May 03, 2014

Saturday Morning Essay: Simple Stringed Pleasures, Episode 2


Brought to you by Trader Joe's Italian Dark Roast blend...

A longtime buddy of mine and I once kicked around the idea of writing the "definitive history" of the housing tract where we grew up. This Peninsula subdivision was built about 18 miles south of San Francisco as the seagull flies, in an area that had once been part of San Francisco Bay but then filled in and covered with modest family homes in a rectilinear grid. Trees were planted, a school was built, a park in the center of the tract was laid out, and a shopping mall was erected at the far north end of the main street running north-south through the grid. Houses were built on quarter-acre lots, two or three bedrooms, one bath, a dining room, a living room and a kitchen. Yards front and back, a single-car garage. In the second California Gold Rush, beginning with the Dust Bowl and continuing through and after World War II, such subdivision housing sold out quickly, acquired by people like my parents, in search of a better, or at least different, life than that experienced elsewhere. Which makes me think that life elsewhere might have been pretty rough.

Later I discovered that it was unnecessary to write such a history, bestseller though it might have been, because a fellow named D. J. Waldie had written a book with the unlikely title Holy Land, about the town of Lakewood, a suburb of Los Angeles. D. J. described housing tracts which were a lot like the ranch-style ghetto of my youth. In his meticulous re-creation of the town's planning and development (enabled by voluminous research into newspaper archives, land records, court files and minutes of the planning commission), and through his own detailed account of the experience of growing up in Lakewood, Waldie captured the sense of alienation from the natural world induced by such a place, how the abstract nature of a layout where the houses, the street lamps, the scrawny trees (tapping their roots into saline soil), the mall, the school, the amenities and even the designed relief from the monotony (the park) were so utterly predictable. You might even say: abstract.

An assignment in a first-year English class at Berkeley, taught by the marvelously self-important Oscar Pemantle, was Notes From the Underground by our man Fyodor, often referred to on this very blog as perhaps the most definitive of the existential writers, although I realize he is not ordinarily grouped with them. In Notes, Dostoevsky wrote about the only subject which serious literature can seriously address, which is the meaninglessness of life. At one point St. Petersburg is described as the most "abstract" city in the world, and Professor Pemantle, trolling for suckers, asked the class what Fyodor had in mind. Thinking about my own humble origins in the housing tract, I told Oscar I would give it a try, and then opined that maybe Dostoevsky was suggesting that St. Petersburg was too carefully planned and constructed, leaving one with the disturbing feeling of living somewhere unnatural and contrived, "alienating the psyche from its habitat." I thought that last phrase had a genuine Berkeley pseudo-intellectual flair, and Oscar seemed to like it, even if there was no communication between us of what either of us thought it meant.

Nevertheless, when Oscar Pemantle gave his formal lecture on the book, he did not adopt this insight as his own. These were performance pieces, by the way, these "definitive" lectures. The class was full to overflowing with the regular students, and with other professors and their teaching assistants sitting in, along with many drop-ins from Berkeley's endless supply of scholastically omniverous intellectuals, all there just looking in on the high-minded fun. Oscar would don a three-piece blue suit, a silk tie, wing tips, and even sport a gold watch chain for good measure, which he would ostentatiously consult during his oration. Magnificent in his glowing, unlined mahogany skin and stylish barrister's attire, his dark hair swept back, his gold-framed glasses glinting, his voice, with its faint Indian intonation, chopping and parsing words with great precision, prancing and preening, wheeling and dipping as he walked back and forth across the classroom, Professor Pemantle told us that the book was really about...love.

I didn't buy it, myself. I thought he was just trying to be controversial.

I think I understand abstraction, because I lived it first-hand. Bear in mind also that my generation was really the first to go all-in for video life. I doubt seriously that life would have been conceivable in the housing tract without it, unless you were from one of those extraordinarily weird families who sat around a table reading Bible verses to each other, and then plotting the axe murders of everyone they knew. Thus, outside in the "real world" (the abstract suburb) was nothing recognizable as nature, and in the house was a television.

In 1968 I bought Mason Williams's music book, a book called "Music" in his usual deadpan way, for $2.50. If you've been paying attention, you know that by 1968 I could read music for the guitar, and I wanted to learn "Classical Gas," the better to charm Berkeley co-eds with. Mason included some poetry in his book, such as "The Censor," which had a line about television which knocked me out:

"And light up like welding shops the ho-hum rooms of America."

I used to walk or ride a bike home at night through the tract, often after hanging out with the buddy who is co-author of the unwritten book. There were no easy paths home since in my part of the subdivision the blocks were laid out in long, parallel, dogleg fashion, with no cross-streets breaking through. You can imagine why. It would have been much nicer to relieve the monotony of a long street lined with identical houses, but you lose a lot or two every time you penetrate the avenue with something as useless as a cross-street. Anyway, I would gaze into the ho-hum rooms of America as I walked in the cold, windy air, and that's exactly what they looked like: blue welding shops, fusing the families together with an alloy of intense boredom and self-loathing.

Later, years after university days, I read the social critic Lewis Mumford's observation that the experience of living in suburban houses ruled by television sets "inured" the American populace to the idea of nuclear annihilation. To wit, at least a thermonuclear holocaust would be something to do, strange as it might be, and Americans were already thoroughly imbued with the sensibility that life was, at base, kind of preposterous in its usual routines. In a sense now we have taken television culture to an exponentially higher level, since electronics permit forms of television to be carried on the person at all times, so that even the outdoors can be included within the ho-hum regions of America, since the generations that succeeded mine have eschewed the natural world altogether in favor of its holographic representations.

