2 Letters to My Brother On National Politics, Civilization and Culture

by Eric Chaet

Letter #1

Mark—

A couple of times recently you wrote about your feeling the need to unseat the Bush administration—which would almost surely be a better thing than its continuation.

I just read a book, with some ideas that might interest you—ideas I'm bound to interpret a bit, integrating some of my other evolving thoughts:

The book is The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans, by William Greider. It's from the early '80s, the first of about half a dozen wonderful but unpleasant books by Greider on national politics and international economics. David Stockman was Reagan's budget director.

Greider interviewed Stockman for an hour or so one morning every week over a period of many months, when Stockman was putting together the radical budget that he then proceeded, with the rest of the administration, to try to put into effect. Some in the administration had different goals & modified it. Some in Congress, tho opposed to many of the underlying assumptions, jumped on board, believing Reagan inevitable, but tweaking it this way & that according to their real beliefs. Some congressmen & senators required concessions from the administration—pork for their districts—discrediting an administration acting as tho it had integrity, after decades of politics without integrity. Then, once the policies were put in place, the first results were not benefits, but pain, & there was an immediate sea-change, with almost everyone, including congressmen, senators, & journalists who had been praising the new program, criticizing it, trying to undo it, before any of its good effects (if any good effects would have occurred) could start happening.

Greider's agreement with Stockman was not to publish anything until after the cycle of events was over. He waited about a year, then published this book. I don't mean you should read it. Just to let you know where I'm getting this stuff.

Greider's conclusions—partly ideas he had before any of the interviews, no doubt—are interesting.

He says that, to get elected, from the left or right, politicians have to promise, essentially, bountiful harvests, with never a drought or flood—to promise what they can't possibly deliver. Often, they believe their promises. But, left or right, they discover that the presidency is less magical than they have believed, whether they liked what FDR did or hated it. They learn that, whatever they attempt to make happen, things go on much as they were going on. Maybe they can make things somewhat better or worse, but not much.

The civilization has been going on, with no one in charge, for thousands of years. Even the nation has been going on, with no one really in charge, for hundreds of years.

The politicians & newspeople within the Beltway have understandings among themselves, & use one another, knowing that they are doing so, & talk in a language one another understand, but people outside the Beltway can't make out. When a truth emerges, there is outrage. Rarely does a truth emerge.

Greider, a journalist all his life, says that journalists present, mainly, startling facts that happened within the last 24 hours, & predictions about the far future, almost none of which come true. They don't feel responsible that their viewers, listeners, or readers understand—which is what the viewers, listeners, or readers want. Only, that they present the startling recent factoids & predictions. Greider would prefer that they all, biased however they are, analyze & put in context whatever they present, using as much history as they know—then let their audiences decide what they think is happening. But, in the meantime, this is the situation.

Bush has done more harm than usual, probably. Though I wonder how long a Democrat, say, could have avoided going on the offensive, given the continuing terrorism attacks, especially aimed at targets important to those in the national govenment (military targets), and to their biggest financiers (e.g., World Trade Center). And I wonder what, for instance, a Democrat in office next, will do different than the Republicans, now that the USA is enmeshed in Iraq. It's true that if U.S. forces are abruptly pulled out, it will encourage terrorists, and also lead to the killing of some of the least rotten people in Iraq.

None of which is to say that it's not a good idea to do something to unseat Bush, who deserves to be unseated. If you figure out what to do, & do it, good for you. I just thought I'd share these thoughts with you, since you seem to be thinking about such things.

As for your gubernatorial recall & possible replacement election, I can only watch in horrified amazement—but not very horrified, since I'm used to it, already.

Lately, I've read a lot about what is now known of the pre-history of hominids—a million years of hunting & gathering in small bands, like great apes, gradually spreading from East Africa, up thru the Middle East into Europe & South Asia, China, across the frozen-over Bering Strait about 15,000 years ago ... soon thereafter, the ice melted—Noah's Great Flood.

Anyway, about 10,000 years ago, people learned to domesticate plants, by encouraging those easiest to harvest & process into foods—the easiest species & the easiest individuals of those species—to grow near to their dwellings, giving them a more dependable source of food, & a surplus of food which they fed to herd animals they domesticated, which served as walking refrigerators.

Thereafter the problem became less how to get along with nature, & more how to get along with one another in the community: who controlled the surplus, who did the hardest work, who did the work in between—artisans, accountants, entertainers, for instance—& by what arrangement.

That's the history we're part of. That & wars between one such "civilization" & another, or one community within a civilization & another community. Individuals make a difference, & presidents make a difference; but it is within a very deep context—not just the surface of the ocean, but the ocean.

Hope you're thriving.

Eric

Letter #2

Mark—

So, it matters a lot who is president of the USA, but less than most people think. For instance, would not a Democratic president have struck out at terrorists—an element within the Islamic civilization who are now at war with, among other things, the USA—beyond Afghanistan, eventually?

It's very difficult to have much of an impact on presidential elections, but, given a huge investment of effort, possible—but you usually end up with someone only slightly less terrible, if less terrible at all.

To get elected, every successful candidate must promise to do more than he or she can possibly achieve. Some are cynical; most seem to delude themselves to begin with.

But the real problem isn't this president or that. It's not a matter of winning the presidency, it's a matter of winning the nation.

That's a more difficult problem, even, but fortunately one that you are in the correct—culture—business [brother Mark is an actor, in L.A.] to work on without great disruption to your life—only a matter of changing some tactics.

