Politics of life

I have been thinking a lot lately about life. In particular, I have been thinking a lot about people and the type of people that I want in my life. Its funny how political all of this stuff is. From the very beginning of this blog I have firmly believed that politics is in everything that we do and experience. I don't mean the same kind of politics that a politician uses to get elected in office, but I mean politics in a more decision-outcome kind of way.

For a long time now, I been people watching. In my watching I have come to some conclusions about people and their actions. This in turn led me to think more critically about the politics of life. What are the politics of life?

In short, I think the politics of life are a set of behaviors, outcomes and experiences that define a person's existence. We all are governed by our likes and dislikes. We decide to do what we like, enjoy, understand etc. In that way of governance we often consider options, and choices since we have free will to do so. When we consider options and choices we play the political game. Which outcome will give me the most bang for my buck. Which lifestyle choice will give me the most bang for my buck. Which person or people in my life will give me the most bang for my buck. The thing that changes for many people is what exactly is the bang? For some it may be happiness, others it may be money and fame.

This is where all of the politics comes in. The politics that I have been thinking about the most is people. Who really matters when "it" matters. Do people really only like to receive and just use giving as another way to position themselves to receive? As you play your politics of life, really consider the people you surround yourself with. There are a number of people in my life I am slowly weeding out. The constant negativity and hate really is poison to the mind.

I am at a real watershed moment in my life. I think now more than ever, it is time to let some people go. I feel good about letting them go. Sometimes dead weight is not worth carrying anymore. Here goes my people politics and for me, at this moment, its about being happy and walking the right path.

Inauguration Times

Washington, DC--the political epicenter of the United States is about to be hit hard with literally millions of people itching to catch a glimpse of Obama's right hand over his heart and left hand raised repeating the words "I do so solemnly swear...". With the expected frigid temperature, long lines, crowded streets, and heavy traffic citizens and their euphorics have descended onto the nations capital with the mere hopes of simply being apart of history.

It means more to people to actually say that they were there, than to remain comfortable and safe within the confinements of their own home. One thing is for sure, Washington, DC will not be the same after this Tuesday January 20, 2009. It is indeed a remarkable coming that the history of this nation has yet to experience. I am certain that this will go beyond the boundaries of the US but become a salient force across the world.

At this point DC locals like myself have began to prepare to either reap a heavy harvest from the millions of people coming into the district, or lock themselves within their homes to avoid all of the commotion caused by the influx. Most have given up their homes for large amounts of money, set up businesses, or among the many selling Obama relics. I don't think Obama really knows how much his face is worth on the street. At least we know his real human face is worth 4 million people, packed hotels, booked flights, and parties every night.

Enjoy these days in Washington, DC, be ready to spend money, live in the moment don't let the moment pass with out taking one for the "yes we can". As you find your way around the city, spend loads of money in a recession, and yell at the guy for cutting you off, remember that this experience sets the tone for the rest of the year. Be here and be beautiful!

A new year...A new politics

It is interesting to notice how with a new year comes new personalities, new thoughts, new goals and what do ya know....new politics. The inspiring, new year's resolutions, often help people to set the tone for how they will begin the year. You don't often hear of new year's resolutions centered around politics. If I had to come up with a new years political resolution it would be: To begin, maintain, refine a consistent political standard.

What do i mean by this? Well, most poltical pundits play the political game. The game entails making strategic moves that are not always consistent but yield the desired results. Democrat and republican pundits are not consistent in their moves or their strategy. They move to win. What scares most outsiders away from politics all together is the common theme that "politics is soured". I propose that by establishing a consistent political standard then people would fear it less. The standard, ideally would be positive, transparent and honorable. Of course there are ways to protect the political moves seeing as how most people decide not to reveal their next move. It the behind the scenes cowardly, unsophisticated, aloof thinking that worries most. This can be dealt with by setting a standard.

One of the greatest lines in a recent movie came from Tyler Perry's the family that preys. Kathy Bates, arguably one of the best actresses to hit the stage, said the following line to her son during a conversation "It's not you I don't trust, darling. It's your private thoughts that give me pause."

