Shakespeare Comes to America

ucarr

Wouldn’t you know it; America, a knock off from England, the mother country, currently finds herself immersed in a situation which can only be called, “living through interesting times.”

Our wisdom guide, the English bard, Shakespeare, has some bon mots to guide us forward through our political impasse: “Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ‘em.”

The Republicans, roughly speaking, America’s house of lords, represents conservation. The Democrats, roughly speaking, America’s house of commons, represents access (in this context, “access” equals “progress.”).

Conservation and access are the two tectonic plates of politics. Every right-minded and balanced person makes good use of both. We see, therefore, that both, being essential, neither can be permanently defeated. What we have is a yin-yang of never-ending creative conflict, and that makes the world go round.

At this time, the Democrats have an opportunity to bring about a deeply ironic change to the American state of being.

Since the Republicans are turning away from the vision of the Founding Fathers towards the ancient blood royal system of governance by divine rule of monarchs, and the Democrats are holding firm to the vision of the Founding Fathers who turned away from royal blood to individual freedom, the country is now experiencing a square dance do si do, with Democrats momentarily in the role of conservators and Republicans momentarily in the role of radicals.

No doubt, as in the square dance, the dancers will eventually return to their default positions. Republicans don’t sincerely wish to be destabilizing upstarts bent on permanently transforming America backwards in time, and Democrats don’t sincerely wish to be conservators constraining America to 18th century originalism.

The Democrats can press the reset button by elevating Kamala Harris into the role of Democratic presidential candidate. She possesses the depth of experience and brilliance of mind to advance the will of the people. As yet, she hasn’t shown any signs of greatness, but the American experiment in freedom stands perched at the abyss of disorder responsible for swallowing more than a few democratic republics.

So, per Shakespeare, Harris, being the one in position, stands ready to have greatness thrust upon her. I think we know her well enough to know she won’t refuse the call. Sometimes a nation must heed the call of history which stands above and beyond individual minds and their limited reach.

It’s uncanny how Shakespeare put the wisdom speech into the mouth of a woman, Maria, who wrote the bon mot in jest to Malvolio.

Harris is a woman of color. She will magnetize the female vote across party lines, likewise, the youth vote across party lines. It’s time to listen to a woman as she roars.

The Democrats, given their tectonic identity as the party of innovation, must own the credit for being the first American party to deliver a woman into the American oval office. They cannot afford to let the Republicans precede them in doing this.

“Once more, into the breach!”

Tom Storm

Or another interpretation, which I prefer, from Gore Vidal. It's decades old but still seems to resonate. Gore, incidentally, preferred the Greeks to Shakespeare.

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

Trump seems to add chaos, incompetence and a rough brand of populism to the Republican approach, which has its own consequences.

ucarr

↪Tom Storm

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

With some apprehension, I want to declare that in America, the sacred artifact is not the Holy Cross, but rather the loaded gun. Gadget-crazy materialism positions guns as serious and consequential adult toys that in their novelty and marvel waged a three-pronged conquest of natives, slaves and women.

The proliferation of nifty gadgets must not be diminished by avant-garde extremists bent on stopping the public fun. Gizmo-crazy citizens have marched right up to the boundary line where human flesh is more expendable than the weekend warrior's equipage.

In the wake of the extinction of the Eagle and the Bison, the avant-garde are appreciated (on the downlow) for their essential function, protecting endangered species with just enough efficiency to ensure that the semi-automatic weekend warrior doesn't run out of exhilarating targets.

apokrisis

Conservation and access are the two tectonic plates of politics. — ucarr

Who says this? Is this your framing or that of some source. The more usual polarities would be the four quadrants formed by the divides of liberal~conservative and economic~social. So for instance this snapshot of the US in 2016.

02619b0242979d22a503854e207cfc3a17-16-left-vs-right-chart-1.2x.w710.png

02619b0242979d22a503854e207cfc3a17-16-left-vs-right-chart-1.2x.w710.png

This data could be interpreted as a general opposition between those who prioritised personal free expression (as they ain't got the wealth) and those who prioritise the other thing of protecting their wealth (as they already can pay to do what they want).

