and money to spend. Reality televsion cannot be expected to survive. And while opinion talk probably will be around still, Ann may be forced to get a job. Is this absurd? The broadcasting industry was created by a government grant. The government can take it away, and something better can take its place. If it's crazy to believe that public resources should serve the public, I don't want to be sane. If in the real world the tycoons must always win, then it's not a world worth living in.