This line conveys the true sentiments that most people share with politicians. The inner thoughts that make people pause. Politcs was never meant to be so secretive, so furtive. It was not until post cold war era in the US that people began to realize the power of hidden politics. Now they have become irritating.

This new politics will assert the very notion that secret politics will not always win. Barack Obama set a political standard, albeit a very high one...a political standard nonetheless. It must be consistent. So as you begin to renew your prior year's vows to live a better life or whether you make new ones, just remember to set a standard, refine what standards you already hold, and seek untainted, consistent politics.

Normalcy never again part 2

On August 28, 1963 a speech that rang loud in the hearts and minds of many Americans told a story of hope. This story was one that idealized the power of man to believe in the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.

The power of one man to believe that Jim Crow's relentless choke hold would weaken due to mere words, was something unforeseen in this, civil rights era. Today mere words have become an anthem that elected the first ever African American to the seat of what one could argue is the most powerful nation in the world.

The hour of victory is upon us. This marks the moment of reckoning. Today in history your belief in hope helped to elect Barack Obama president of these United States of America. It was not by happenstance that you, the voter, sacrificed, committed, and sought out a real faith; a faith that had been so distant for so long; a faith that was held hostage by the pessimism that confronted our scarce belief in change. This faith came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Americans seared by the flames of withering injustice, inequity, long suffering, and deceit. It came as a joyous day break to end this long 8 years of captivity. Yet we must understand that this long night of captivity has a cousin. This cousin will place us at odds, ask us to give more than we receive, and commit itself to more uncontrollable occurrence. To this end, we must maintain belief in the doctrine of hope, the doctrine of everlasting change, and the doctrine of America that asks that each of us love one another despite our differences.

Tonight marked a new way…a new path; an uncharted ideal that we as a United Community must never relinquish. We will be asked to give in, we will be asked to give up and most certainly we will be asked to forget. We must not do these things. We have been encouraged to always remember that change cometh as day break peaks over the horizon to diminish the night’s fearful rage. For in darkness we remain meek but upon the light we are empowered.

As an African American, as a citizen, as an American who so earnestly believes in Obama; I believe that he can, he did and he will. This unyielding faith of America has spoken loud and clear. We will not stand for more of the same. We will demand something more, something new, and something filled with promise. The audacity of hope is so near, so clear and so contagious. Believe in our President Elect Barack Obama, for God himself has a plan greater than anything we can ever imagine. America, get ready, for our time to regain what ground we have lost is here. We shall overcome, not someday but TO-DAY.

God bless America and God bless change!

Life as a means (politically?)

The most irrefutable life lesson that one can give is to simply, just live. As succinct as this moral may be it duly calls about the simplicity it takes to think and therefore be. Furthermore, this lesson is one that unwittingly gets overlooked and blinded by the natural gaze of human individual drive and success. Most think that we live for ourselves, by ourselves. This could not be further from the truth, yet the very basis for this proclamation stems from the rugged ideals that outline the law of reciprocity in that it wholeheartedly states “YOU shall reap what YOU sow”; the communal archetypes that so earnestly ask us to work as we and reap as we are unknown or perhaps ignored. Life should be seen as a means for after living. This Means comes from not simply defining the platitudes of inequality and inequity but from embracing the successes of the collective while defining what fasces help to bind us.

The reaping comes historically from laborious duty that places us out of our comfort zones, our normative thought processes and asks us to endure and painstakingly overcome what obstacles may hinder our progression. I’d openly ask today, in this moment…do we so painstakingly overcome or do we simply find ways around our obstacles, call it hard work and reap the benefits that sanctimoniously help to taut our own individual merits? Perhaps this is why our generation’s problems stem from foolish pride that places us against each other. Or rather they stem from furtive tactics that undermine the often preached “I am because We are” philosophy. It comes as no surprise that our conscious does make cowards of us all; for our conscious tells us to think alone, because we feel and interpret alone. This natural self-righteous way of interpretation is forgone to nothing because it’s how we think. We do not individually think collectively. Therein lays our problem. Are we as natural beings suppose to think collectively all the time? Or do we find times to think collectively to allay our external desires and pressures to help others because we simply feel its right?