That seems to lean into your phrasing? Capital is power and debt is slavery. Except all capital is now futurised debt in the current era.

the country is now experiencing a square dance do si do, with Democrats momentarily in the role of conservators and Republicans momentarily in the role of radicals. — ucarr

Or maybe there is a story in old wealth having the money to radicalise their own poor and young poor forcing big business over to their side as is just so obvious that 30 years of financially engineering a profit on the back of a depleting planet is not a good long-term plan?

Values aren't shifting so much as hardening. Both sides are beginning to show their desperation. The happy middleclass middle ground of debt-free boomer memory has vanished from underneath everyone's feet.

She possesses the depth of experience and brilliance of mind to advance the will of the people. — ucarr

Err ... evidence of this? Both sides are choosing bad leaders as they become opposing popularist camps and no longer a rational system of balancing the collective tensions of the social~economic system.

So, per Shakespeare, Harris, being the one in position, stands ready to have greatness thrust upon her. — ucarr

You are saying that despite the fact no one seemed to think she was any good when she was VP, maybe she will rise to the occasion as president? One would certainly hope so. And the US state apparatus may still not be broken to the degree it won't steer her right. The bureaucrats and techno-elite might be the ones who actually respond to having the greatness of the responsibility thrust on them? This will be the real test of the US as a political architecture.

Harris is a woman of color. She will magnetize the female vote across party lines, likewise, the youth vote across party lines. It’s time to listen to a woman as she roars. — ucarr

That is not a powerful argument in my book. It may indeed play out in the popular vote. But what the US needs more is something sustainable done about its wealth inequalities and environmental unsustainabilities. The deeply technical issues.

How much does a president actually run all that these days? But being able to articulate that path would be the inspiring start. Not gender or race.

If you just vote for those who look like you – white bread or suitably diverse – then that is how you continue to get what you already got. A country divided by populism rather than agenda.

Tom Storm

With some apprehension, I want to declare that in America, the sacred artifact is not the Holy Cross, but rather the loaded gun — ucarr

Could be true. I would probably say that the ultimate sacred artifact is money. Funneling it from where it needs to be to do good (infrastructure and community) and directing it to corporations and powerful individuals.

Tarskian

Since the Republicans are turning away from the vision of the Founding Fathers towards the ancient blood royal system of governance by divine rule of monarchs, and the Democrats are holding firm to the vision of the Founding Fathers who turned away from royal blood to individual freedom — ucarr

In my opinion, the Republicans remain firm supporters of the principle of rule by the mob, i.e. democracy. They are not "true" conservatives at all.

Since the mob is the primary victim of rule by the mob, and since I believe that everybody should get what they have asked for, I think that democracy should continue until it finally destroys itself.

I do not believe in bringing sanity to people who simply do not want it.

Just as much as the Democrats, the Republicans have listened to the mob, and they have happily enacted the mob's delusions into law. They are equally responsible for the ongoing mess. They have always been perfectly willing participants. They cannot just deny responsibility. Let them now own the resulting cesspool.

ucarr

↪apokrisis

Who says this? Is this your framing or that of some source. — apokrisis

This is my understanding of the liberal/conservative divide. The masses at the bottom of the liberal group are (socio-economically) developing individuals (instead of developing nations) who seek access to the resources and social networks that empower its votaries.

The left-wing of politics is mainly responsible for managing politically the rising living standard of poor immigrants who come to the United States for a better quality of life: chiefly that means opening the doors (and national borders) of privilege to the unwashed, aspiring rabble through quotas, scholarships and social welfare programs. Liberalism is about access.

The elites at the top of the right-wing of politics are mainly responsible for conserving-preserving that culture and those societies and institutions in which the highest human power and financial wealth are concentrated: chiefly that means standing guardian at the door of privilege and filtering out all but six percent or so of applicants to Ivy League Universities, maintaining Greek Letter societies of professional combines who, of late, have been conducting initiation rituals that literally beat to death aspirants deemed unworthy, and either deporting, incarcerating or assassinating folk hero rebels become too powerful.

Your chart of free expression vs. originalism regarding speech and cultural practice is informative: those without money are the silent majority, as under capitalism the only speech that counts is the voice of money changing hands.

That is not a powerful argument in my book. — apokrisis

I'm very curious about Harris' ability to pull conservative women voters over to the Democratic ticket. I think it might happen in significant numbers because I believe the gender identity is deeper than the political identity.