I don't know what Mumford would make of the present situation. The United States these days appears to be deliberately provoking Russia in the service of a geopolitical "strategy" to maintain American hegemony. President Obama, in his utterly goofy, clueless way, is being wheeled around like a ventriloquist's dummy by various D.C. "power players," and since Mr. O can't really tell the difference between a good idea and a very bad one, he goes along, since the alternative would be to disagree, mounting a powerful, cogent argument of his own, forcefully delivered.  More or less in the style, come to think of it, of Oscar Pemantle in days of yore, and I don't see that happening.

If a thermonuclear holocaust begins (and it all simply depends on whether Vladimir Putin decides to start one in response to relentless American provocation), there will be a lot of "platforms" to get the word out, providing a lot of "content" which will instantly go "viral" until an electromagnetic pulse shuts it all down. That will be the main bummer about the whole overkill thing; since nothing in our times can be said even to exist until it is Tweeted or texted, captured by cell phone camera or iPad and included in a conversation thread on Facebook, in a way the end of civilization won't really happen in terms we can grasp anymore. There will just be time for a cliche or two: "Didn't see that coming!" "WTF?" And then our abstract habitations, such as they are,  will all be fused glass.

Ho-hum.


April 26, 2014

Saturday Morning Essay: This Week in the Oligarchy

Brought to you by Peet's Major Kong blend...

Conspiracy theorists have every reason to feel vindicated these days with various empirical studies confirming conclusively their most outlandish conceptions of political reality. Take, for example, the recent study published by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern regarding the extent to which America can actually claim to be a functioning representative democracy. 

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

Their query was: who actually controls political decisions in America, majorities of average citizens or a small group of economic elites?  And their conclusion:


"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it."

Their money shot is as follows:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

To arrive at their startling conclusions, Givens & Co. amassed a great deal of data concerning the policy preferences of the general public in America on 1,779 discrete issues over the period 1981 to 2002, and then compared these findings to the actual policies adopted by the federal government.  What they found was that the preferences of "economic elites" dominated the actual outcome of policy contests; to the extent that John Q. Public is vindicated by federal policy, it's more or less a coincidence.  The general public is represented by its Congress when its preferences overlap with those of the economic elites who actually own the Congress.

What the good professors are telling us, in other words, is that America has the bells and whistles of a democracy, with regular elections, TV ad campaigns purveying holographic images of candidates, and all of that; however, we don't actually have a representative democracy.  We have a kind of feudal or oligarchic system, a government run by monied elites.

I hope that the study is brought up to date.  I doubt that the conclusions will change at all. If anything, they will be strengthened, particularly in light of the decisions of The United States Supreme Court, Incorporated on questions of campaign funding.

You may wonder, for example, about a couple of more contemporary political issues.  Consider Congress's refusal to allow Medicare to engage in bulk-buying discounts with drug companies.  That may seem like a head-scratcher.  Why would the United States, which has chronic budget problems (relying as the Treasury does on the extent to which America's wealthy will allow their incomes to be taxed), disable itself from using its economic clout in favor of Big Pharma's interests?  Well, now you have your answer.

Or: even after the Democrats seized majority control over the House in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, why did the Iraq war continue to receive its funding?  Recall that by 2006 everyone knew that all justifications for the invasion of Iraq were well and publicly known to be entirely fraudulent. Iraq posed no threat to the security of the United States.  Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was not the arch-mastermind behind 9/11.  So why did the Democrats continue to give George W. Bush all the money he needed in order to keep fighting a war which a substantial majority of Americans opposed?

A final note: why does Congress allow the banking industry to charge interest rates of 19-29% on credit card balances?  Why not a usury law which caps interest rates at the 10-year Treasury bond rate plus 5%, in line with other usury statutes?

The answer to all these riddles is the same. Congress works for an economic elite to the exclusion of American commoners, and pro bono publico laws are passed only if they also favor this elite. 

It follows that voting, per se, is pointless.  What makes more sense is to vote a straight party line and then form public interest PACs to buy the politicians of one's own party.  For example, an Anti-War political action committee could insist that American military forces cannot be committed by the Executive Branch to a foreign theater without a declaration of war (as the Constitution requires). Money that would otherwise be wasted by donating to individual candidates in elections (who can never be trusted, simply by electing them, to do the right thing) could be invested in such single-issue PACs.  A candidate once elected could then be purchased with such PAC money on a quid pro quo basis, as Big Pharma and defense contractors purchase theirs.  This is not entirely fanciful.  AARP and labor unions (what's left of them) operate on this principle and achieve results. But the scattered, atomized, powerless individual American, even if part of an overwhelming majority, has no chance of reaching his representative solely on the basis of persuasion; thus, circulating petitions, flooding Congressional offices with phone calls, posting on Facebook and the rest of it is entirely useless.

We owe a substantial debt to Professors Gilens and Page for this bracing dose of empirical proof. American democracy does not actually exist.  That is their conclusion, and they lay out the evidence. Forget the "quality" of the representatives you are electing.  In general, they're all pretty unimpressive anyway.  Look for the best bargain.