The Tea Partiers and Constitutionalist have a point, for the wrong reasons, about limited government. The political effectiveness of government has been limited by the exponential, acceleration in peoples ability to connect. HOW IRONIC, but TRUE! As people are able to connect and organize, they are able to make greater congruent and coherent assemblages for their self-interests. They no longer have to accommodate themselves to contradictory agendas. They can aggregate greater numbers around common causes.
With this comes the dynamic of what causes are able to generate the greater energy in people and money. Those with more resonating and cohesive agendas with each other are better able to effect their agenda, rather than restrained by the limits of consensus within one's group. This is why the partisanship has grown to the cancer that has taken over the legislative process. As the different cohesive groupings with a greater coherent agenda of consensus because of their congruency are able to come to a resolution for action, presumptively, as well as administratively, they have more affected adherents to their agendas, thus are less disposed to seek accommodation or compromise.
This leaves the political process in the hands of these forces who can combine available people and resources. Primarily, those who are materially endowed are the ones best able to create these political forces. Economic, in this way, does effect and distort the political process.
For those with out the economic disposable resources to make such an effect, they are marginalized if not ignored. This creates an angst and a derived need for those, now marginalized, to find a medium in which they can manifest their will. They can be auxiliaries and adjuncts to greater and similar agendas or they can seek in people organization what they don't have in money. ACORN was such an attempt but fell afoul of the political system for which it was too dependent upon for funding.
The mission of ACORN, organizing the otherwise marginalized, was good but required and depended too much on outside financial resources, instead of internal, organic motivation and inspiration of its subject constituency. That constituency cannot be faulted for its own preoccupation with just trying to make their financial obligations for SUBSISTENCE, rather than further dissipating their energies on abstract, social and political hypotheticals.
It will take a consciousness of people seeing and acting on their similar organic, compatible interests in incidental and casual venues so that an infectious attitude is propagated which will cohere and adhere the otherwise civilly, unorganized into a coherent political dynamic for change within their local sphere, rather than seeking changes to be brought from outside that sphere. This will require a readjustment in their thinking about what is necessary and beneficial for their well being and contentment, so to keep the coherence of purpose as well as the adherence of participation.
Thinking beyond narrow self-indulgence and self-interest to cultivate and nurture these local cooperative cells will not be easy. The political ends of a cultural and social change in life-view in which one shares locally one's empowerment, rather than giving it away to some remote or detached entity to one's own organic process will take a deconstruction of the social and cultural training we give ourselves and offspring.
We will have to come to appreciate the 'atmospherics' that have their own physics of affects. Those affects give us conditions of grace that facilitates an empowerment of serendipities that are, literally, miraculous. From these miracles of the sui generis, we will see ourselves beyond the partisan pettiness that holds us hostage in this present political environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment