Friday, January 24, 2003

A clarification of my clarification (let's try again)
In case anyone misunderstood, the questions I have been going on about revolve around the problematic nature of technocracy, not race. The design of affirmative action is not only predicated on an assumption that economic relations are, for practical reasons, foremost among our social activities, but that from a neutral philosophical standpoint, they should be. This is the equivalent of arguing that since we need to eat, all philosophy should be a philosophy of food. The Soviets perfected this sort of mechanistic political theory, minus the Epicurean tendencies, and called it Stalinism.
Affirmative action as it has been organized is a warping of constitutional doctrine that was made necessary, as I've said before, by the political impossibility of a national system of primary education. But at the same time it acted to ensure the growth of the economic model of social activity. The technocracy may have in a sense 'done the right thing', but it did it for self protection and nothing else.
In order to maintain stability in an inherently unstable economic system that is based on social and economic inequality, it has been important to find ways to make economic life perhaps less painful, but no less numbing. This is what the various stop gap measures, including constitutionally questionable programs, are designed to do. But it is economic inequality across racial, ethnic and religious boundaries that is the root of the problem, and this is what these programs fail to address. If we have to distort the constitution to preserve our union, limits on economic freedom, including a cap on personal wealth, seem the most logical choice. Is this going to happen? I have not been making all these arguments because I think it's going to pop up as an issue any time soon. But I think if we are going to argue about principles we should know what they are. And we should acknowledge the difference between those principles and the situational logic we use to defend what we imagine them to be.

And yes, I know, we're going to war. But whatever The Guardian says, or however the hawks will use it, the issue was never Iraq it was and remains the aftermath, and none of the idiots in the White House have done anything to convince us they understand that simple fact.
The Times today described Powell as fuming at being 'stabbed in the back' by the French and Germans. Read the article. (link later) Are they supposed to behave as lackeys? Are they supposed to assume that the leaders of this country are as childish as they actually are? Why won't they just play ball? Because George Bush is not their fucking King that's why!
What arrogance. What stupidity. And that asshole is supposed to be the "Good" one.

No comments: