political goth
NineSpiral
just wondering if anyone out there can think of any exceptions to
this....thanx
NineSpiral
Curgoth (Matt Andrews)
<back-handed remark>
Politics is something *punks* do.
</back-handed remark>
It really depends on what you mean by "goth music". Goth Rock?
Industrial? EBM? Darkwave?
Industrial/EBM stuff certainly has its share of political subjects.
While I can't think of a specific example, I have a vague
recollection of there being some politclly minded UK goth rock musicians.
--
Dream Well...
Curgoth
IHCOYC XPICTOC
The Sisters strike me as providing a number of obvious counterexamples.
Vision Thing? Lucretia My Reflection? Then again, they are Not Goth [tm].
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
I THAT in heill was and gladness
Am trublit now with great sickness
And feblit with infirmitie:
Pruritus ani conturbat me.
Edvamp
>just wondering if anyone out there can think of any exceptions to
>this
A lot of goths like New Model Army, so not sure if that counts.
Do you mean political as in just mentioning political topics (like Sisters do)
or songs advocating political activism or something? (like U2 or someone like
that)
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Not Perky Today
Joe Brenner
The punks stole all of the politics, and didn't leave
any for the rest of us.
What kind of politics should a goth have, if a goth did
have politics?
NineSpiral
"Curgoth (Matt Andrews)" wrote:
> <back-handed remark>
> Politics is something *punks* do.
> </back-handed remark>
generally speaking, it seems you're right :)
>
> It really depends on what you mean by "goth music". Goth Rock?
> Industrial? EBM? Darkwave?
> Industrial/EBM stuff certainly has its share of political subjects.
> While I can't think of a specific example, I have a vague
> recollection of there being some politclly minded UK goth rock musicians.
no, i'm not talking about industrial or EBM, i'm quite familiar w/ the poltiics
in that. I mean good old fashioned goth rock. :)
NineSpiral
> Vision Thing? Lucretia My Reflection? Then again, they are Not Goth [tm].
well, Sisters 'mention' that kind of thing sometimes, but being "Not Goth" or
not, i still consider 'em GAF but there doesn't really seem to be an
overwhelming message in it. sure a few songs like Vision Thing are
exceptions...actually my favorite is from Ribbons...
"I tried to tell her, about Marx and Engels, God and angels...i don't really
know what for, but she looked good in ribbons."
Andrew Eldritch, the Marxist? :) heheh
NineSpiral
NineSpiral
>
> Do you mean political as in just mentioning political topics (like Sisters do)
> or songs advocating political activism or something? (like U2 or someone like
> that)
more like stuff w/ an activist slant. Sisters are great, but "here come the
Hizbollah" isn't the kind of politics i'm referring to. yeah, environmentalist,
socialist, feminist, anarchist, anti-racist, whatever...activist politics is what
i meant...can u think of anything? as for New Model Army i'm actually not that
familiar w/ them.
NineSpiral
NineSpiral
> have politics?
that's of course up to the individual to determine. but seeing as how, for
example, a lot of goths tend to be more openminded about say, sexual
orientation than many folks, or the fact that most goths seem to dislike
racism (at least the ones in my circles) or whatever, just a type of
songwriting reflecting these kinds of topics...as for the punks, while i
can't see most goths wanting to listen only to songs w/ content like oi
polloi's 'nazi scum' (GREAT song btw!) or whatever, i can definitely see
that gothic music might be able to incorporate a political message in a
more subtle way while still saying essentially the same things. myself,
i'm on the radical left - kind of anarchist in my antistatism, but more
Marxist than anarchist in the way i analyze capitalism. but there are many
different kinds of politics out there among goths of course - i've met
everything from goths who belong w/ the fundamentalist right to anarchist
goths...it just doesn't seem to be on the surface unlike the way it is w/
punks or whatever.
that gives me an idea - maybe I should make a red and black
anarchosyndicalist flag out of crushed velvet or PVC. ^___^
NineSpiral
Dag
The German band Love Like Blood av a number of political songs.
They're also rather good.
Dag
Curgoth (Matt Andrews)
>
>> It really depends on what you mean by "goth music". Goth Rock?
>> Industrial? EBM? Darkwave?
>> Industrial/EBM stuff certainly has its share of political subjects.
>> While I can't think of a specific example, I have a vague
>> recollection of there being some politclly minded UK goth rock musicians.
>
>no, i'm not talking about industrial or EBM, i'm quite familiar w/
Then I'll have to defer to someone crustier than I.
Let's try to call out an expert in old-school goth;
"Hey Now, Hey Now Now Now!"
--
Dream Well...
Curgoth, doof, doof, doof.
Joe Brenner
>> What kind of politics should a goth have, if a goth did
>> have politics?
>that's of course up to the individual to determine.
Cool. That's a concept that a lot of punks seem to have
trouble with.
>but seeing as how, for example, a lot of goths tend to be
>more openminded about say, sexual orientation than many
>folks, or the fact that most goths seem to dislike racism
>(at least the ones in my circles) or whatever, just a type
>of songwriting reflecting these kinds of topics...
So, is this a political song lyric:
well i live with snakes and lizards
and other things that go bump in the
night cos to me everyday is halloween
i have given up hiding and started to fight
i have started to fight well any time,
any place, anywhere that i go all the
people seem to stop and stare they say
'why are you dressed like it's halloween?
you look so absurd, you look so obscene'
o, why can't i live a life for me?
why should i take the abuse that's served?
why can't they see they're just like me it's
the same, it's the same in the whole wide world
>but there are
>many different kinds of politics out there among goths of
>course - i've met everything from goths who belong w/ the
>fundamentalist right to anarchist goths...it just doesn't
>seem to be on the surface unlike the way it is w/ punks or
>whatever.
I've always figured that a lot of people get involved with
the goth scene in part because it's got no political litmus
test associated with it. You don't need to be terribly
politically correct by anyone's standards.
And the flip side of that idea, is that I think that the
punks marginalized themselves when they got co-opted by
marxists...
>myself, i'm on the radical left - kind of
>anarchist in my antistatism, but more Marxist than
>anarchist in the way i analyze capitalism.
You know you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't
a member of the radical left. Isn't that interesting, in
itself? The presumption that politics should be central in
life and art is pretty much missing from the other political
cultures floating around.
>i can definitely see that gothic music might be able to
>incorporate a political message in a more subtle way while
>still saying essentially the same things.
Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
best.
Seo
> >no, i'm not talking about industrial or EBM, i'm quite familiar w/
> > the poltiicsin that. I mean good old fashioned goth rock. :)
>
> Then I'll have to defer to someone crustier than I.
>
> Let's try to call out an expert in old-school goth;
>
> "Hey Now, Hey Now Now Now!"
Sisters of Mercy is kinda obvious in this matter eh?
Bauhaus and ( early but not early enough to be Easy) Cure count in this?
Check the lyrics and political times for...
Double Dare and Terror Couple Killed Colonel (1980) by Bauhaus
Killing An Arab by the Cure ( circa 1978)
Maybe Siouxsie and the Banshees can be dragged in with some semi-social
commentary type lyrics their songs?
Suburban Relapse ( released on the Scream in '78? o.0 or is my memory being
raped by high caffiene doses right now?)
>
> --
> Dream Well...
>
> Curgoth, doof, doof, doof.
--
- - -
Seo - not crusty and not an expert. Ask for a ripe apple and get a dodgy
persimmon.
- - - - -
NineSpiral
>
> well i live with snakes and lizards
<snip>
i have always loved the lyrics to that song...and thought of "Leave me
alone" by the Cruxshadows as a kind of tragic sequel to it.
> I've always figured that a lot of people get involved with
> the goth scene in part because it's got no political litmus
> test associated with it. You don't need to be terribly
> politically correct by anyone's standards.
i think you're quite right - and unlike a lot of other scenes, most of
its members don't take the whole thing entirely seriously and are able
to step back and poke fun at it. that's one of my favorite parts about
being goth, if i may be so bold as to declare myself one. :)
> And the flip side of that idea, is that I think that the
> punks marginalized themselves when they got co-opted by
> marxists...
although I sympathize w/ Marxism, anarchism or whatever, i agree. I
admire the punk ethic of 'we really don't give a shit what you think'
but sadly, a lot of the time it's not really true - it's more like 'we
really don't give a shit what you think as long as you think like this'
> You know you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't
> a member of the radical left. Isn't that interesting, in
> itself? The presumption that politics should be central in
> life and art is pretty much missing from the other political
> cultures floating around.
well actually although i'm into radical politics one of the most
refreshing things to me about gothic culture is that when you meet
people you feel like you're talking to people, not ideologies. :) and
i'm not suggesting that politics be central to it all -
quite the contrary. I like gothic culture the way it is. but one of the
reasons i'm asking is because I'm making mix CDs for some of my comrades
in an activist group that i'm involved in and i'd love to be able to
sneak in a little goth or whatever (the first CD i made had a couple of
industrial tracks mixed in with the punk and RATM and whatever)
> Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
> say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
> turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
> condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
> best.
often, you're right. and that's why the punk stuff gets on my nerves
after a while, although i do like it in smaller doses, generally i
listen to goth/ethereal/industrial/visual kei/jrock...but one of the
wonderful things about say, Bob Dylan, was the way that he would throw a
political message into a song and while it was heavyhanded in some songs
it was quite subtle in others. and it's this kind of subtlety that might
be cool *occasionally* thrown into gothic rock. just my opinion of
course! although one of the most amazing things about goth is how
intensely personal it can be at times (at its best) and too much
politricks would take away from that, for sure...
NineSpiral
Marlene Powell
Joe Brenner wrote:
> Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
> say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
> turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
> condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
> best.
My God, man! What else is art for?
If that was the way music was meant to be, we'd all be listening
repeatedly to a techno remix of the Rainbow Brite theme song.
The real point to the music that I listen to, is sheer imagery. The
point is to use your imagination, working along with the music, to
produce something truly beautiful (as well as your own opinions). This
is opposed to having "the point" and/or "the meaning" handed to you on a
silver platter without having to use that room upstairs at all. Feeling,
mood, imagination over beat/dance/boyband/scream.
Marlene Powell
---------------------
"Just sodomize me with an energizer battery and I'm good to go."
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Check the lyrics and political times for...
. . .
> Killing An Arab by the Cure ( circa 1978)
Technically, this is about the story by Camus (France's answer to Norman
Vincent Peale). So it may not be all that political.
JeanCroix
> Curgoth wrooted:
>> >no, i'm not talking about industrial or EBM, i'm quite familiar w/
>> > the poltiicsin that. I mean good old fashioned goth rock. :)
>
> Bauhaus and ( early but not early enough to be Easy) Cure count in this?
>
> Check the lyrics and political times for...
> Double Dare and Terror Couple Killed Colonel (1980) by Bauhaus
I dunno about Double Dare, but Terror Couple Kill Colonel was just swiped
from a then-current newspaper headline. No politacal meaning, they just
liked the sound of the phrase.
> Killing An Arab by the Cure ( circa 1978)
Based on Albert Camus' novel _The_Stranger_. No politics there.
-JC
--
D a.g.s-f: Semper Monemus Sed Non Audiunt, Ergo Lartus E
http://web.raex.com/~jcroix "..but I'd rather be a free man in my grave,
Only _2432324_ days until X-Day! than living as a puppet or a slave."
V Ordo Templi Ashus: First SubChurch of Ash, Patron of Shotgun & Chainsaw O
crimson halo
[snip]
> i have always loved the lyrics to that song...and thought of "Leave me
> alone" by the Cruxshadows as a kind of tragic sequel to it.
Have you heard the remix of "Leave Me Alone" with the newscast clips
and voice-overs? It appeared on mp3.com a long time ago; I'm not sure if
it's still there. It's good, and the clips add a whole new dimension to
the meaning of the song.
> i think you're quite right - and unlike a lot of other scenes, most of
> its members don't take the whole thing entirely seriously and are able
> to step back and poke fun at it. that's one of my favorite parts about
> being goth, if i may be so bold as to declare myself one
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. To deny gothness is to make
yourself more goth, and to deny that . . . it's a vicious cycle. ;)
Stepping back to laugh every now and then is good for you.
</perkygoff-propaganda>
> although I sympathize w/ Marxism, anarchism or whatever, i agree. I
> admire the punk ethic of 'we really don't give a shit what you think'
> but sadly, a lot of the time it's not really true - it's more like 'we
> really don't give a shit what you think as long as you think like this'
That's how a lot of things work, even free speech (to a certain extent).
> often, you're right. and that's why the punk stuff gets on my nerves
> after a while, although i do like it in smaller doses, generally i
> listen to goth/ethereal/industrial/visual kei/jrock...but one of the
Speaking of which, are there any visual kei artists that you (or anyone
else for that matter) would recommend? I'm very curious about it.
