[PEN-L:33390] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nomi wrote:

>The thing is, I want to believe that the general
> public, armed with accurate information, is smarter
> than That.

I think both "general public" and "smartness" are loose categories that
hinder clarity of analysis. The general public, actually, does not
exist, but  is merely a label we give to the additive sum of millions of
isolated individuals sitting in their living rooms reading the front
page or watching the TV. The isolated individual _cannot_ be "smart,"
and when such an individual _appears_ to be smart, as an individual, one
will almost invariably discover a history, an ensemble of social
relations, of _activity_, within which that "smartness" came into
existence.

Recently Michael Hoover submitted a collection of quotations from Alfred
North Whitehead, among which was the following: "We cannot think first
and act afterward. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action,
and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought." But the activity of
the isolated individual (the sume of which make up the general public)
is activity that precludes awareness of themselves -- by which I mean
not psychological self-awareness (which doesn't and can't exist -- it is
a figment of the humanist imgination) but awareness of his/her _place_
in the ensemble of social relations which constitute her/him.

The key to "finding" a smarter general public is building activities
which involve larger and larger numbers of that "public" in activities
which differ enough from their ordinary activity to generate the "taking
thought" (after the fact/act) which Whitehead speaks of.

Of course the DP exists for the sole purpose of preventing such action
-- i.e. for the purpose of preventing self-knowledge, in the sense
defined above, among the general public. The DP is the chief center of
reaction in the U.S. today.

There is a fine letter in the January issue of _The Progressive_ which
touches on this. It is not on their web site yet.

****
	The plane crash that killed Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife
and daughters, and several others is a horrible tragedy fro their
surviving family, friends and acquaintances. Although the desire to
focus on the best qualities of someone whose loss one is grieving is
understandable, I believe progressive politics are better served by a
balanced, critical assessment of Wellstone's political career than by
the avalanche of mostly uncritical eulogies over the past month,
including your own (Editor's Note, December issue).

	By all accounts, Wellstone did a world of good as an activist professor
at Carleton College, inspiring many students to incorporate activism and
progressive politics into their own lives. Wellstone's shocking election
to the Senate in 1990 on a shoestring campaign budget but with a huge
pool of enthusiastic campaign volunteers demonstrated the power of
grassroots activism in a way most of us had only dreamed about. His
outspoken opposition to the Persian Gulf War and support for
single-payer health care were also inspiring to many a progressive,
including myself.

	But Wellstone went to Washington with an agenda of changing the system
and the Democratic Party from within. Instead, the system changed him.

	During his last term in office, Wellstone voted for wars in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan, the Defense of Marriage Act, the USA Patriot Act,
economic sanctions against Iraq, increases in the military budget, and
Congressional resolutions exonerating Israel of any blame for violence
in the Middle East. He failed to speak out against Bush's theft of the
election or to support his African American Congressional colleagues'
call for an investigation. He stopped being an outspoken advocate of
single-payer health care. He was publicly critical of Ralph Nader's
Presidential candidacy.

	Even his much-praised opposition to the looming war with Iraq was not
based on principle. His public statements about the issue indicated
that, rather than seeing the United States as the major threat to world
peace as most progressives do, Wellstone shared his Congressional
colleagues' view that Iraq was a significant threat that needed to be
dealth with (i.e., attacked) militarily, just not unilaterally or
unconstitutionally.

	To be sure, Wellstone continued to compile a mostly quite progressive
voting record and to fight for consumers and workers -- within the
framework he accepted. His political limitations serve to illustrate a
very important lesson that Paul himself might ohave taught in his days
at Carleton: Real change and real leadership do not come from Capitol
Hill; they always have, and always will, come from the grassroots.

Jeff Melton
2002 Green Party Congressional candidate
Bloomington, Indiana
********

In other words, Wellstone _began_ his career trying to develope the
smartness of the "general public," but like all good Democrats (and
their dupes among progressives) he devoted the final years of his life
to enhancing the stupidity of the general public.

And yet a number of people who consider themselves progressive railed at
the Minnesota Green Party for putting up a candidate for the Senate in
2002. Sad.

Carrol