This is an important time in our history. Not because new ground is being broken but because each moment in our lives goes from future to present to past providing us with a real time interpretation of our living conditions. These moments impart upon us our true desires and thoughts, which I argue are not collective but individual. They do not call for collective action or sacrifice. They call for “do me” and get what is mine. We just don’t say it. If only thoughts could be shown visibly, the world would die in a day. Therefore, thoughts remain hidden, our doings remain political, and our desires remain individual.

For when we all stand before God for due judgment we will be asked, I surmise, what have you done for others. We will begin to answer with what things we have done not knowing that most of what we do is self gratification and self indulgence. Quite simply, we will tell him what things made us feel good.

I say all of this not to confuse you, which I may have, but to present what a stream of conscious writing can produce. Try sitting down and writing what comes to mind, you may find that what you often preach…you don’t consciously believe.

Blogging about Blogs

Blogs are the quintessential technique by which citizens can provide reflection on the state of affairs whether in the US or around the world. It is not by happenstance that blogging grew ever more popular under the Bush administration. People wanted to say something. And since the media did not reflect the concerns of the most ordinary citizen, blogs emerged and took political discourse by storm..rightfully so.

Ross Douthat says that at their best blogs expose the weaknesses of the traditional opt-ed page. He says that on the net, the issues that most often gets overlooked have a forum for discussion. Even when you are dead wrong! On the other hand he calls blogging the enemy of literary craft and intellectual depth.

Ross' first point I can agree with, however his last point draws some cause for concern. Perhaps anyone with a mind can begin a blog and say what ever they want, yet I don't think I would go so far as to say that they were the enemy of literary craft and intellectual depth. If anything blogs enhance the depth of intellect. I would not put all my eggs in one basket so to speak with the selection that comes across the post or the times. I can get just as much insight from Joe Blow by reading his blog.

Blogs create the opportunity for casual non politically correct voice. You don't have an editor, a proof reader or anyone checking your work but you. You simply write what you think and place it out for the world to read. Perhaps trying to be so PC is what has pushed for the emergence even more so of Blogs. You can say what you want how you want. This is a cut throat, in your face, type of presentation. It hits the gut, asks the hard questions, and quite frankly says what people are truly thinking. Freedom of the press is given justice via blogs.

When I read the post, or watch CNN I have expectations that are typically met. If they are not I'll be sure to read about them in the next day's post. With Blogs however, you may not have any expectations except the ones painted by the blogger at that moment. Sometimes I like to write in poetic prose while other times I simply write in a stream of consciousness and hope that the reader finds it logical. If not I have lost nothing. So for people who are risk loving blogging is the way to go.

A More Ethical Politics

Objectivists believe that politics is grounded in ethics. Even those who would not be considered objectivists would believe that political theory, as we understand it, is based on some ethical premises. For example, the welfare state is dependent on egalitarianism. Communism is dependent on altruism, collectivism, and materialism. Is that enough of a connection?

The explicit connection between politics and ethics is an insufficient one. If ethics were the basis of politics, then we should be able to tie the two more closely together. Major themes in ethics should have very specific implications in politics. The most fundamental issue in ethics, I believe, is the living of life. We attempt to live our lives the best we can, try and live the ‘Good Life’. To that end, life is the ultimate value. It is also the standard of value and the measurement by which we judge morality. If that is the case, we should also be able to judge politics by that standard. At this moment, we cannot. The connection between the two should be strengthened.

Despite the lack thereof of ethics in politics, it is quite easy to judge those who play in politics- politicians, by standards of morality and ethics. Politicians are generally considered to be the least trustworthy professionals. This is a long and widely held view expressed in numerous aphorisms.

Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver’s Travels, said: “Politicks, as the Word

is commonly understood, are nothing but Corruptions.”

George Orwell said: “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

The American essayist, H.L. Mencken said: “If experience teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that a good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.”

This literary conviction suggest that politics and its players are innately corrupt. Perhaps this corruption comes from a marred sense of where ethics and politics have been able to merge. Sometimes the distinction between the two is a matter of scale. “If one guy robs you, its ethics, but when 435 people rob you, it's politics--or the House of Representatives is in session.” But of course the deliberations of that body are subject to ethical analysis. Often the only way to achieve an individual ethical goal is through group endeavors--i.e., politics. These groups, by virtue of our type of government are elected officials of the people. We have entrusted these people with the ability to decide what is right, or what would enhance our attempts at living the good life. If this form of government is placing corrupt individuals in our seats of power and decision making then the question becomes is democracy inherently unethical? Is it just?