~Brian ze new website!
Nemo Sine Vitio Est .. a.g.s-f .. http://crimsonhalodesigns.tripod.com
"Either that wallpaper has to go, or I shall." --- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
Jodi
>Have you heard the remix of "Leave Me Alone" with the newscast clips
>and voice-overs? It appeared on mp3.com a long time ago; I'm not sure if
>it's still there. It's good, and the clips add a whole new dimension to
>the meaning of the song.
It's on "Intercontinental Drift[1]" and I wasn't actually aware there
was a version of it without the newscast clips[2]. I thought that was
the point.
Jodi
[1] Which I was literally listening to 5 minutes ago; how weird is that!
[2] I know, and I call myself a Cruxshadows fan!
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: You know you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't
: a member of the radical left. Isn't that interesting, in
: itself? The presumption that politics should be central in
: life and art is pretty much missing from the other political
: cultures floating around.
That depends on what you consider to be the sphere of politics. For me,
politics is about, so long as the trash gets picked up, fine, don't go
there. A politician is a chief sanitation engineer in the head office,
and doesn't really need a vision thing. I don't look to her to see what
the future holds, or need him to lead me to a brighter tomorrow.
But if people expect personal and cultural transformation through
politics, expect political apocalypses, or have plans to save the world
through politics, is it still politics anymore? This looks to me
increasingly like something else.
: Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
: say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
: turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
: condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
: best.
Really? It seems to me that most art can't help but have a message.
Been that way since the -Iliad-, which can be about a number of things,
not the least of which is proper relationships with authority, and the
kind of person you ought to be.
Even the most indigestible art --- say, abstract expressionist paintings
--- is "about" something, even if it is only about other paintings and
their picture planes and design elements and so forth. The products of
the Age of Charlatans required a whole corpus of surrounding explanations,
histories, movements, and reactions before they could even be experienced
as art. In their attempt to get away from picturesque or dramatic nominal
subjects like Napoleon on his horse, to confine themselves to pure forms
and non-representational elelements, they ended up requiring even more
Message in the end. Without the Message, it's just a bunch of drips.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ DEUS VULT! +
+ Strip away the veils! +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Matthew King
: > Killing An Arab by the Cure ( circa 1978)
:
: Technically, this is about the story by Camus (France's answer to Norman
: Vincent Peale). So it may not be all that political.
The Cure were, of course, Nazis, but did they start out as Trotskyites,
become perversely enamoured with Strasserite National Socialism, and then
Go Too Far?
I see no evidence for it. On the contrary, "Doing the Unstuck" promotes
the kind of proto-surrealism which can only be associated with the Italian
Futurists, thus manifesting a historical tendency toward Italian fascism
rather than properly German National Socialism.
Therefore they are not, and likely never have been, True Goth Nazis.
Matthew (wonders what Robert Smith would've done if it was always "The
Outsider" instead of "The Stranger". Eh? Eh?)
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--
NickTheLemming
>From: mak...@yorku.ca (Matthew King)
>Date: 2/19/2002 11:55 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <a4u73q$r8h$2...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>
>
>IHCOYC XPICTOC (ihcoyc...@aye.net) wrote:
>: > Killing An Arab by the Cure ( circa 1978)
>:
>: Technically, this is about the story by Camus (France's answer to Norman
>: Vincent Peale). So it may not be all that political.
>
>The Cure were, of course, Nazis, but did they start out as Trotskyites,
>become perversely enamoured with Strasserite National Socialism, and then
>Go Too Far?
>
>I see no evidence for it. On the contrary, "Doing the Unstuck" promotes
>the kind of proto-surrealism which can only be associated with the Italian
>Futurists, thus manifesting a historical tendency toward Italian fascism
>rather than properly German National Socialism.
>
But no! I won't hear of it!
While it may be true that early futurist works helped inspire dada, it soon
became apparent that dada and surrealism were both fully committed to anarchy
in the case of dada and revolutionary socialism in the case of surrealism
(hence surrealisme pour la service de la revolution), and perhaps if the Cure
had in fact taken their dues from Wyndham-Lewis' Vorticists, then you might
have a case.
Having said that, Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me obviously takes its basis from Dali's
Mae West's Lips sofa, and as such inherently assumes his hagiographic depiction
of both Stalin and Hitler.
Nick the Lemming
Another Happy VHEMT Volunteer!
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Joe Brenner
>Joe Brenner wrote:
>> Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
>> say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
>> turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
>> condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
>> best.
>My God, man! What else is art for?
>If that was the way music was meant to be, we'd all be listening
>repeatedly to a techno remix of the Rainbow Brite theme song.
>The real point to the music that I listen to, is sheer imagery. The
>point is to use your imagination, working along with the music, to
>produce something truly beautiful (as well as your own opinions). This
>is opposed to having "the point" and/or "the meaning" handed to you on a
>silver platter without having to use that room upstairs at all. Feeling,
>mood, imagination over beat/dance/boyband/scream.
I have a terrible feeling that I'm about to get into one of
those debates about what meaning means, and whether this
kind of meaning is what I meant exactly.
Anyway, yeah, subtle is okay by me. But explicit is
okay, too.
And having some ideas in your head about how the
world is put together, and being able to talk about
that (as well as around it), that's really cool by me.
Someone else brought up Bob Dylan, so let's go with
that. Let us consider the young Bob Dylan on the
left side, and compare and contrast to say Phil Ochs
on the lefter side. Bob Dylan's style was definitely
on the enigmatic side. Dylan songs with a direct
political message were rare (certainly "Masters of
War" but I can't think of any others really); more
often than not he would touch on diffent subjects,
maybe weighty subjects, but typically without any
obvious definite message ("Blowin' in the Wind" comes
to mind, though maybe that's not a great example,
because there's some lines where it doesn't take a
lot of work to spot an anti-racist message).
In comparison, Phil Ochs had no reluctance about
letting you know what he was really thinking about
things. It wasn't at all unusual for Phil Ochs to do
songs that were like OpEd articles in verse; he was
working straight from the headlines, trying to be a
force in determining public opinion, and also trying
to push the limits of what had been done with songs.
In general, popular and critical opinion seems to be
on the side of Dylan's 60s work, in preference to
Ochs. Some of Ochs work certainly seems really dated
in retrospect (e.g. The song about "The Thresher"
incident. What was that exactly? Oh, a submarine
accident. He did a song about a submarine accident?
Huh?). But on the other hand some of it holds up
really well; as in the Diamanda Galas cover of his
"Iron Maiden", which is still a powerful statement
against captial punishment.
I wouldn't claim that either approach is "better" in any
sense, but I have a little more respect for Ochs: he was
pretty much up front about who he was and what he was doing
at all times. In comparision, Dylan was hiding behind dark
shades, ironic quips and murky nonsense lyrics. It isn't
any suprise that Ochs managed to fall on his face
more often than Dylan, Ochs was taking a lot more
chances...
So in conclusion, let me say... uh what was the point
here exactly?
Well, I guess it's easier to imagine a "gothic Dylan"
than a "gothic Ochs". Maybe it's not a suprise to
find a goth defending... let's say, "oblique poetic
imagery", since that's pretty much the way most goth
lyrics really work; and certainly there's nothing
wrong with working that way. I just want to hold the
door open to other things...
(I'm tempted to go on about the later Ochs, like say,
"The Crucifixtion", which is pretty fucking goth in
it's original recording, and a pretty excellent piece
in general, but in my opinion it works better if it
remains ambiguous, and you don't know what current
events it was a reaction to... but hey, there's no
point in me undermining my own thesis, if I wanted to
argue with myself, I could just stay home.)
Joe Brenner
IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> writes:
>Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>: You know you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't
>: a member of the radical left. Isn't that interesting, in
>: itself? The presumption that politics should be central in
>: life and art is pretty much missing from the other political
>: cultures floating around.
>That depends on what you consider to be the sphere of politics. For me,
>politics is about, so long as the trash gets picked up, fine, don't go
>there. A politician is a chief sanitation engineer in the head office,
>and doesn't really need a vision thing. I don't look to her to see what
>the future holds, or need him to lead me to a brighter tomorrow.
>But if people expect personal and cultural transformation through
>politics, expect political apocalypses, or have plans to save the world
>through politics, is it still politics anymore? This looks to me
>increasingly like something else.
Well, I see what you're getting at, but your definition of
politics strikes me as excessively restricted. Politics
includes: Does the trash get picked up, how much does the
service cost, who got the contract to do it, what checks are
there in the system on corruption, what larger checks are
there to check on the checks. Would it work better if a
different system were installed entirely? Should it be
federalized, privatized, gentialized... ? And the answers
you pick to questions like that tend to reflect much deeper
philosphical issues about the nature of humanity. Political
debates are often very much about "a conflict of visions",
to steal Thomas Sowell's phrase.
On the other hand, political debates are also very often a
matter of tribal identity. "Right or wrong" is less
important than "with us or against us". Your garbage stinks
worse than ours does, so there.
>: Probably. Myself I've got nothing against politics (I would
>: say "substance" or "meaning") in art, but a lot of people
>: turn up their nose at the idea. "Art with a message" is
>: condemned almost universally as heavy-handed and mediocre at
>: best.
>Really? It seems to me that most art can't help but have a message.
>Been that way since the -Iliad-, which can be about a number of things,
>not the least of which is proper relationships with authority, and the
>kind of person you ought to be.
Okay, let's see... are we getting into a fight about the
meaning of meaning? Cause I was being very loose about my
use of "meaning/message" etc. If art is communicative, then
all art has some sort of message associated with it, but art
with a Message is usually meant to be an art with a specific
kind of message. Bad Religion songs have a Message. Most
Patti Smith songs don't really, even the ones that are
supposed to, like "Radio Ethiopia".
>Even the most indigestible art --- say, abstract expressionist paintings
>--- is "about" something, even if it is only about other paintings and
>their picture planes and design elements and so forth. The products of
>the Age of Charlatans required a whole corpus of surrounding explanations,
>histories, movements, and reactions before they could even be experienced
>as art. In their attempt to get away from picturesque or dramatic nominal
>subjects like Napoleon on his horse, to confine themselves to pure forms
>and non-representational elelements, they ended up requiring even more
>Message in the end. Without the Message, it's just a bunch of drips.
Well now there's fightin' words here. I will gladly defend
Robert Rauchenberg or John Cage if you like (Jackson Pollock
I am less familiar with). In particular, it's a very odd
kind of "charlatan" that continually explains very carefully
to the marks exactly what the "charlatans" are doing (or not
doing).
Anyway, yeah, you could say that conceptual art is almost
all Meaning. There's very little else in something like 4' 33".
It makes a statement, even if it doesn't (intentionally)
make any sounds.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >That depends on what you consider to be the sphere of politics. For me,
> >politics is about, so long as the trash gets picked up, fine, don't go
> >there. . . .
> >But if people expect personal and cultural transformation through
> >politics, expect political apocalypses, or have plans to save the world
> >through politics, is it still politics anymore?
> Well, I see what you're getting at, but your definition of
> politics strikes me as excessively restricted. Politics
> includes: Does the trash get picked up, how much does the
> service cost, who got the contract to do it, what checks are
> there in the system on corruption, what larger checks are
> there to check on the checks. Would it work better if a
> different system were installed entirely? Should it be
> federalized, privatized, gentialized...?
True enough. But these questions will only interest some people, not
everyone. The notion that these questions ought to be central to life and
art is a feature of one [rather tiny] subgroup of the political spectrum.
The position "I don't care as long as the trash actually gets picked up"
remains a valid one.
> On the other hand, political debates are also very often a
> matter of tribal identity. "Right or wrong" is less
> important than "with us or against us". Your garbage stinks
> worse than ours does, so there.
And this is of course another reason for turning up one's nose at politics.
It's a way of rejecting all of these several tribes and their claims to your
time and attention.
> >Really? It seems to me that most art can't help but have a message.
> >Been that way since the -Iliad-, which can be about a number of things,
> >not the least of which is proper relationships with authority, and the
> >kind of person you ought to be.
> Okay, let's see... are we getting into a fight about the
> meaning of meaning? Cause I was being very loose about my
> use of "meaning/message" etc. If art is communicative, then
> all art has some sort of message associated with it, but art
> with a Message is usually meant to be an art with a specific
> kind of message. Bad Religion songs have a Message. Most
> Patti Smith songs don't really, even the ones that are
> supposed to, like "Radio Ethiopia".
Or rather, their message is multivalent, and can be understood several
different ways. Which goes back to your comparison between Bob Dylan and
Phil Ochs. Dylan's best-remembered songs are vague in ideology, contain
complex imagery, and symbols whose referents are not easy to determine.
Time has been kinder to them than to the work of Phil Ochs, who was seldom
obscure in his commentary.
