Good and evil

At Hullabaloo on February 25 (http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com ), Digby had a long post incorporating excerpts from a speech by Lincoln. Let me paraphrase:

Republicans are the party of resentment, they are the ideological descendants of the slave holding interests, and they are bent on converting the country to their views (just as Lincoln said the slavocrats would not rest until everyone acknowledged that slavery was good). Democrats, on the other hand, are the party of equality and moral progress and the ideological descendants of the Lincoln Republicans.

I have to admit that this was pretty provocative, and I tried hard to read it without being offended that my southern heritage was being conflated with right wing politics. I also decided to suspend my belief in the implausibility of the historical argument and read the post as comparing Lincoln's points about slavery with the inability of right wingers to tolerate dissent. Having rewritten the post in my imagination in this light, I find that there is much to agree with in the imaginary revised post.

Naturally, as a self professed anarchist, I do not see the political struggle in the US as Good versus Evil; rather, I see it as Evil versus Evil. This enables me to note the irony in Digby's post that he has, in the final analysis, done pretty much what he accuses the right wing of doing in that he characterizes the two sides in terms of good and evil, truth and falsity, resentment and hope. It seems to me that Digby (and his commentariat) are particpating in the public discourse feedback loop with the left accusing the right of being evil and/or stupid which feeds right wing resentment which makes the left think the right is getting even more evil and stupid and so on.

I suspect that the right wing (whenI speak of politics, I speak of the operatives and intelligentsia, not of the millions of duped voters) does not actually believe its own output and that it cynically pursues the consolidation of power. I am not so sure about the left, but I am equally unsure whether cynical powermongering is worse than sincere belief in a statist platform. Given that the two wings are almost indistinguishable ideologically, it probably does not matter. In any event, we can look forward to the downward spiral of public discourse, and this is probably due more to the lack of genuine substantive disagreement than to any other factor. Framing the struggle as a manichean battle of good and evil helps to obscure the lack of choice (as South Park viewers know, voting is always a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich). Digby seems to hold that the voters of each wing are themselves ideologically committed to their chosen wing; however, I think it is more likely that they have been conned by one of the parties into believing that their interests are served by the party of their choice. Of course, Digby seems to believe that there is a significant difference between the major parties.

I am ambivalent about the level of public discourse. It is hilariously entertaining yet deeply disturbing. The public is probably not equipped to appreciate anything better since half of us are of below average intelligence and most of the rest of us are just about average. For now, my hope is that anarchist and libertarian intellectuals will figure out a way to sloganeer their way into a position to influence politics.