But what the US needs more is something sustainable done about its wealth inequalities and environmental unsustainabilities. The deeply technical issues. — apokrisis

If someone can systematize such reforms without immediately being castigated and neutralized as a socialist who wants to practice social engineering within a "free" country, I'm seriously interested.

If you just vote for those who look like you – white bread or suitably diverse – then that is how you continue to get what you already got. A country divided by populism rather than agenda. — apokrisis

Whatever mark of inferiority is stamped upon a segment of the population: race, gender, sexual persuasion etc., that segment needs to see one of its own up in power before it begins trusting in the national system as a whole.

ucarr

↪Tom Storm

I would probably say that the ultimate sacred object is money. — Tom Storm

Excellent point. I think the exercise of power often pairs money with guns to form a potent duet. Puppet despots can be bribed, but the quelling of a roiling mass of uprising peasants probably requires an army.

apokrisis

Whatever mark of inferiority is stamped upon a segment of the population: race, gender, sexual persuasion etc., that segment needs to see one of its own up in power before it begins trusting in the national system as a whole. — ucarr

But Trump? Sure he was poor white folk passing – women and men, immigrants and rural. And rich Christian conservatives enabling.

So he was both very much one their own to these constituencies. While being neither poor nor Christian.

The question is can the US look at Harris and see what it gets? I mean, if I was being asked, I'd vote anyone but Trump, so she qualifies already.

But why were so many folk dismissing her for being shallow and brittle before the fickle finger of fate had to make its hasty choice? Can't fate do a better job of picking out a worthy choice to thrust the power on. Does being in possession of Biden's campaign war chest when the music stopped count as a sufficiently Shakespearean-level script?

ucarr

↪Tarskian

Just as much as the Democrats, the Republicans have listened to the mob, and they have happily enacted the mob's delusions into law. — Tarskian

Yes. The game requires astute governance of the masses by elite bosses who contain and appease the public by acting through popular representatives who seem to be one with the common citizen.

The ruling class "listens" to the general public so long as they remain inside of their designated theater of action. The standing army is the guard rail that prevents everyman crossings into elite circles: Think of Ned Beatty's boardroom speech to Peter Finch in Network.

ucarr

↪apokrisis

Does being in possession of Biden's campaign war chest when the music stopped count as a sufficiently Shakespearean-level script? — apokrisis

No doubt some unexplainable luck factors into the mix regarding the phenomenal success of any particular individual. History features mediocrity elevated above its natural station as well as authentic genius neglected when not reviled.

But why were so many folk dismissing her for being shallow and brittle before the fickle finger of fate had to make its hasty choice? — apokrisis

Harris being sexy and transactional doesn't mean she can't also be brilliant and consequential.

I'll never fully understand the significance of Biden's choice of Harris as VP, nor will I ever completely fathom the meaning of it being coupled with the acute timing of his decline. What I see from this coupling is what Shakespeare wrote: "and some have greatness thrust upon them."

If you believe America's democratic republic is hanging on by a thread, then you might understand why my dream featuring Harris rising to the call of greatness is the most appealing fantasy for me to entertain seriously.

apokrisis

If you believe America's democratic republic is hanging on by a thread, then you might understand why my dream featuring Harris rising to the call of greatness is the most appealing fantasy for me to entertain seriously. — ucarr

Fair enough. But when Trump mounts his post-election coup, you might be waiting for some next hero to show up and save the day.

Or are you thinking Harris will have the balls and the Supreme Court seal force-level immunity to arrest Trump's ass and ship him off with the rest of gang to Guantanamo Bay? Act 2 of the drama? Act 3 to follow.

Tarskian

The ruling class "listens" to the general public so long as they remain inside of their designated theater of action. — ucarr

The best example of popular delusion is their demand to "tax the rich".

The core of the wealthy class are the ruling mafia themselves, along with the business people ("oligarchs") who are well connected to them.

In other words, the populace expects the ruling mafia to use their power to confiscate wealth from themselves and to distribute it to the common people.

On what planet is that ever going to happen?

Of course, the ruling mafia will still want to be seen doing something to that effect.

So, they identify the "kulaks", i.e. people who are moderately better off than the average and who do not have enough political connections to hang on to the moderate surplus they have.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak

Kulak, (Russian: “fist”), in Russian and Soviet history, a wealthy or prosperous peasant, generally characterized as one who owned a relatively large farm and several head of cattle and horses and who was financially capable of employing hired labour and leasing land.