The basic problem, of course, is that actual controversies are ephemeral and
forgettable. Not many people can be counted on to remember who Joe Hill was
or what happened to him. But, to the extent they do know, it's likely
because of the song. If we hear a Dylan song and have no notion what it's
about, we go "d'oh!" But when we hear an Ochs song and have no notion what
it's about, it's because we have forgotten something,
> >Even the most indigestible art --- say, abstract expressionist paintings
> >--- is "about" something, even if it is only about other paintings and
> >their picture planes and design elements and so forth. The products of
> >the Age of Charlatans required a whole corpus of surrounding
explanations,
> >histories, movements, and reactions before they could even be experienced
> >as art. In their attempt to get away from picturesque or dramatic
nominal
> >subjects like Napoleon on his horse, to confine themselves to pure forms
> >and non-representational elelements, they ended up requiring even more
> >Message in the end. Without the Message, it's just a bunch of drips.
> Well now there's fightin' words here. I will gladly defend
> Robert Rauchenberg or John Cage if you like (Jackson Pollock
> I am less familiar with). In particular, it's a very odd
> kind of "charlatan" that continually explains very carefully
> to the marks exactly what the "charlatans" are doing (or not
> doing).
From my perspective, the basic function of the surrounding discourse was to
separate the In Crowd from the hoi polloi. In order to even experience
these works as art, you had to be hip to the jive. Those who were not would
only be baffled by them, and likely to be dismissive. The hipsters
snickered behind their backs.
Strange to say, this sort of art offends me, for what may well be
susceptible of being called political reasons. We are dealing with
deliberately hermetic, confrontational, and inaccessible works, made as a
sort of litmus test. All artists are entertainers, broadly defined; their
first duty is to please, to make people want to experience the work; those
who fail at this fail in the most absolute way they possibly can fail. When
artists make themselves out to be some kind of elite vanguard, and defy each
other to be more outré and inaccessible, the better to contract the charmed
circle even further, you indeed have a species of charlatanism, of palming
off dreck and claiming it is gold.
This seems to have been institutionalised during the dead century. To work
competently in idioms established by others was to guarantee you'd never be
more than a second-rater. We laugh at our ancestors being taken in by
phrenology and quack medicines. Future generations will look briefly at the
drips, hear a few bars of atonal music, and they too will laugh, amused by
the notion that these things ever fooled anybody.
It's commonplace to mock the Soviet commisars of classical music, with their
crusades against "formalism" and their humiliation of their most
distinguished composers for what seem to us to be incomprehensible political
heresies. But their basic task was a worthwhile one, especially given the
assumption of a Communist system. These composers were all employees of the
People, or at least of the State. Those who paid their salaries had every
right to make sure that hermeticism and experimentation were kept within
bounds. And as a result of the good work of these bureaucrats, Soviet
symphonic music remained listenable while the Free World had a long dry
spell.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
THE melancholy year is dead with rain.
Drop after drop on every branch pursues.
From far away beyond the drizzled flues
A twilight saddens to the window pane.
--- Trumbull Stickney
Joe Brenner
>Joe Brenner wrote:
>> >That depends on what you consider to be the sphere of politics. For me,
>> >politics is about, so long as the trash gets picked up, fine, don't go
>> >there. . . .
>> >But if people expect personal and cultural transformation through
>> >politics, expect political apocalypses, or have plans to save the world
>> >through politics, is it still politics anymore?
>> Well, I see what you're getting at, but your definition of
>> politics strikes me as excessively restricted. Politics
>> includes: Does the trash get picked up, how much does the
>> service cost, who got the contract to do it, what checks are
>> there in the system on corruption, what larger checks are
>> there to check on the checks. Would it work better if a
>> different system were installed entirely? Should it be
>> federalized, privatized, gentialized...?
>True enough. But these questions will only interest some people, not
>everyone. The notion that these questions ought to be central to life and
>art is a feature of one [rather tiny] subgroup of the political spectrum.
>The position "I don't care as long as the trash actually gets picked up"
>remains a valid one.
Ah, okay, maybe I see what you were saying. You personally
regard yourself as more or less left-wing, but you
personally don't regard the political as being of tremendous
interest, hence you're not of the persuasion that art must
be political. If that's your point it's not something I can
argue with.
What I might try and tell you that you *should* regard
politics as being a little more worthy of attention, but
I'll give that a rest.
>> On the other hand, political debates are also very often a
>> matter of tribal identity. "Right or wrong" is less
>> important than "with us or against us". Your garbage stinks
>> worse than ours does, so there.
>And this is of course another reason for turning up one's nose at politics.
>It's a way of rejecting all of these several tribes and their claims to your
>time and attention.
I'd tend to argue the other way: the commonwealth needs
people to get involved who are capable of thinking of an
election as something other than a big football game.
>> >Really? It seems to me that most art can't help but have a message.
>> >Been that way since the -Iliad-, which can be about a number of things,
>> >not the least of which is proper relationships with authority, and the
>> >kind of person you ought to be.
>> Okay, let's see... are we getting into a fight about the
>> meaning of meaning? Cause I was being very loose about my
>> use of "meaning/message" etc. If art is communicative, then
>> all art has some sort of message associated with it, but art
>> with a Message is usually meant to be an art with a specific
>> kind of message. Bad Religion songs have a Message. Most
>> Patti Smith songs don't really, even the ones that are
>> supposed to, like "Radio Ethiopia".
>Or rather, their message is multivalent, and can be understood several
>different ways. Which goes back to your comparison between Bob Dylan and
>Phil Ochs. Dylan's best-remembered songs are vague in ideology, contain
>complex imagery, and symbols whose referents are not easy to determine.
>Time has been kinder to them than to the work of Phil Ochs, who was seldom
>obscure in his commentary.
>The basic problem, of course, is that actual controversies are ephemeral and
>forgettable.
Is that the basic problem? Or is it that people who don't
say anything don't have to worry about saying anything
wrong? Some (though certainly not all) Ochs songs seem like
they belong to another time, and some (not all) seem like
they're heavy-handed and/or simple-minded.
On the other hand, some Bob Dylan songs are looking awfully
vapid these days: "Mr. Bojangles", "Blowin' in the Wind"...
Notably this is not a problem with Ochs.
>> >Even the most indigestible art --- say, abstract
>> >expressionist paintings --- is "about" something, even
>> >if it is only about other paintings and their picture
>> >planes and design elements and so forth. The products
>> >of the Age of Charlatans required a whole corpus of
>> >surrounding explanations, histories, movements, and
>> >reactions before they could even be experienced as art.
>> Well now there's fightin' words here. I will gladly defend
>> Robert Rauchenberg or John Cage if you like (Jackson Pollock
>> I am less familiar with). In particular, it's a very odd
>> kind of "charlatan" that continually explains very carefully
>> to the marks exactly what the "charlatans" are doing (or not
>> doing).
>From my perspective, the basic function of the surrounding
>discourse was to separate the In Crowd from the hoi polloi.
>In order to even experience these works as art, you had to
>be hip to the jive. Those who were not would only be
>baffled by them, and likely to be dismissive. The hipsters
>snickered behind their backs.
This is a somewhat peculiar complaint, I think. The assault
on classic art was very much an assault on the cathedral.
The concert hall and the museum already regarded itself as
being the repository of High Culture: a definite In Crowd
sheltered from hoi polloi of popular art.
>Strange to say, this sort of art offends me, for what may
>well be susceptible of being called political reasons. We
>are dealing with deliberately hermetic, confrontational,
>and inaccessible works, made as a sort of litmus test. All
>artists are entertainers, broadly defined; their first duty
>is to please, to make people want to experience the work;
>those who fail at this fail in the most absolute way they
>possibly can fail.
Well, "entertainment" much like "message" is a term that's
often used loosely. Broadly defined, we might indeed say
that all art must entertain, but art that waves the banner
of Entertainment is usually taking a particular approach to
the problem.
Perhaps incidentally, I think that sometimes Entertainment
really is entertaining (e.g. Hollywood movies from the 30s
and 40s); and sometimes it's almost a guarantee of
mediocrity that's barely worth the time to try and sift
through (e.g. Hollywood movies of the 50s, 70s, or 90s).
Also, (less incidentally) I sometimes find Inaccessible art
to be tremendously entertaining, and I really don't believe
it's because I need it to enjoy feeling superior to the
masses. Excuses for feeling superior to the common run of
humanity are not exactly in short supply.
You could, for example, go around feeling superior to people
who don't realize that modern art is a scam.
And conversely, I could easily feel superior to people who
have never read any Thorne Smith, Elliot Paul or John
Dickson Carr.
>These composers were all employees of the People, or at
>least of the State. Those who paid their salaries had
>every right to make sure that hermeticism and
>experimentation were kept within bounds.
Some of us folks who are helping to kick in the money for
the arts grants actually don't think it's a good idea for
arts grants to be run by the same criteria of market-driven
popular entertainment. If you're going to have a state
sponsored art at all, there should be something different
about the criteria in play, or there's very little point to
it.
>And as a result of the good work of these bureaucrats,
>Soviet symphonic music remained listenable while the Free
>World had a long dry spell.
Well, I could accept the strange thought that Stalin
deserves some credit for Shostakovitch. But they why didn't
McCarthyism produce a flowering of creativity in Hollywood?
erith romycin
"Joe Brenner" muttered:
> "IHCOYC XPICTOC" <ihcoyc...@aye.net> writes:
>>These composers were all employees of the People, or at
>>least of the State. Those who paid their salaries had
>>every right to make sure that hermeticism and
>>experimentation were kept within bounds.
>Some of us folks who are helping to kick in the money for
>the arts grants actually don't think it's a good idea for
>arts grants to be run by the same criteria of market-driven
>popular entertainment. If you're going to have a state
>sponsored art at all, there should be something different
>about the criteria in play, or there's very little point to
>it.
I think the point here is that this wasn't a market driven thing, but about
prestige. Classical music is one of those things you can be _better_ at, and
that was, I believe, a big chunk of the Cold War and stuff. Nevermind that
they've got Hollywood, we have orchestras, ballerinas, and chessmasters, and
all their best ones are _our_ second rate defectors, eh comrade?
What criteria would you apply though? While you may be perfectly happy for
the state to subsidise experimentation, you'll almost certainly be
outnumbered by those who would complain that their tax dollars would be
wasted. Witness the recent [ish] furore over Chris Ophili [almost certainly
sp] and his painting of the Madonna featuring elephant dung.
>>And as a result of the good work of these bureaucrats,
>>Soviet symphonic music remained listenable while the Free
>>World had a long dry spell.
>Well, I could accept the strange thought that Stalin
>deserves some credit for Shostakovitch. But they why didn't
>McCarthyism produce a flowering of creativity in Hollywood?
Because Stalin was dealing with classical music, not films, I think.
Remember, McCarthy fostered [in Hollywood] increased paranoia and the like,
and blacklisting [by extrajudicial means] was a major threat. Stalin was
probably too busy oppressing others to worry that much about his creative
folks, and he was almost certainly smart enough [or had someone on staff
smart enough] to realise that culture would be a vital part of the PR battle
that was at least some of the Cold War. McCarthy, however, seemed more
concerned with rooting out reds whereever they might be found, rather than
attempting to maintain a cohesive [if party line adhering] 'industry'.
Remember, he made it almost impossible for a large number of people to work
in the industry, and, save for a few exceptions [Dalton Trumbo on Spartacus,
for example] it did what it was meant to. Didn't Stalin at least make sure
there was funding while he sent people off to the Gulag?
Actually, I'm reasonably sure there's a short story from this era about
interpreting musical pieces according to the rules laid down. Actually, I'm
not sure it's from this era at all, but is based on arts council guidelines.
It's sf, IMIR, but I can't remember what the hell it's called, or, indeed,
who it's by. Oh well.
Anyway, whyfor your assertion that there was no creative flowering in
Hollywood?
In 47-52 [an admittedly broad view] you've got Black Narcissus, Olivier in
Hamlet, The Heiress, The Third Man, A Tram Called Lust, High Noon. I like
'em, but YMMV. Still, I'm rambling a bit now.
Art and politics are a good mix anyway. I love Soviet constructivist
propoganda.
--
erith- "something so witty you'd probably have to go off and kill yourself"
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >True enough. But these questions will only interest some people, not
> >everyone. The notion that these questions ought to be central to life
and
> >art is a feature of one [rather tiny] subgroup of the political spectrum.
> >The position "I don't care as long as the trash actually gets picked up"
> >remains a valid one.
> Ah, okay, maybe I see what you were saying. You personally
> regard yourself as more or less left-wing, but you
> personally don't regard the political as being of tremendous
> interest, hence you're not of the persuasion that art must
> be political. If that's your point it's not something I can
> argue with.
My political opinions are off the scale, and defy categorisation.