The presidents we get are the result of the nation we are. The majority of eligible adults don't vote, & those who do are approximately evenly split between:

Those who are mainly white Anglo-Saxon protestant males from privileged backgrounds who fear everyone else outside and inside of the USA, & who believe in maximum freedom to operate, which is appealing to everyone, especially everyone who starts with privileges, with advantages in the competitive free-for-all;

& those who mainly represent those left out by the first group—e.g., the laboring class (until now: now it's the laboring-&-unemployed class): women, Hispanics, eastern-, central-, & southern-Europeans. It is mainly those who have organized, by groups, who are served by this bunch, & they (or their "leaders" anyway) are given favors (just as the first group favors pet corporations & investors who fund them) at everyone else's expense. Also, they favor having the government do all kinds of things that it proves over & over again that it does very badly, & makes it impossible for others to perform the function—& you must pay for the poor service, it's not something you can refrain from doing.

This second way of governing would work better, tho not well, if everyone was in favor of it, but they are not, & there is no way they will ever be—especially:

Those who start with the most resources (which they can withdraw from the country, if pressed), which group includes those with the most experience managing large, essential enterprises, e.g., energy & food production, processing, & distribution;

& those who, tho they start with little or nothing, insist on being given a chance to create their own lives ("the pursuit of happiness"), not just fit in & work their way up in the only bureaucracy which needn't compete for funds & therefore holds the whip-hand, a situation in which some are bound to use the whip, becoming petty tyrants, or not-so-petty.

So, it's necessary, to change the kind of presidents we get, to change the kinds of organizations that get them elected. And even more essentially, to change the kind of nation that produces such organizations.

This is a task for generations, & has already begun, & not too badly, on many fronts.

For example, a great movie or television program that changes many minds for the better, rather than a movie or TV show mainly pandering to status-quo tastes, in order to reap the most dollars. Likewise, a great performance by an actor in such a show, or in a stage show—to a lesser extent—but necessary to influence those who might be making or acting in movies or television shows, &, of course, to advance your chances of performing in such.

Likewise, all the arts, social sciences, philosophy & religion.

Until the late 19th century, the USA was primarily a real democracy—that is, for the white males. It was the greatest democracy (most citizens eligible fully to participate, & most did participate) in history. It also had few enemies capable & simultaneously anxious to injure it—the British Empire was the main exception, & they found it more practical to just use the USA, rather than defeat it.

Most white men in the USA until the 1890s, earlier for some, later for others, worked according to their own agendas, creating or operating farms or other productive enterprises, & selling their products to people nearby. This changed as the nation's economy became centralized, national. Since that time, while women, then Blacks got the vote, & there was a great influx of non-Anglo-Saxons, those in a position to use their advantages organized the economy & Republican party for their own benefit—tho some are, I'm sure, as purely idealistic as anyone, but still fearing & distrusting anyone not like themselves. And the Democratic Party became the successful party of opposition by making deals with this & that organized out-group: with women, with Black organizations, with labor organizations, currently with product-liability lawyers, etc.

There is a mythology that we are the democracy that the white men of the 19th century had. We're not. But the mythology is the prevailing mythology, & all kinds of decisions—for instance, at election time—are made on its basis, rather than on the basis of what is actually the case, & what is desirable given that actual case.

A more accurate perception of reality is what is necessary to win the nation, not just the presidency—to win it over to a wiser course of action, including wiser choices of chief executive—& I don't know how else that more accurate perception of reality can be created, other than via culture; for instance, theater, TV, movies—or great books or songs or pictures or journalism.

Hope you're thriving.

Eric

P.S.

I said that having national government provide service more, private organizations less—which I think would result in poorer service which you would be forced nevertheless to pay for, & tend toward one vast arrogant tyranny, rather than many corporations less ruthless, because without the unique right to maintain armed forces, use violence, imprison, execute—would work better if everyone would cooperate. But that those with advantages will never willingly give them up, & many starting with little or nothing, too, will insist on the right to pursue happiness, despite all odds, in our own ways—not fit in to the only show in town.

But totally free enterprise—often involving abuse of labor & environment—would work far more effectively, too, if everyone would cooperate. That is, if everyone would stop placing obstacles in its path, allow an equilibrium to be established, & train themselves to take maximum advantage of the given arrangements & technologies. But they won't, either. Millions (some slackers, but most are by no means such) see their advantage in resisting the corporations—who must take more than they give (i.e., profit) to go on. These use their only tools, including the state, whose officers require their votes; believing, usually rightly, that there's no way they could train themselves & thrive within a completely free competition (while some of their competitors begin with advantages such as money and connections) in their lifetimes.

The tug of war between the two systems and the two groups, within the USA and, now, globally, is a significant part of what is actually the case, which each of us must thread his or her way through, and upon which we must make political & economic decisions.

We can do all we are capable of (& no more) to help the national government evolve in better rather than worse ways, & to resist its abuses. Likewise, we can do all we are capable of & no more to help the corporations with which we interact evolve in better rather than worse ways. And we must do likewise with individuals with whom we interact, especially those with whom we interact most intimately & significantly. And, most important & hardest, we can do all we are capable of & no more, within the situations we find ourselves, to evolve, ourselves, in ways that improve rather than degrade our own lives, & those of the people with whom we interact—& corporations, & the nation, & the nations.

I frequently believe Bush is doing wrongly. Unfortunately, I am frequently certain that I'm not doing as well as I might, myself, either!

Copyright © Eric Chaet 2003