You get what you pay for

Now, maybe my ideas are all wrong. I concede that possibility, but not the probability. It does seem things go the way I say they will all too often, and they don't go the way other people predict.

A Little Philosophy

My starting point is an extremely unfashionable idea: "cultural relativism." I hold that sort of view because it seems to explain the world I observe better than other ideas. It fits with my belief in Darwinian evolution, my materialism and my empiricism. I don't believe in gods, devils, Jesus or Mohammed saves, or anything else like that.

A consequence of cultural relativism is that more than one "culture" is possible for a given group of people. A certain tribe could be like this, or this, or that. I take it that one human group is essentially the same as any other group, when local cultural and environmental artifacts are stripped away; which is to say that people and their societies are plastic. The proof of this plasticity is the variety of extant and historical cultures. Plasticity implies that a given tribe could  have a different culture, that cultural choices are not determined by time or place.

A further consequence of cultural relativism is that a given culture can be stable over long periods, but then change suddenly and go on as if nothing had happened. In other words, since humans are plastic, they can change their societies just as they change clothes. "Clothes make the man." This implies that different, often conflicting, cultural values can be operative at the same time among human tribes, sometimes in the same tribe. There is nothing "logical" or "physical" in culture that makes some practices better or worse than any others. They are just what they are.

Thus, there is nothing that makes a democratic society any better or worse than any other society. Moreover, there is nothing inherent in most cultures that makes them naturally dominant over other cultures. As Jared Diamond shows in "Guns, Germs, Steel," the dominance of one group over another results from a combination of circumstantial factors that develops over a long period of time. Cultures are not better or worse, competent or not, solely on account of their religion or many other ideas alleged to be the causes of success or failure.

To come to the point: A culture does not require outside approval to be stable. What any individual likes or dislikes is an entirely different matter from the survivability of the group. Thus, it is perfectly possible for non-democratic societies to develop nuclear power and weapons, as well as other very advanced technologies, as has happened many times within living memory. And, it is perfectly possible for democratic societies not to develop those technological artifacts, as has happened many times within living memory. There is nothing inherent about culture that produces one or another result; rather, what a culture produces is a result of the interaction between the individuals which compose it  and their natural environment.

Rapid Changes

Applied, this means it is perfectly possible for America to be converted into the sort of authoritarian, regressive society conservatives hope for, and George W Bush stands for. Rome was such a society, and so were a number of other murderous empires. There is nothing inherent in the structure of the United States that prevents a stable, Fascist outcome. In fact, that is happening before our eyes.

In 1933, the right-wing collaborators of the Nazis, Von Papen and the Prussian Junkers, brought Hitler to power because they felt 'we can control him.' They counted on the Presidency of  von Hindenburg to overshadow the upstart Hitler. A few months later, Hindenburg was dead. Shortly thereafter the bunglers von Papen et al found themselves in the teeth of the wolves.

George W Bush ran an ad showing gathering wolves. The ad's symbolism is universal, and probably assisted his re-election. I was chilled by the pictures because, from the moment I saw them, I felt the wolves were George W Bush and his cabal, which now have America by the neck.

Strategic Error

Let's start by saying the Democrats are unable to win elections because they have the wrong ideas about what people want and how they think.

I learned a month or two ago that Harry Truman first observed that there was no sense in Democrats pretending to be Republicans, because people know the difference and will always vote for 'the real thing.' Harry Truman said that more than 50 years ago, in 1948, so it may be excusable Democrats have forgotten it. But, the people have not changed. They smell out the phoneys every time. One of the things accomplished in this election was the defeat of Democrats who posed as Republicans. Lesson: It pays to be true to yourself.

So, if you're a Lefty, like me, be a Lefty. Don't sneak around. Don't avoid labels like "liberal." If you've been doing that, then you're a cheat; and cheating never works.

The Democratic party is destroying itself by cheating. Democrats are trying to sell themselves as "conservatives," supposedly to compete with Republicans. But, the logic of the situation is that such Democrats are either really Republicans, or they are not. What needs to happen is the Democratic party has to decide whether it is a party of the Left or Right. Then, it needs to pick candidates who truly believe the party line.

Southern Delusion

The biggest example of this confusion in the Democratic party is its attitude towards the South.

Southerners, conservatives and center-right pundits all insist Democrats have to win in the South to win at all. This is interpreted to mean that Democrats will have to adopt and promote Southern attitudes. It is also interpreted to mean that national Democratic candidates must be Southerners. This has resulted in a persistent tendency of the Democratic party to move rightward.

In consequence, Democrats are forgetting what their party is all about. Little by little, they look more like Republicans. In many quarters, it has even come to be a truth that the old, liberal Democratic party cannot win elections. First and foremost among those propounding this doctrine are members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which is dominated by Southerners and followers of fmr Pres Bill Clinton.

In this election, the main thing Sen Kerry tried to avoid was being labelled a "Massachusetts liberal," as well as not being sufficiently military and warlike. This attitude was promoted by the DLC, in hopes of appealing to the South. Yet, it should have been clear from the start that the South was not open to any sort of "liberal" message. (Note: Republicans and Southerners have used the "liberal" label as a hate-invoking word for decades. Somehow, it is OK for them to have hateful feelings toward liberals, but not OK for liberals to feel likewise in return. But, they've succeeded in my case, because now I revile conservatives.)

There is simply no way most white Southerners are going to vote for Democrats. LBJ was aware of that when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Democrats represent racial equality, which is not a Southern value. For that matter, a predominantly middle class society is not a Southern value, either.

I had a lot of arguments with Southern Democrats last year. As nearly as I can determine, I lost those arguments. My position was, and is, that Democrats could not win the South, so should simply abandon it at this time.  What was required was "to thyself be true," win or lose. In the end, Democrats rejected my advice,  tried to woo the South and lost the whole ball of wax.

Therefore, Democrats are faced with a seeming dilemma: give up their values - their ideology - or forget about the South. Should Democrats decide to rejoin the Left, the first thing they will need to do is tell the DLCers to go home - join the Republican Party. Democrats should purge their party and enforce a clear party line. I think, if they don't do that, they will soon be irrelevant.

Minor Keys

This election was set up for a Bush win as soon as Democrats rejected Gov Dean. It's not that Dean was the world's best candidate. But, as it developed, I think he would have done as well as Sen Kerry. At least, his was a straightforward opposition to the Iraq War. He did not denounce the public views of his youth, as did Sen Kerry.

The Democrats undermined themselves by not presenting things honestly, as they really see them. Their loss is reflected in today's polls, which indicate Bush was selected by voters on account of their "values." Those voters would never have voted for Kerry. They will vote for a Fascist dictator.

Time for an SDP

Right now is a really good time, at last, to start a real party of the left. That's why I left the Democratic party last Spring: I'm a democratic socialist, and always have been. I believe in the New Deal and the Welfare State. Now, I need to find others who believe as I do.

We need an American Social Democratic Party, a party of the left-center which is almost, but not quite Green.