Basically, I'm in favour of a cultural aristocracy. Some combination of
talent and truly old money, old enough that the heirs' debourgeoisement is
complete, I would give a body of such people an at least negative
supervisory power over all government --- they could free people from
prisons, remove taxes, discharge debts; they could not jail people, impose
taxes, or take property.
I have no plans to turn this vague belief into a programme for
constitutional reform.
> I'd tend to argue the other way: the commonwealth needs
> people to get involved who are capable of thinking of an
> election as something other than a big football game.
Political action reminds me of trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get
anywhere, and it annoys the pig.
> >The basic problem, of course, is that actual controversies are ephemeral
and
> >forgettable.
> Is that the basic problem? Or is it that people who don't
> say anything don't have to worry about saying anything
> wrong? Some (though certainly not all) Ochs songs seem like
> they belong to another time, and some (not all) seem like
> they're heavy-handed and/or simple-minded.
> On the other hand, some Bob Dylan songs are looking awfully
> vapid these days: "Mr. Bojangles", "Blowin' in the Wind"...
> Notably this is not a problem with Ochs.
I'd be hard pressed to say why, though. The Dylan songs you mention are
from his early, acoustic, folk-song period, and have enough of -that- about
them that they may end up seeming somewhat twee. That too is a result of
changing tastes and the passage of time. It is not impossible that sort of
thing might come back. [In the 80's, I thought we had finally killed off
disco. . .]
> >From my perspective, the basic function of the surrounding
> >discourse was to separate the In Crowd from the hoi polloi.
> >In order to even experience these works as art, you had to
> >be hip to the jive. Those who were not would only be
> >baffled by them, and likely to be dismissive. The hipsters
> >snickered behind their backs.
> This is a somewhat peculiar complaint, I think. The assault
> on classic art was very much an assault on the cathedral.
> The concert hall and the museum already regarded itself as
> being the repository of High Culture: a definite In Crowd
> sheltered from hoi polloi of popular art.
Those were peculiar times. The worst of times: an Academy that had
institutionalised vanguardism, and regarded being on the "cutting edge" of
something! anything! to be its chief claim to represent High Culture. It's
no wonder the High Culture of the better part of the last unlamented century
seems incredibly arid and irrelevant. It had ceased to be "culture" at all,
having almost no points of contact nor roots in the life of the surrounding
people. A high culture had to be remade from pop culture after the arts
establishment vanguarded itself into irrelevance.
> >Strange to say, this sort of art offends me, for what may
> >well be susceptible of being called political reasons. We
> >are dealing with deliberately hermetic, confrontational,
> >and inaccessible works, made as a sort of litmus test. All
> >artists are entertainers, broadly defined; their first duty
> >is to please, to make people want to experience the work;
> >those who fail at this fail in the most absolute way they
> >possibly can fail.
> Well, "entertainment" much like "message" is a term that's
> often used loosely. Broadly defined, we might indeed say
> that all art must entertain, but art that waves the banner
> of Entertainment is usually taking a particular approach to
> the problem.
Perhaps; but it was not always so. The notion of "high" versus popular art
is a recent one. Mozart meant many of his works to actually be diverting,
and some were pitched at a mass audience. Beowulf once was meant for oral
recitation before an audience who were not particularly refined. I'd rather
have something meant for a broad audience that may have a bit more to it,
rather than something deliberately made to appeal to rarefied tastes. This
may indeed be how the "high" art from the cultural interregnum of the 20th
century managed to irrelevantise itself.
> Perhaps incidentally, I think that sometimes Entertainment
> really is entertaining (e.g. Hollywood movies from the 30s
> and 40s); and sometimes it's almost a guarantee of
> mediocrity that's barely worth the time to try and sift
> through (e.g. Hollywood movies of the 50s, 70s, or 90s).
I gather you're ambivalent about the 60's and 80's.
> Also, (less incidentally) I sometimes find Inaccessible art
> to be tremendously entertaining, and I really don't believe
> it's because I need it to enjoy feeling superior to the
> masses. Excuses for feeling superior to the common run of
> humanity are not exactly in short supply.
True.
> Some of us folks who are helping to kick in the money for
> the arts grants actually don't think it's a good idea for
> arts grants to be run by the same criteria of market-driven
> popular entertainment. If you're going to have a state
> sponsored art at all, there should be something different
> about the criteria in play, or there's very little point to
> it.
No one is talking about having the -same- criteria. As erith romycin said,
it was more about maintaining cultural prestige in the Cold War. But the
Soviets scored a victory here by keeping their composers within some kind of
bounds. Without that, Shostakovich would probably have tried to win the
approval of the same crowd who applauded Milton Babbitt and Elliot Carter.
> Well, I could accept the strange thought that Stalin
> deserves some credit for Shostakovitch. But they why didn't
> McCarthyism produce a flowering of creativity in Hollywood?
McCarthyism was mostly about other things besides the content of motion
pictures. The studio system itself was probably more akin to Stalinism than
the McCarthyite political purge. And it, too, kept experiment in check and
insisted on some minimal standards of competence.
Joe Brenner
>Joe Brenner wrote:
>> >True enough. But these questions will only interest
>> >some people, not everyone. The notion that these
>> >questions ought to be central to life and art is a
>> >feature of one [rather tiny] subgroup of the political
>> >spectrum. The position "I don't care as long as the
>> >trash actually gets picked up" remains a valid one.
>> Ah, okay, maybe I see what you were saying. You personally
>> regard yourself as more or less left-wing, but you
>> personally don't regard the political as being of tremendous
>> interest, hence you're not of the persuasion that art must
>> be political. If that's your point it's not something I can
>> argue with.
>My political opinions are off the scale, and defy categorisation.
Is good.
>Basically, I'm in favour of a cultural aristocracy. Some
>combination of talent and truly old money, old enough that
>the heirs' debourgeoisement is complete, I would give a
>body of such people an at least negative supervisory power
>over all government --- they could free people from
>prisons, remove taxes, discharge debts; they could not jail
>people, impose taxes, or take property.
Is much weird.
I have nothing against elites, but I tend to prefer
self-selected ones, e.g. people who take the trouble to
vote. (I tend to be down on ideas for increasing voter
turnout by making it easier to do... I would prefer it
were made harder.)
>I have no plans to turn this vague belief into a programme for
>constitutional reform.
And I should probably stop trying to talk you into it.
>> I'd tend to argue the other way: the commonwealth needs
>> people to get involved who are capable of thinking of an
>> election as something other than a big football game.
>Political action reminds me of trying to teach a pig to
>sing. You don't get anywhere, and it annoys the pig.
Now, don't be so hard on yourself.
(As for the ineffectiveness of political action... well,
maybe that's what They want you to believe, eh?)
>> >From my perspective, the basic function of the surrounding
>> >discourse was to separate the In Crowd from the hoi polloi.
>> >In order to even experience these works as art, you had to
>> >be hip to the jive. Those who were not would only be
>> >baffled by them, and likely to be dismissive. The hipsters
>> >snickered behind their backs.
>> This is a somewhat peculiar complaint, I think. The assault
>> on classic art was very much an assault on the cathedral.
>> The concert hall and the museum already regarded itself as
>> being the repository of High Culture: a definite In Crowd
>> sheltered from hoi polloi of popular art.
>Those were peculiar times. The worst of times: an
>Academy that had institutionalised vanguardism, and
>regarded being on the "cutting edge" of something!
>anything! to be its chief claim to represent High
>Culture. It's no wonder the High Culture of the better
>part of the last unlamented century seems incredibly
>arid and irrelevant. It had ceased to be "culture" at
>all, having almost no points of contact nor roots in
>the life of the surrounding people. A high culture had
>to be remade from pop culture after the arts
>establishment vanguarded itself into irrelevance.
To repeat what I was trying to get at: I think the High
Culture was already pretty hopelessly isolated and
anemic before it got abstractly dadafied and
modernistically futurized. Further, the assault on
High Art came from multiple directions... in addition to
an intellectual assault from the "avant garde", there
was an assault from below, e.g. from jazz, blues, and
later rock n' roll.
>> >Strange to say, this sort of art offends me, for what may
>> >well be susceptible of being called political reasons. We
>> >are dealing with deliberately hermetic, confrontational,
>> >and inaccessible works, made as a sort of litmus test. All
>> >artists are entertainers, broadly defined; their first duty
>> >is to please, to make people want to experience the work;
>> >those who fail at this fail in the most absolute way they
>> >possibly can fail.
>> Well, "entertainment" much like "message" is a term that's
>> often used loosely. Broadly defined, we might indeed say
>> that all art must entertain, but art that waves the banner
>> of Entertainment is usually taking a particular approach to
>> the problem.
>Perhaps; but it was not always so. The notion of "high"
>versus popular art is a recent one. Mozart meant many of
>his works to actually be diverting, and some were pitched
>at a mass audience. Beowulf once was meant for oral
>recitation before an audience who were not particularly
>refined. I'd rather have something meant for a broad
>audience that may have a bit more to it, rather than
>something deliberately made to appeal to rarefied tastes.
>This may indeed be how the "high" art from the cultural
>interregnum of the 20th century managed to irrelevantise
>itself.
Yes, exactly, and the calicified High Brow culture that
the modernist-types were assaulting were convinced that
there was something inherently superior to embracing
*older* popular forms that were essentially dead; they
sneered at any popular art that was actually popular.
Whether you like it or not, Beowulf takes some work to
appreciate now. So does Mozart (though probably to a
lesser extent, largely thanks to movie scores).
Shostakovitch symphonies strike me as pretty cool, but
if you think the average spud on the street wants to
hear 'em, you're completely mistaken. It's entirely
possible they *can't* hear them (any more than you can
probably hear a John Cage piece).
>> Perhaps incidentally, I think that sometimes Entertainment
>> really is entertaining (e.g. Hollywood movies from the 30s
>> and 40s); and sometimes it's almost a guarantee of
>> mediocrity that's barely worth the time to try and sift
>> through (e.g. Hollywood movies of the 50s, 70s, or 90s).
>I gather you're ambivalent about the 60's and 80's.
Decided to cut them some slack at the last minute. The
sixties opened the door to some fairly odd things like
"The Magic Christian", "Lord Love a Duck" and "I Love
You, Alice B. Toklas". Similarly, the 80s had a
rennaissance of the teen flick that I have some
affection for, like (some of) the John Hughes stuff,
etc. Though I guess that trend probably started in the
70s...
And anyway, there's also "The Chill".
>> Some of us folks who are helping to kick in the money for
>> the arts grants actually don't think it's a good idea for
>> arts grants to be run by the same criteria of market-driven
>> popular entertainment. If you're going to have a state
>> sponsored art at all, there should be something different
>> about the criteria in play, or there's very little point to
>> it.
>No one is talking about having the -same- criteria. As
>erith romycin said, it was more about maintaining cultural
>prestige in the Cold War. But the Soviets scored a victory
>here by keeping their composers within some kind of bounds.
>Without that, Shostakovich would probably have tried to win
>the approval of the same crowd who applauded Milton Babbitt
>and Elliot Carter.
If not the *same* criteria (e.g. the slobs like it) then
*what* criteria? The elite that wins control isn't
likely to be the elite you approve of.
I could introduce you to a mailing list where many of
the Bay Area's experimental musicians like to
commiserate about the state of the Concert Hall. It
currently tends to be about keeping alive culturally
retro art forms like opera for the sake of a sub-culture
of the wealthy (and I presume the wannabe wealthy) who
could really probably support this stuff on their own,
if they really cared about it.
"Hermetic, confrontational, and inaccessible works" are
definitely pretty rare on the programs. There's been some
performances that are billed as "The American Maverick Series"
where the selection of pieces is really fairly tame, and not
terribly well performed, because your average concert hall
musician has even less of an ear for Xenakis than you do.
I actually have my doubts that there's ever *really*
been a time when the anti-classicists suceeded in
trashing the classicists. Modern art barely got going
before the satiric counter-attacks came into play
(e.g. I recently just saw an early 30s flick,
deceptively titled and promoted "Girl Without a Room",
that's actually a fairly funny attack on avant-art in
Paris... Charles Ruggles actually does a musical number,
singing the praises of abstract art...).
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >My political opinions are off the scale, and defy categorisation.
> Is good.
> >Basically, I'm in favour of a cultural aristocracy. Some
> >combination of talent and truly old money, old enough that
> >the heirs' debourgeoisement is complete, I would give a
> >body of such people an at least negative supervisory power
> >over all government --- they could free people from
> >prisons, remove taxes, discharge debts; they could not jail
> >people, impose taxes, or take property.
> Is much weird.
> I have nothing against elites, but I tend to prefer
> self-selected ones, e.g. people who take the trouble to
> vote. (I tend to be down on ideas for increasing voter
> turnout by making it easier to do... I would prefer it
> were made harder.)