Plato's Republic centers on this simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? Socrates argues that a good city would be just and that defining justice as a virtue of a city would help to define justice as a virtue of a human being. Furthermore, arguing that the just city and the just human being as he has sketched them are in fact good and are in principle possible. He suggests that it is just, if we surmise that being ethical is being just.

Socrates supports the idea that the interface of politics and ethics should be strengthened. He does not state that the connection is not there he merely questions how one would look at this interface, how one would interpret what a city and its politics would look like. Even in a virtuous city with just people could the players overcome what potential dirty politics could arise? Does a city not contain people who are unjust and unethical?

In Michael Walzer’s piece on the problem with dirty hands he suggests that even the best of those who avoid dirty hands cannot govern innocently, but it does not mean that you cannot do the right thing while governing. He indicates that somehow, someway, in politics you must get your hands dirty yet still be able to do the right thing. You don’t have to do as Machiavelli suggests and learn to be not good. You can be honest, virtuous, and moral but yet realize that getting your hands dirty may come with the job. Walzer says implicitly, don’t abandon moral fortitude, find ways to put it into the political ends in which you seek. In addition, doing dirty in politics as Walzer says discloses the moral dilemma inherent in the convention. If he were a moral man and nothing else then his hands would not be dirty, if he were a politician and nothing else then he would pretend that his hands are clean. Walzer criticizes Machiavelli in his analysis on how to be a bad person by saying that Machiavelli never tells us how the person actually should feel about being bad. Walzer’s approach suggests that politics and ethics would be better off together as long as the politician is ethical and wants to do the right thing.

In a contrasting opinion, Max Weber in Politics as a vocation says that politics is a vocation and not a calling; therefore the politician cannot be justified by God. His vocation is his own choice. It seems as if Weber believes that politics is not ordained by God and therefore should not be held accountable. He argues against there being ethics in politics. Similar to what Weber espouses, Machiavelli suggests that one who is not learned to be bad will not sufficiently rule his kingdom and that being good and virtuous would make one seem weak and unfit to rule.

Even then, philosophers questioned the role that being moral had in serving the people. Today we find that without ethics in politics and policy design it is impossible to serve the people. The people, based upon their own convictions, which I argue come from what is just or unjust, elect our leaders and create our politics. Politics create policy. The people create politics; therefore the syllogism suggests that the people create policy. If the policies are unjust then perhaps people are unjust and unethical, at least in numbers. This claim does not denigrate the individual’s desire to be ethical; it questions the scale in which people as a collective desire to be ethical. I would argue that people as a whole do not desire ethical politics, they desire politics that work to provide what people feel is owed to them, by any means necessary.

The syndicated press believes the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11th 2001 are presented as the official reason for the campaign against terrorism and presumably the war in Iraq. This campaign was presented by Bush as the struggle between the forces of good and evil, with his own side obviously being the good one. This has introduced an ethical dimension into the political scene. For many Americans today, the trouble is that Bush’s ethics seem to be at variance with those held by most people of good will. But at the same time, when the attack hit, the people were eager for revenge in what ever fashion. We were hurt by the loss suffered and confused by the beliefs of those we felt constructed this heinous crime. Collectively we wanted revenge, we wanted politics that would suffice this hunger and not provide ethical reason. If asked whether the people wanted an ethical response to 9-11, the resounding answer would be no. For they knew the ethical response would not have been to go to war and pay back but to unite, support the loss and act according to what clear evidence we had. As it later surfaced, the evidence we thought we had were pushed on by dirty politics because this is what we the people desired. We wanted a reason to fight back. We desired a reason to not be good.

Whether politics and ethics are truly desired by the masses is up for a Gallup poll. To have a more ethically based political thinking sounds like it would provide more of a good life yet the truth becomes that life is only good when people are good, when people are just. Life is the ultimate value and if we value life then we must value politics, for politics is life and life is politics. Therefore since we place value on living a just life then we must place more value on having a just and ethical politics.

---