"Equality" is the great stumbling block of leftism. Let's face it, half of
the human population is mentally below average, and a fair number the upper
side of the wire aren't much to be proud of either. Leftist polities
usually take as their moral postulate that people should be made more equal,
that the verdicts of history as to winners and losers in conflicts between
peoples should be reversed, and so on. This is taken as a given even by
people who reject the authority of the New Testament.
From my perspective, a more perfect democracy means that folks who think
that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake and that the earth was created
six thousand years ago by a giant with three heads all get votes that count
as much as yours do. This is so wrong that merely pointing it out seems a
sufficient answer to the apostles of equality. These people need to
be -ruled- by their betters, damn it! But such is the moral weight of
equality and democracy, that even pointing this out is bound to set off a
chorus of disapproval, to be labelled arrogant and presumptuous, etc. ad
nauseam.
To their credit, most leftists actually tend to be superior people. Their
conversation usually reveals their contempt for the masses sooner or later.
Perhaps there is a great deal to be said in favour of acting on a moral
principle without regard to self-interest or where it actually leads. They
would of course be the first victims of the regimes they propose.
> >Those were peculiar times. The worst of times: an
> >Academy that had institutionalised vanguardism, and
> >regarded being on the "cutting edge" of something!
> >anything! to be its chief claim to represent High
> >Culture
> To repeat what I was trying to get at: I think the High
> Culture was already pretty hopelessly isolated and
> anemic before it got abstractly dadafied and
> modernistically futurized. Further, the assault on
> High Art came from multiple directions... in addition to
> an intellectual assault from the "avant garde", there
> was an assault from below, e.g. from jazz, blues, and
> later rock n' roll.
This could be true. I suppose it's a consequence of making Art a sort of
substitute religion.
> >Perhaps; but it was not always so. The notion of "high"
> >versus popular art is a recent one
> Yes, exactly, and the calicified High Brow culture that
> the modernist-types were assaulting were convinced that
> there was something inherently superior to embracing
> *older* popular forms that were essentially dead; they
> sneered at any popular art that was actually popular.
Some way of maintaining an aristocratic polity in the arts had to be found
after the decline of political aristocracies. It used to be that
aristocratic patrons had the task both of subsidising and of defining those
art forms that were thought nobler than others. Without them, an
alternative means had to be found of doing the same thing.
> I could introduce you to a mailing list where many of
> the Bay Area's experimental musicians like to
> commiserate about the state of the Concert Hall. It
> currently tends to be about keeping alive culturally
> retro art forms like opera for the sake of a sub-culture
> of the wealthy (and I presume the wannabe wealthy) who
> could really probably support this stuff on their own,
> if they really cared about it.
Western concert music now is more or less defined as stuff that was written
pre-WWI, where its story all but ends.
Endymion
> From my perspective, a more perfect democracy means that folks who think
> that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake and that the earth was
created
> six thousand years ago by a giant with three heads all get votes that
count
> as much as yours do. This is so wrong that merely pointing it out seems a
> sufficient answer to the apostles of equality. These people need to
> be -ruled- by their betters, damn it!
Probably. But without specifying the means, other than trying to submerge
them in the mass of presumably more sensible people (or at least people with
different prejudices, so that the worst ones cancel each other out), of
choosing those betters, this is meaningless and silly speculation. Why not
just say we'll turn government over to God? It's a lovely theory, but
without specifiying the means by which we'll commune with the divine...
Those means *are* the form of government. If your method is to govern by
having the augers examine sheep intestines or have a blindfolded priest pick
random words from the Bible, this form of government, no matter how
infallible the agency supposedly being invoked, is likely to produce worse
results than a more reliable means of consulting a less perfect ruler or
ruling class.
> But such is the moral weight of
> equality and democracy, that even pointing this out is bound to set off a
> chorus of disapproval, to be labelled arrogant and presumptuous, etc. ad
> nauseam.
I think that's because we've had, in the last century, good examples of the
worst abuses of democracy and the worst abuses of elitism and absolutism,
and the latter are so much more horrific that any mind with more sensitivity
than a rock recoils from them.
> To their credit, most leftists actually tend to be superior people. Their
> conversation usually reveals their contempt for the masses sooner or
later.
Is it to someone's credit to be a hypocrite, and worse, unaware of it,
rather than an honest fool?
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
"You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again."
IHCOYC XPICTOC
<<From my perspective, a more perfect democracy means that folks who think
that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake and that the earth was
created six thousand years ago by a giant with three heads all get votes
that count as much as yours do. >>
: Probably. But without specifying the means, other than trying to submerge
: them in the mass of presumably more sensible people (or at least people with
: different prejudices, so that the worst ones cancel each other out), of
: choosing those betters, this is meaningless and silly speculation. Why not
: just say we'll turn government over to God? It's a lovely theory, but
: without specifiying the means by which we'll commune with the divine...
This is why I propose to use old money as a restraint on whatever other
government one might have. With old money, I hope to buy people who are
well educated, rather lazy and unexcitable, have at least superficial
manners and good taste, have travelled a lot, experienced a variety of
interesting things, and know something about how the world really works.
And most importantly, their old money allows them to escape the pattern of
jobs, marriage, and children in favour of more impromptu variations.
These are the people I would most consistently trust to put down populist
witch hunts.
The rest of the government can be as egalitarian and democratic as you
wish. We only wish that there be a veto when it gets out of hand, a
restraint on hobgoblin chases, anti-intellectualism, and levelling
tendencies.
<< But such is the moral weight of equality and democracy, that even
pointing this out is bound to set off a chorus of disapproval, to be
labelled arrogant and presumptuous, etc. ad nauseam. >>
: I think that's because we've had, in the last century, good examples of the
: worst abuses of democracy and the worst abuses of elitism and absolutism,
: and the latter are so much more horrific that any mind with more sensitivity
: than a rock recoils from them.
There haven't really been any aristocratic polities tried in the last
century. Both Fascism and Communism were governments by mass movements,
in the name of the Masses, the Workers, the People, or some similar simple
majority with simple virtues.
:> To their credit, most leftists actually tend to be superior people. Their
:> conversation usually reveals their contempt for the masses sooner or
: later.
: Is it to someone's credit to be a hypocrite, and worse, unaware of it,
: rather than an honest fool?
I think they might even be more effective --- and more importantly, more
cognisant of who their real enemies and allies were --- if they abandoned
knee-jerk egalitarianism.
Endymion
> Endymion <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : Probably. But without specifying the means, other than trying to
submerge
> : them in the mass of presumably more sensible people (or at least people
with
> : different prejudices, so that the worst ones cancel each other out), of
> : choosing those betters, this is meaningless and silly speculation. Why
not
> : just say we'll turn government over to God? It's a lovely theory, but
> : without specifiying the means by which we'll commune with the divine...
>
> This is why I propose to use old money as a restraint on whatever other
> government one might have. With old money, I hope to buy people who are
> well educated, rather lazy and unexcitable, have at least superficial
> manners and good taste, have travelled a lot, experienced a variety of
> interesting things, and know something about how the world really works.
As well as being inbred, impractical, jaded... I understand the problems
that lead you to look to those with no stake in the sytem and hence no
reason to be partial, but I think the problems you get in return are at
least as bad.
> The rest of the government can be as egalitarian and democratic as you
> wish. We only wish that there be a veto when it gets out of hand, a
> restraint on hobgoblin chases, anti-intellectualism, and levelling
> tendencies.
The UK has had that system for centuries now. The problem that's leading to
its rapid demise is that there's no way to keep that veto from being imposed
against proposals that make perfect sense but happen to offend the arbitrary
sensibilities of the upper class.
> : I think that's because we've had, in the last century, good examples of
the
> : worst abuses of democracy and the worst abuses of elitism and
absolutism,
> : and the latter are so much more horrific that any mind with more
sensitivity
> : than a rock recoils from them.
>
> There haven't really been any aristocratic polities tried in the last
> century. Both Fascism and Communism were governments by mass movements,
> in the name of the Masses, the Workers, the People, or some similar simple
> majority with simple virtues.
Fascism is in no way egalitarian, though. It claims to act *for* the masses,
not according to their wishes, just as you claim that being ruled by their
betters is in the masses' interest. In fact, fascism is in many ways just
another form (though polluted by racist or nationalist claptrap) of the
aristocracy of merit; about as close as anything attempted on a large scale
to Plato's rule by an elite of philosophers. Communism, as it was practiced,
turned out little different - it always claimed that true democracy was
power exercised for the masses' benefit, not according to their expressed
wishes.
> :> To their credit, most leftists actually tend to be superior people.
Their
> :> conversation usually reveals their contempt for the masses sooner or
> : later.
>
> : Is it to someone's credit to be a hypocrite, and worse, unaware of it,
> : rather than an honest fool?
>
> I think they might even be more effective --- and more importantly, more
> cognisant of who their real enemies and allies were --- if they abandoned
> knee-jerk egalitarianism.
But if they abandoned the egalitarianism that is the centerpiece of their
philosophy, what would be the point of being effective? If they gave up the
idea of equality of results, wouldn't they just be, in US terms, Republicans
or libertarians?
Tal
>The UK has had that system for centuries now. The problem that's leading to
>its rapid demise is that there's no way to keep that veto from being imposed
>against proposals that make perfect sense but happen to offend the arbitrary
>sensibilities of the upper class.
Conversely, _without_ it we have no system of checks against a
government with a strong majority and a vested interest in pandering
to the masses. Personally I can live with the odd veto if it protects
us from excess. And bear in mind the Commons has always had the option
of ultimately forcing bills through, regardless of the objections of
others. The dangers of _that_ have been amply demonstrated over the
past two decades in the UK.
--
Tal
Commander, 101st Heavy Perking Squad
Lexgoff Mobile Infantry
"We're mobile! We're infantile!"
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> > With old money, I hope to buy people who are
> > well educated, rather lazy and unexcitable, have at least superficial
> > manners and good taste, have travelled a lot, experienced a variety of
> > interesting things, and know something about how the world really works.
> As well as being inbred, impractical, jaded...
Those strike me as further advantages.
> > The rest of the government can be as egalitarian and democratic as you
> > wish. We only wish that there be a veto when it gets out of hand, a
> > restraint on hobgoblin chases, anti-intellectualism, and levelling
> > tendencies.
> The UK has had that system for centuries now. The problem that's leading
to
> its rapid demise is that there's no way to keep that veto from being
imposed
> against proposals that make perfect sense but happen to offend the
arbitrary
> sensibilities of the upper class.
My understanding is that under current British law the Commons can force
through bills without the Lords' consent, by re-enacting them; someone from
the UK probably knows the straight story better than I do. If the UK is the
model, though, I suspect this argues in favour of the essential harmlessness
of my proposal. No, I am not proposing the return of Fascism, Communism, or
any other such ism. If anything, I am proposing a restraining hand on all
isms.
> > There haven't really been any aristocratic polities tried in the last
> > century. Both Fascism and Communism were governments by mass movements,
> > in the name of the Masses, the Workers, the People, or some similar
simple
> > majority with simple virtues.
> Fascism is in no way egalitarian, though. It claims to act *for* the
masses,
> not according to their wishes, just as you claim that being ruled by their
> betters is in the masses' interest. In fact, fascism is in many ways just
> another form (though polluted by racist or nationalist claptrap) of the
> aristocracy of merit; about as close as anything attempted on a large
scale
> to Plato's rule by an elite of philosophers.
Plato's rule of philosophers was actually more closely realised in mediaeval
Europe, where you had clearly defined groups of workers, warriors, and
thinkers, with the clerical class wielding an ill-defined dominion over the
other two. It worked for the better part of five hundred years, a
reasonable record for any political system. In Fascism, unfortunately, the
buck stopped with the warrior class.
> > I think they might even be more effective --- and more importantly, more
> > cognisant of who their real enemies and allies were --- if they
abandoned
> > knee-jerk egalitarianism.
> But if they abandoned the egalitarianism that is the centerpiece of their
> philosophy, what would be the point of being effective? If they gave up
the
> idea of equality of results, wouldn't they just be, in US terms,
Republicans
> or libertarians?
They would cease to be hypocrites, of course; that is something, if not
much. They would probably be more effective as a counterweight to the
bourgeoisie than they are now.
Of course, as your comments on the fate of communism show, they remain
elitists themselves at heart and always will be, once they get power. It
seems hard to imagine how one could push forward a programme to reform the
nation and assume its leadership without an elitist streak. An elitism
practiced openly and notoriously might be slightly less galling, or a less
obvious target.
They could still maintain the business about diversity, whose current
practice seems hypocritical because of its obvious hostility towards the
larger plurality. Environmentalism would likewise still be available
without its hypocrisies: a movement to save wilderness for those with
rarefied and aesthetic tastes while driving away the actual workers who
carve it up for a living. Most articles of leftist faith could do perfectly
well without egalitarianism, because they aren't really very egalitarian to
begin with.
Tal
>My understanding is that under current British law the Commons can force
>through bills without the Lords' consent, by re-enacting them; someone from
>the UK probably knows the straight story better than I do.
This is indeed the case. The Commons sends the bill to the Lords for
approval three times AFAIR, and if it still fails they can say
bollocks to them and vote it through regardless. The important bit is
that during that process debate can, and often is stimulated amongst
the two houses as well as the populace. It's not a system of
_stopping_ a bill, just one of slowing it up and saying 'hang on,
let's really discuss this'.
And, sadly, it's been shafted by the reforms. Now the Lords is very
likely to be a bunch of yes men for the government of the day.
Joe Brenner
changing the subject line so that I wouldn't notice what he
was saying, writes:
>"Joe Brenner" muttered:
>> "IHCOYC XPICTOC" <ihcoyc...@aye.net> writes:
>>>These composers were all employees of the People, or at
>>>least of the State. Those who paid their salaries had
>>>every right to make sure that hermeticism and
>>>experimentation were kept within bounds.
>>Some of us folks who are helping to kick in the money for
>>the arts grants actually don't think it's a good idea for
>>arts grants to be run by the same criteria of market-driven
>>popular entertainment. If you're going to have a state
>>sponsored art at all, there should be something different
>>about the criteria in play, or there's very little point to
>>it.
>I think the point here is that this wasn't a market driven thing, but about
>prestige. Classical music is one of those things you can be _better_ at, and
>that was, I believe, a big chunk of the Cold War and stuff. Nevermind that
>they've got Hollywood, we have orchestras, ballerinas, and chessmasters, and
>all their best ones are _our_ second rate defectors, eh comrade?
>What criteria would you apply though?
Remember, I said, "If you're going to have a state sponsored
art at all". It wouldn't bother me tremendously to have all
state sponsorship of the arts yanked completely. I think a
really strict interpretation of the first ammendment might
demand it, actually. State subsidy is less evil than
censorship, but only by degree.
(On the other hand, it doesn't make a lot of sense to worry
about arts funding as being a waste of taxpayers money,
since we don't actually spend any amounts of any
significance on it.)
>While you may be perfectly happy for the state to subsidise
>experimentation, you'll almost certainly be outnumbered by
>those who would complain that their tax dollars would be
>wasted. Witness the recent [ish] furore over Chris Ophili
>[almost certainly sp] and his painting of the Madonna
>featuring elephant dung.
It's not all that clear to me that (a) this work deserves to
be considered experimentation, or (b) that the majority of
people object to having it publically funded. The people
who are offended by it are offended a lot, though, so there
are politicians that feel like they can score points
rattling a few sabres in that direction.
And as I understand it, the public funding agencies are so
cowardly, all it takes is the sabre rattling to get them to
quietly cave in. You will not find the NEA funding any
budding Robert Maplethorpe's any time soon.
Anyway, let me think for a moment here. If the state is
going to subsidize the arts, how would I personally like to
see them make decisions about what to subsidize? What are
the possibilities?
(1) There's always the lottery method. We could do worse
than just doing a random draw out of the pool of
applicants. Call it the Serendipity Fund.
(2) Peer vote. I'm trying to think of an analogy to the
SFWA/Nebula, but it's complicated by the fact that I
believe the SFWA uses commercial sales as their criteria
for entry into the peer group. The peer group could
just be all the artists that have been previously
approved by the peer group. You'd need a rule to
require that they award about half of the cash to new
blood every year, to keep them from just trading the
honors around the club. Then there's the bootstrap
problem, who's in the peer group before you've done
any awarding? Let's say, previous NEA receipients.
That has it's problems, but it's reasonably simple.
(3) The Ministry of Propaganda. Stop making any pretence
that state funded art can be independant. Have a
small cabinet appointed by the President set a national
art policy, and dicate all public art policy.
(4) Hype rules. Pick a basket of "prestigious" critical
art publications, use automatic textual analysis to
determine the frequency of mention of different names.
Award to the most talked about.
I guess I kind of like (1) best. (2) strikes me as
being more politically plausible.
Joe Brenner
>Joe Brenner wrote:
>> >My political opinions are off the scale, and defy categorisation.
>> Is good.
>> >Basically, I'm in favour of a cultural aristocracy. Some
>> >combination of talent and truly old money, old enough that
>> >the heirs' debourgeoisement is complete, I would give a
>> >body of such people an at least negative supervisory power
>> >over all government --- they could free people from
>> >prisons, remove taxes, discharge debts; they could not jail
>> >people, impose taxes, or take property.
>> Is much weird.
>> I have nothing against elites, but I tend to prefer
>> self-selected ones, e.g. people who take the trouble to
>> vote. (I tend to be down on ideas for increasing voter
>> turnout by making it easier to do... I would prefer it
>> were made harder.)
>"Equality" is the great stumbling block of leftism. Let's face it, half of
>the human population is mentally below average, and a fair number the upper
>side of the wire aren't much to be proud of either. Leftist polities
>usually take as their moral postulate that people should be made more equal,
>that the verdicts of history as to winners and losers in conflicts between
>peoples should be reversed, and so on.
[...]
>From my perspective, a more perfect democracy means that folks who think
>that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake and that the earth was created
>six thousand years ago by a giant with three heads all get votes that count
>as much as yours do. This is so wrong that merely pointing it out seems a
>sufficient answer to the apostles of equality. These people need to
>be -ruled- by their betters, damn it! But such is the moral weight of
>equality and democracy, that even pointing this out is bound to set off a
>chorus of disapproval, to be labelled arrogant and presumptuous, etc. ad
>nauseam.
But is the nutcase vote really the problem? I think they're
lost in the noise. The real trouble is that many voters
seem to be working from tremendously frivolous criteria,
e.g. in the United States, many women are in the habit of
treating the presidential race as something like a
Mr. America contest, where you vote for whoever seems
sexiest. (So the last time around, we got two unusually
young candidates... another decade of this, and we're
literally going to get candidates from central casting.)
>To their credit, most leftists actually tend to be superior people. Their
>conversation usually reveals their contempt for the masses sooner or later.
>Perhaps there is a great deal to be said in favour of acting on a moral
>principle without regard to self-interest or where it actually leads. They
>would of course be the first victims of the regimes they propose.
Well, my thumbnail description of the leftist mentality
would be a very clear-sighted view of the way things are,
combined with a strange lack of ability to apply that to the
way things are likely to be. If you want criticism of the
current powers-that-be, it's hard to do no better than to
consult the left, who know very well what slimey tricks have
been pulled lately by presidents, congressmen, corporate
leaders, etc. But hope always springs eternal for some
idealized authority figures just around the corner that
will fix the country's problems once they seize the reigns
of power. The idea that power itself is the problem seems
to be a bit of a stretch for them, though you would think
that this would be old news.
I also think it's somewhat grimly amusing that most lefties
are in favor of making it really easy to vote. They like
"motor voter" laws, and failing that, they like the idea of
being able to register to vote at the absolute last minute.
The reason for this is that in *most* places, the eaisier it
is to vote, the better the left does. Think about that for
a minute... the natural constituency of the left can't get
their act together to fill in a form a month a head of time?
(By the way: in San Francisco, the above is *not* the case.
Left wing activists, gay rights people and the cyclist crowd
are the people who *always* vote. If turnout is low in SF,
the vote is skewed leftward.)
I tend to think it's ethically cleaner to make it
artificially harder to vote, so only the people who really
care about it do it. I'm not fussy about *how* you go about
doing it, almost anything would be an improvement. For
example, how about a simple awareness test, where you're
required to be able to do things like identify the name of
the incumbant in a race, before you're allowed to vote in
the race. For that matter, requiring people to stand in a
bucket of ice water for a minute would be okay by me too.
[1]
The point I was trying to make is that egalitarianism and
elitism aren't necesarily opposed, if the elite is largely a
self-selected, volunteer elite. In that case, it's hard for
the masses to complain about being excluded. If it really
bother's you, you jump through the same hoops all the other
elitist's did, and become a member of the elite.
I'm not so sure about your old-money cultural aristocracy
notion, if only because I don't know anything at all about
the attitudes of Old Money, their defining characteristic
is that they stay out of the spotlight. I would be suprised
if they actually were willing to do a thankless task like
act as an artistic standards body...
[1] Though one of the goals would be to try and make it
reasonably "fair", (e.g., if someone has no feet, you emerse
their hands, if they've got a weak heart, you allow them to
submit a medical cert to get out of the ice bucket endurance
test, etc.)
IHCOYC XPICTOC
:>"Equality" is the great stumbling block of leftism. Let's face it, half of
:>the human population is mentally below average, and a fair number the upper
:>side of the wire aren't much to be proud of either.
: [...]
:>From my perspective, a more perfect democracy means that folks who think
:>that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake and that the earth was created
:>six thousand years ago by a giant with three heads all get votes that count
:>as much as yours do.
: But is the nutcase vote really the problem? I think they're
: lost in the noise. The real trouble is that many voters
: seem to be working from tremendously frivolous criteria,
: e.g. in the United States, many women are in the habit of
: treating the presidential race as something like a
: Mr. America contest, where you vote for whoever seems
: sexiest. (So the last time around, we got two unusually
: young candidates... another decade of this, and we're
: literally going to get candidates from central casting.)
Here in the Sahara of the mind, the nutcase vote is quite obviously
potent, visibly catered to, and politically influential. They represent a
subset of the "activist" problem --- i.e. they are fairly well organised,
and really believe in their causes, and vote early and often. It takes
some deliberate provocation from them before their proposals cross the
synapse gap of the general public.
Negative campaigning is influential out here. Its chief purpose is to
attempt to arouse indignation --- and there are few things that make
people more stupidly blind; perhaps only sexual jealousy is more potent
than indignation. The art of getting elected is the art of pushing
emotional hot buttons, to a great extent.
The problem is, the politics of indignation and emotional issues is, more
or less by definition, the politics of hate. An activist, after all, is
somebody with an enemies list.
: Well, my thumbnail description of the leftist mentality
: would be a very clear-sighted view of the way things are,
: combined with a strange lack of ability to apply that to the
: way things are likely to be. If you want criticism of the
: current powers-that-be, it's hard to do no better than to
: consult the left, who know very well what slimey tricks have
: been pulled lately by presidents, congressmen, corporate
: leaders, etc. But hope always springs eternal for some
: idealized authority figures just around the corner that
: will fix the country's problems once they seize the reigns
: of power. The idea that power itself is the problem seems
: to be a bit of a stretch for them, though you would think
: that this would be old news.
Which is strange, since traditionally the faith in human perfectability
through a political programme has always been a "leftist" position, while
right-wingers in theory have a grim awareness of human failings.
As it is practised now, right-wing politics is about protecting "you," the
embattled paragons of virtue, the "hard-working" "American" "families,"
against this week's lottery pick for the evil Other in our midst. Like
the leftist, the rightist in his public face is not doing politics; he is
waging war for Good against Evil. On the other hand, the rightist in
power is likely to have a canny talent for graft and manipulation of the
system.
: I also think it's somewhat grimly amusing that most lefties
: are in favor of making it really easy to vote. They like
: "motor voter" laws, and failing that, they like the idea of
: being able to register to vote at the absolute last minute.
: The reason for this is that in *most* places, the eaisier it
: is to vote, the better the left does. Think about that for
: a minute... the natural constituency of the left can't get
: their act together to fill in a form a month a head of time?
They think of the poor and apathetic as their natural constituency; they
hope to lure them to the polls with promises of government programmes to
make their lives easier. Of course, one chief effect of these tactics is
to galvanise their opposition, and it probably works better on them than
it does on the would-be beneficiaries of their largesse.
: (By the way: in San Francisco, the above is *not* the case.
: Left wing activists, gay rights people and the cyclist crowd
: are the people who *always* vote. If turnout is low in SF,
: the vote is skewed leftward.)
: I tend to think it's ethically cleaner to make it
: artificially harder to vote, so only the people who really
: care about it do it.
It's truly a pity that literacy tests for voters were misused. The idea
is a sound one.
: The point I was trying to make is that egalitarianism and
: elitism aren't necesarily opposed, if the elite is largely a
: self-selected, volunteer elite. In that case, it's hard for
: the masses to complain about being excluded. If it really
: bother's you, you jump through the same hoops all the other
: elitist's did, and become a member of the elite.
What causes concern here is that a "self-selected, volunteer elite" is
going to give even more power to the true believers and folks with a
Cause. They're already selecting themselves and volunteering. Their
politics always involves hanging target signs on the backs of some of
their randomly selected neighbours.
: I'm not so sure about your old-money cultural aristocracy
: notion, if only because I don't know anything at all about
: the attitudes of Old Money, their defining characteristic
: is that they stay out of the spotlight. I would be suprised
: if they actually were willing to do a thankless task like
: act as an artistic standards body...
Their notions of good taste traditionally include the concept of
understatement. This, of course, would be a most welcome thing to import
into politics. They also tend to be well-educated and well-travelled.
They stand apart from the middle-class life track. These are the
qualities I think are too little represented in government, and which I
would like to see more of.
The world's aristocrats did a good enough job of setting artistic
standards in Mozart's day. With the right milieu, they could do as well
today.
Zoe J Selengut
On 5 Mar 2002, IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
> Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> : e.g. in the United States, many women are in the habit of
> : treating the presidential race as something like a
> : Mr. America contest, where you vote for whoever seems
> : sexiest. (So the last time around, we got two unusually
> It's truly a pity that literacy tests for voters were misused. The idea
> is a sound one.
(joe again)
> : But is the nutcase vote really the problem? I think they're
On the evidence of this thread alone, you two _are_ the nutcase vote.
Zoe
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> On the evidence of this thread alone, you two _are_ the nutcase vote.
Then let me shake your hand. I'm running for President in 2004 on the Royal
Pan-African Socialist Christian Worker's Party for White Libertarian Islam
through Xenu's Natural Law. [Known for short as the RPASCWPWLIXNL.] I hope
I can count on your support.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen. You feel sleepy. Watch the
cursor blink, and it will help you relax. Close your eyes. The opinions
stated above are yours. You cannot remember ever thinking otherwise.
Joe Brenner
>On 5 Mar 2002, IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>> Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : e.g. in the United States, many women are in the habit of
>> : treating the presidential race as something like a
>> : Mr. America contest, where you vote for whoever seems
>> : sexiest. (So the last time around, we got two unusually
>> It's truly a pity that literacy tests for voters were misused. The idea
>> is a sound one.
>(joe again)
>> : But is the nutcase vote really the problem? I think they're
>On the evidence of this thread alone, you two _are_ the nutcase vote.
I'm afraid you're going to have to make this accusation a
little clearer for this particular dull, humorless nutcase.
Are the clips you've quoted here intended to be the nutty
ones?
I would think that most people would find a defense of
aristocracy to be stranger than a defense of literacy
tests, particularly since Ichy was admitting that they've
been misused.
And I'm pretty sure that the tendency of many women to vote
for sex appeal is just conventional inside-the-beltway wisdom
at this point. Do you need me to dig up some references for
you?
Zoe J Selengut
On 5 Mar 2002, Joe Brenner wrote:
> Zoe J Selengut <sele...@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
> >On the evidence of this thread alone, you two _are_ the nutcase vote.
>
> I'm afraid you're going to have to make this accusation a
> little clearer for this particular dull, humorless nutcase.
> Are the clips you've quoted here intended to be the nutty
> ones?
Well, yes.
But I wouldn't call it an accusation. That would make me sound like, oh, a
bitch or something. It's just an observation. I'm not arguing that
nutcases should be denied suffrage or a prominent role in political
life or anything.
> I would think that most people would find a defense of
> aristocracy to be stranger than a defense of literacy
> tests, particularly since Ichy was admitting that they've
> been misused.
To be misused, there must exist a proper use - that is, to prevent the
illiterate from voting. This is pretty clearcut nutcase.
The defense of aristocracy I took to be more nostalgic wallowing or
utopian dreaming than a realistic proposal, and as such I am not
unsympathetic to it.
> And I'm pretty sure that the tendency of many women to vote
> for sex appeal is just conventional inside-the-beltway wisdom
> at this point. Do you need me to dig up some references for
> you?
If you're seriously asserting that women do this more or differently than
men do, sure, why not. I assumed when you said women instead of people
that you were implying that men are not swayed by appearance.
If you're equating conventional wisdom with truth, I'm not sure what I can
say to that.
Zoe
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> To be misused, there must exist a proper use - that is, to prevent the
> illiterate from voting. This is pretty clearcut nutcase.
That is, more or less, what a rightly constructed and administered literacy
test would do. Why is it desirable that illiterate people should vote?
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen. You feel sleepy. Watch the
Zoe Selengut
> Zoe J Selengut wrote:
>
> > To be misused, there must exist a proper use - that is, to prevent the
> > illiterate from voting. This is pretty clearcut nutcase.
>
> That is, more or less, what a rightly constructed and administered literacy
> test would do. Why is it desirable that illiterate people should vote?
In order that the government may derive its just powers from the
consent of the governed. Or are you proposing that those banned from
voting also be exempt from those laws on whose institution they have
no influence? That gets tricky.
Zoe
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> > That is, more or less, what a rightly constructed and administered
literacy
> > test would do. Why is it desirable that illiterate people should vote?
> In order that the government may derive its just powers from the
> consent of the governed. Or are you proposing that those banned from
> voting also be exempt from those laws on whose institution they have
> no influence? That gets tricky.
If it matters that much to them, they could, of course, learn to read.
Of course, the business about government deriving its powers from the
consent of the governed is so much eyewash in any case. I don't remember
ever being asked. Since this is the very opposite of a swing state, neither
I nor anyone else in Indiana has much say in the Presidential election.
There is no "none of the above" option to withhold consent from the entire
slate.
Dag
>> In order that the government may derive its just powers from the
>> consent of the governed. Or are you proposing that those banned from
>> voting also be exempt from those laws on whose institution they have
>> no influence? That gets tricky.
>
> If it matters that much to them, they could, of course, learn to read.
>
You say that like you assume it's a trivial thing to do.
I know someone who suffers from severe dyslexia. He's over 40 and only
recently reached the level of managing to read a whole (tabloid) newspaper
story, and that wasn't from lack of trying.
Dag
IHCOYC XPICTOC
:> If it matters that much to them, they could, of course, learn to read.
: You say that like you assume it's a trivial thing to do.
: I know someone who suffers from severe dyslexia. He's over 40 and only
: recently reached the level of managing to read a whole (tabloid) newspaper
: story, and that wasn't from lack of trying.
I'm wondering what someone who is entirely unable to read would -do- with
a ballot or voting machine.
Yes, of course, perhaps some kind of alternative test could be devised for
the blind, and other people whose handicaps make a standardised test
impossible.
On the other hand, there are many people --- felons, the mentally
retarded --- who can never vote, yet the government still considers them
its subjects.
Endymion
> I'm wondering what someone who is entirely unable to read would -do- with
> a ballot or voting machine.
I thought we found that out 16 months ago.
Zoe J Selengut
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Endymion wrote:
> "IHCOYC XPICTOC" <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote
>
> > I'm wondering what someone who is entirely unable to read would -do- with
> > a ballot or voting machine.
>
>
> I thought we found that out 16 months ago.
Oh yes-- they look at a ballot marked for Gore, with "Gore" written on it
in pencil, and throw it out as unreadable.
But haven't you heard? We're supposed to have gotten over that!
Zoe (What? You say I'm not funny either?)
Neal Stanifer
One need not reach as far into the bathos bag as dyslexia (or for that
matter the highly dubious and rapidly ballooning claims of ADHD) in
order to find arguments against I.X.'s flip comment. Learning to read
is difficult for a great many perfectly healthy people, especially those
(a) whose parents never learned, (b) who come from areas with failing
schools, and (c) for whom a social support structure (reward AND
punishment) is not in place. And this is all assuming, of course, that
the real benefits of literacy are made clear to them at an early age in
such a way that they understand that there is really no other choice
which comes close to full literacy. AND assuming that this voice of
institutional reason can outshout parents who often don't give a rat's
ass about the future of their own children, so long as the consequences
touch neither their pocketbooks nor their playtime.
Neal
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Learning to read
> is difficult for a great many perfectly healthy people, especially those
> (a) whose parents never learned, (b) who come from areas with failing
> schools, and (c) for whom a social support structure (reward AND
> punishment) is not in place. And this is all assuming, of course, that
> the real benefits of literacy are made clear to them at an early age in
> such a way that they understand that there is really no other choice
> which comes close to full literacy. AND assuming that this voice of
> institutional reason can outshout parents who often don't give a rat's
> ass about the future of their own children, so long as the consequences
> touch neither their pocketbooks nor their playtime.
Of course, the assumption behind a literacy test is that the pool of
eligible voters should be culled somehow. Very simply, if you accept the
notion that literacy tests serve a purpose, that purpose is to prevent
exactly these people from voting. Pointing out that the test
disenfranchises these people is an argument in favour of the test, not
against it. To the extend that the test finds them, it works as intended.
These people have no medical excuse, no physical handicap. Merely pointing
a finger at their ignorant and uncaring parents and blaming them for the
reason why they cannot vote eighteen years later does not make these people
any more valuable participants in the political process.
To argue against literacy tests, you have to show why these people --- who,
as you describe them, pose problems for society that go far beyond merely
being unable to read --- are valuable and equal participants in the
political process.
Dag
>
> Of course, the assumption behind a literacy test is that the pool of
> eligible voters should be culled somehow. Very simply, if you accept the
> notion that literacy tests serve a purpose, that purpose is to prevent
> exactly these people from voting.
But on what grounds should you prevent those people from voting? What
makes them any less capable of making informed and inteligent choices?
If you wish to make people take a test, why not make it a politics and
economics test. At least that would be closer to serving the purpose
you seem to be looking for.
Dag
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> > Of course, the assumption behind a literacy test is that the pool of
> > eligible voters should be culled somehow. Very simply, if you accept
the
> > notion that literacy tests serve a purpose, that purpose is to prevent
> > exactly these people from voting.
> But on what grounds should you prevent those people from voting? What
> makes them any less capable of making informed and inteligent choices?
> If you wish to make people take a test, why not make it a politics and
> economics test. At least that would be closer to serving the purpose
> you seem to be looking for.
Any system with votes is going to have some criteria as to who's eligible
and who isn't. The decision as to whose votes count is always going to be a
political decision. It will always appear arbitrary from some other
perspective, because it is indeed arbitrary.
Political tests, at least, were parts of the historical literacy tests that
were justly (IMO) scrapped. [Whites were asked, "Who was the first
president of the United States?" Blacks were asked to recite the text of
the 20th Amendment, verbatim.] Given that I am not uncomfortable with
the -concept- of literacy tests, I wouldn't be uncomfortable with some
fairly administered version of exactly this sort of thing. If run right, it
seems not entirely irrelevant to the ability to make informed and
intelligent choices.
After all, in Indiana people have to take similar tests about traffic rules
to get a driver's licence. Let's face it, in the USA the right to drive an
automobile is much more important than the right to vote. I am comfortable
with this; it seems rational, if not perfect. Why shouldn't voting be the
same way?
Like with any political decision, you can always ask, "by what right, on
what grounds, do you decree this arbitrary cutoff?" Truth is, it is
arbitrary. That's the nature of any rule.
Neal Stanifer
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
>
> Of course, the assumption behind a literacy test is that the pool of
> eligible voters should be culled somehow. Very simply, if you accept the
> notion that literacy tests serve a purpose, that purpose is to prevent
> exactly these people from voting. Pointing out that the test
> disenfranchises these people is an argument in favour of the test, not
> against it. To the extend that the test finds them, it works as intended.
Very good. And now all you have to do is prove that, somewhere in the
United States constitution, some word or phrase disenfranchises the
illiterate. Barring that (and that WILL be barred), you have no grounds
upon which to administer any literacy test whatsoever.
>
> These people have no medical excuse, no physical handicap.
Nor do they need one.
> Merely pointing
> a finger at their ignorant and uncaring parents and blaming them for the
> reason why they cannot vote eighteen years later
But they CAN vote.
> does not make these people
> any more valuable participants in the political process.
As citizens of the United States, they are valuable participants in the
political process. Like it or not, these booger-eating morons have
precisely the same rights you have. Don't like it? Change the
constitution. And THAT would be a neat trick.
>
> To argue against literacy tests, you have to show why these people --- who,
> as you describe them, pose problems for society that go far beyond merely
> being unable to read --- are valuable and equal participants in the
> political process.
Wrong. To argue against literacy tests, I have merely to point out that
literacy is not now, nor has ever been, a constitutional condition for
political franchise in the United States. In other words, whether I am
a blue-stocking or a blue-collar, I have the same rights in a
democracy. Case closed.
Neal
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> United States constitution, some word or phrase disenfranchises the
> illiterate. Barring that (and that WILL be barred), you have no grounds
> upon which to administer any literacy test whatsoever.
Apart from saying that people cannot be denied the vote for failing to pay a
tax, and giving 18 years olds the vote, the U.S. constitution does not
create, and does not address, the right to vote. Until the 1960's, the
matter was entirely in the hands of the several states. It still is, for
the most part. The business about convicts not being able to vote is a
matter of state law; several states, including Indiana, allow ex-cons to
vote. Were this a matter of Federal constitutional law, the rule would be
uniform.
Federal involvement in State voting qualifications is [generally] limited to
the Voting Rights Act, a Federal statute; and a Supreme Court decision
governing voting districts and apportionment. Provided it does not run
afoul of either of these rules, nothing in the Federal constitution bars any
State from reviving a literacy test.
Joe Brenner
>On 5 Mar 2002, Joe Brenner wrote:
>> And I'm pretty sure that the tendency of many women to vote
>> for sex appeal is just conventional inside-the-beltway wisdom
>> at this point. Do you need me to dig up some references for
>> you?
>If you're seriously asserting that women do
>this more or differently than men do, sure, why
>not.
Yeah, okay, look below.
>I assumed when you said women instead of people
>that you were implying that men are not swayed by appearance.
Since most candidates are male, and most of the male
voters are straight, the "sex appeal" effect is
something of a moot point where men are concened.
(I guess it might go the other way: the male
electorate would probably look at a total pretty
boy candidate with some suspicion.)
It is a funny thought that as more women run for office,
it could turn out that the Cicciolina phenomena could take
over American politics. Madonna's next career move?
>If you're equating conventional wisdom with truth,
>I'm not sure what I can say to that.
Now we wouldn't want to do that would we? Then
we'd be stuck assumming that the right way to
run an election is the way we've always done it.
Anyway, here's what I got thus far for
references... if you're interested in this
subject, you might want to do searches on the
phrase "Gender Gap".
The main clue is in the gender breakdown for
American presidential elections, the question is
what you make of it. The way I would summarize
it is that the "women's vote" tends to be skewed
toward the more liberal candidate, but this
effect is greatly muted if that candidate is a
cold fish or a dog. Clinton easily beat Dole,
but Bush could get a draw out of Gore. (And the
big event in this discussion is the 1996
election, where women turned out in numbers to
defend the philandering bad boy from the vast
right wing conspiracy.)
Anyway, whether or not you're convinced that
this is a real phenomena, I'm convinced that
there's many a political hack that does believe
in it. You're going to see fewer old-fart
candidates, and more buff dudes running
(preferably ones with a warm twinkle in his
eye).
Data for your perusal, if you're so inclined.
URLs follow.
Voter breakdown in percentages.
1980 - 8% gap
women men
reagan 46 54 (8% diff)
carter 45 37 (8% diff)
anderson 7 7
1984 - 8% gap
women men
reagan 56 62 (6% diff)
mondale 44 37 (7% diff)
1988 - 7% gap
women men
bush 50 57 (7% diff)
dukakis 49 41 (8% diff)
1992 - 4% gap
women men
clinton 45 41 (4% diff)
dole 37 38 (1% diff)
perot 17 21
1996 - 11% gap
women men
clinton 54 43 (11% diff)
dole 38 44 (6% diff)
perot 7 10
2000 - 11% gap
women men
gore 54 42 (12% diff)
bush 43 53 (10% diff)
Largely this is from:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/prg/greenb/gengap.htm
http://www.feminist.org/Election2000/Gendergap.asp
http://www.feminist.org/Election2000/gendergap_president.asp
This bit has a nice, dogmatic, weasely tone to it,
all about the Right Way to calculated the Gender Gap:
http://www.feminist.org/Election2000/gendergap_calculate.asp
Jose Pina Coelho
> (By the way: in San Francisco, the above is *not* the case.
> Left wing activists, gay rights people and the cyclist crowd
> are the people who *always* vote. If turnout is low in SF,
> the vote is skewed leftward.)
"skewed" is to strong to describe the fact that the vote reflects 100% of
the opinion of people that got off their buts and voted.
The opinion of the people that answer all the opinion polls and then don't
show up at the voting booth is a non-opinion, to be ignored. In fact, by not
showing up, they voted that the other votes were the correct ones.
What that says about the state of current democracies can best be assessed
with a real exercise of pathological sociology.
--
Doing AIX support was the most monty-pythonesque
activity available at the time.
Joe Brenner
>Joe Brenner wrote:
>> (By the way: in San Francisco, the above is *not* the case.
>> Left wing activists, gay rights people and the cyclist crowd
>> are the people who *always* vote. If turnout is low in SF,
>> the vote is skewed leftward.)
>"skewed" is too strong to describe the fact that the vote reflects 100% of
>the opinion of people that got off their buts and voted.
Your nitpick is noted, and accepted.
>The opinion of the people that answer all the opinion polls and then don't
>show up at the voting booth is a non-opinion, to be ignored. In fact, by not
>showing up, they voted that the other votes were the correct ones.
I see what you're getting at, but this is a little on the
dogmatic side... the opinions of the too-lazy-to-vote crowd
are indeed real opinions, and they might even matter in some
real world circumstances, they just don't matter as far as
the election is concerned.
But I guess a word like "skewed" implies that the goal of
an election is to accurately measure the state of opinion of
all citizens... and I'm not at all sure that that's what
the goal should really be in the ideal case. I'm even
willing to go as far as to consider using some form of the
dreaded "intelligence test" to try and screen for the
opinions of people with half-a-clue.
For example, a foreign-born person can't become a US citizen
without passing a test. Why not apply the same test to
everyone?
Even if the test gets totally dumbed-down to the point where
anyone who studies for it can pass it (much like driver's
tests), it would still screen out anyone who didn't want to
take the trouble to take a test. That in itself might be an
improvement.
>What that says about the state of current democracies can
>best be assessed with a real exercise of pathological
>sociology.
Um. Huh?
Joe Brenner
>> Very good. And now all you have to do is prove that, somewhere in the
>> United States constitution, some word or phrase disenfranchises the
>> illiterate. Barring that (and that WILL be barred), you have no grounds
>> upon which to administer any literacy test whatsoever.
>Apart from saying that people cannot be denied the vote for failing to pay a
>tax, and giving 18 years olds the vote, the U.S. constitution does not
>create, and does not address, the right to vote. Until the 1960's, the
>matter was entirely in the hands of the several states. It still is, for
>the most part. The business about convicts not being able to vote is a
>matter of state law; several states, including Indiana, allow ex-cons to
>vote. Were this a matter of Federal constitutional law, the rule would be
>uniform.
>Federal involvement in State voting qualifications is [generally] limited to
>the Voting Rights Act, a Federal statute; and a Supreme Court decision
>governing voting districts and apportionment. Provided it does not run
>afoul of either of these rules, nothing in the Federal constitution bars any
>State from reviving a literacy test.
This all sounds good, but it's all a side-issue, isn't it?
We're not members of the Supreme Court or of Congress.
We're a small group of random largely disenfranchised
people, discussing some blue-sky alternatives to the
standard one-warm-body-one-vote style of democracy. If we
came up with an idea we really liked, *then* we'd have to
start worrying about questions like "would it require a
constitutional ammendment to implement this?".
Personally, I think that literally speaking a "literacy
test" is also besides the point: I have my doubts that vast
numbers of people who are illiterate wander into the polling
places asking someone to read their ballot to them. Though
historically it's an important point that the misuse of
literacy tests is one of the reasons people balk at the
thought of having to qualify for the right to vote.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >Federal involvement in State voting qualifications is [generally] limited
to
> >the Voting Rights Act, a Federal statute; and a Supreme Court decision
> >governing voting districts and apportionment. Provided it does not run
> >afoul of either of these rules, nothing in the Federal constitution bars
any
> >State from reviving a literacy test.
> This all sounds good, but it's all a side-issue, isn't it?
> We're not members of the Supreme Court or of Congress.
> We're a small group of random largely disenfranchised
> people, discussing some blue-sky alternatives to the
> standard one-warm-body-one-vote style of democracy. If we
> came up with an idea we really liked, *then* we'd have to
> start worrying about questions like "would it require a
> constitutional ammendment to implement this?".
True enough. On the other hand, a lot of people imagine the Constitution
guarantees the right to vote; it really says little about it.
The mere assertion that everyone is entitled to one vote by virtue of being
a U. S. citizen is not an argument in favour of why this ought to be so, and
as such is rather hard to address.
> Personally, I think that literally speaking a "literacy
> test" is also besides the point: I have my doubts that vast
> numbers of people who are illiterate wander into the polling
> places asking someone to read their ballot to them. Though
> historically it's an important point that the misuse of
> literacy tests is one of the reasons people balk at the
> thought of having to qualify for the right to vote.
I wonder again, though, whether it is or isn't counterproductive to require
difficult qualifications. They may or may not weed out the illiterate. But
making it hard to qualify for the vote is going to amplify the "activist"
problem. It will make the body of voters even more dominated by the
ideologically committed, the zealots, and the self-interested. Cultural
warfare may increase rather than decrease under such a regime.
One possible solution is a weighted ballot. My understanding from reading
an essay by Rob't Graves is that until the 1960's or so, Oxford and
Cambridge Universities had their own representatives in Parliament.
Englishmen who were graduated from them voted twice: once for their local
M.P., again for the M.P. for the university. The university M.P. vote could
even follow expatriate Englishmen wherever they lived.
A system where we awarded votes on such a basis might work with less moral
hazard than a test. Everybody gets a vote. High school graduates get
another, and you get another for each university degree you possess. We
could also award extra votes for such things like military service, or being
in the Peace Corps.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >The opinion of the people that answer all the opinion polls and then
don't
> >show up at the voting booth is a non-opinion, to be ignored. In fact, by
not
> >showing up, they voted that the other votes were the correct ones.
> I see what you're getting at, but this is a little on the
> dogmatic side... the opinions of the too-lazy-to-vote crowd
> are indeed real opinions, and they might even matter in some
> real world circumstances, they just don't matter as far as
> the election is concerned.
> But I guess a word like "skewed" implies that the goal of
> an election is to accurately measure the state of opinion of
> all citizens... and I'm not at all sure that that's what
> the goal should really be in the ideal case.
The problem, for me, is to curb the activist effect. On the one hand, the
one person/one vote principle is offensive, and strikes me as wilfully
flying in the face of reality. On the other hand, my proposals are aimed,
ultimately, at reducing the obnoxious cultural warfare that goes on under
the business of politics in this country, the endless series of laws that
target some unpopular group of your neighbours. Ideally, this should be
difficult, maybe even impossible. Witch-hunts and the hue and cry seem to
be built into democracy, though. Is this fixable?
Ideally, we want the majority of the voters to be mellow and indifferent,
able to see through these proposals and eager to reject them. The problem
is that voting attracts the ideologically committed: "activists," in other
words, people with enemies lists. The basic problem is that any system that
requires people to get out of bed is going to favour these people somewhat.
And merely making it easier to participate is not going to improve the
quality of deliberations in the electorate.
Which is why upon reflection I'm not sure that a literacy test would do much
good, and might do harm. It is attractive in theory to cull the voting
lists of morons, crackpots, and bigots; whether a sufficiently rigorous
literacy test would actually do that without increasing the activist skew is
hard to say. A literacy test that required the voters to quote the Aeneid,
to distinguish Braque from Picasso, and merlot from pinot noir, might reduce
the electorate to the people I'd want voting. But it would be kind of hard
to explain why those qualifications ought to be needed to vote. I still
think that an aristocratic wing in Congress might be the best solution to
the excesses of democracy.
The Lighthouse Keeper
> In general, popular and critical opinion seems to be
> on the side of Dylan's 60s work, in preference to
> Ochs. Some of Ochs work certainly seems really dated
> in retrospect (e.g. The song about "The Thresher"
> incident. What was that exactly? Oh, a submarine
> accident. He did a song about a submarine accident?
> Huh?).
USS Thresher was a nuclear powered submarine that was lost at sea, all hands
and several civilians aboard, during its initial sea trials. During a test
of the emergency blow system - the system that forces a submarine to the
surface in the event of an emergency by flooding the ballast tanks with
high-pressure air - the air lines froze and the submarine sank to crush
depth. Instead of blowing the ballast to sea, the tanks were opened and
flooded with seawater, creating the exact opposite effect than it should
have.
The United States has only lost two nuclear powered submarines; the USS
Thresher and the USS Scorpion.
<shrug>
Just a little bit of American naval history for ya.
F&B,
The Lighthouse Keeper
http://lhkeeper.nocturnis.net
Matthew King
: You're going to see fewer old-fart
: candidates, and more buff dudes running
: (preferably ones with a warm twinkle in his
: eye).
That's where the Canadian Alliance went wrong with Stockwell Day. They
thought they just needed a buff dude. They forgot about the warm twinkle.
(Now they've got themselves an Al Gore. The worst of all possible worlds:
not a daddy, not a boyfriend ... more like your dorky big brother. Eww.)
Matthew
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--