At the end of 1929 a campaign to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” (“dekulakization”) was launched by the government.

The standing army is the guard rail that prevents everyman crossings into elite circles: — ucarr

Yes, exactly. In order to escape from the lower class, you first need to rise through the "kulak" class.

By popular demand, however, the ruling mafia will "liquidate" the kulaks.

By doing so, the ruling mafia is giving the populace exactly what they are asking for.

It is the populace itself that insist that there should be no way to escape poverty. Again, it is necessary to give the populace exactly what they ask for. That is why liquidation of the kulaks is a "democratic" duty.

Some people argue that the Soviets were not democratic. This is not true. The Soviets were the epitome of rule by the mob. The Soviets were the most democratic society in the history of mankind.

ucarr

↪apokrisis

...when Trump mounts his post-election coup, you might be waiting for some next hero to show up and save the day. — apokrisis

Depends on how many of the military personnel defect to join your supposed Trump-led insurrection. Without significant numbers from the bona fide military, I presume that weekend militia personnel will be no match for the pros.

ucarr

↪Tarskian

In order to escape from the lower class, you first need to rise through the "kulak" class. — Tarskian

There is a sub-clause to this structure of upward mobility that complicates it somewhat. Tokenism. A few showcase individuals who work their way up from rags to riches will always be glad-handed by oligarchs eager to cite them as evidence "the system works," and thus no need for a revolution. Play by the rules, work hard and you just might create room for yourself at the top.

By popular demand, however, the ruling mafia will "liquidate" the kulaks. — Tarskian

Again, the ruling class will first try to co-opt the hard charging up-and-comers.

NOS4A2

↪ucarr

Identity politics isn’t progress; it’s a reversion to a time when identity mattered more than thoughts, actions, and behavior. It harkens back to the time when the long-discredited notion of race was still in use, used as it was to maintain a sort of mental apartheid or segregation in order to justify real one.

Contrary to the narrative, it was Biden’s DOJ who acted like King, creating out of thin air an office with which to investigate his political opponents, like the kings of old. One can read Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion on the matter to see how this is so.

ucarr

↪NOS4A2

Identity politics isn’t progress; it’s a reversion to a time when identity mattered more than thoughts, actions, and behavior. — NOS4A2

Who says Christian family values aren't identity politics?

Contrary to the narrative, it was Biden’s DOJ who acted like King, creating out of thin air an office with which to investigate his political opponents, like the kings of old. — NOS4A2

The Office of the Special Counsel is bi-partisan and independent.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. OSC’s basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). — The White House

NOS4A2

↪ucarr

Who says Christian family values aren't identity politics?

I'm not sure. But we don't champion people because of their race and gender, and for the same reason we don't disparage them on the same grounds.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor is bi-partisan and independent.

Unlike kings, the president cannot create an office. Offices are "established by law", or "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers". (US Constituion Art. II, §2, cl. 2.)

Fire Ologist

There is no way to debate politics anymore.

It’s all slogans and talking points.

Soaked in hyperbole and metaphor.

“The most consequential election of our lifetime, with democracy itself hanging in the balance!” (Crowd cheers.) Just like the last election and the three before that.

It’s all fabricating the right anecdote or statistic to yell louder about “we” and “they”.

The only agreement on both sides is that we all have hate for the other side.

And all the division is repackaged by the media for our consumption and purchase, as we feed only on ourselves, shooting ourselves in the foot by playing along.

And I don’t blame the politicians - who would want that job.

It’s us, dividing against our neighbors and friends, unwilling to think skeptically about our own opinions, or treat opposing views with any good will.

So much bullshit, like a finely layered onion pulled out of the latest candidate’s ass.

Everything I just wrote above has been said before just as well. Probably around 1776.

Tom Storm

Who says Christian family values aren't identity politics? — ucarr

Of course. And a significant identity politics in the US now is white Christian nationalism. To a detached observer, Trump seems a very astute proponent and beneficiary of this identity politics.

ucarr

↪Fire Ologist

“The most consequential election of our lifetime, with democracy itself hanging in the balance!” (Crowd cheers.) Just like the last election and the three before that. — Fire Ologist

Sound judgments about authenticity are tough calls to make during stormy times. Dug-in opponents succumbed to rage harden themselves against calls for unity. Even so, five-alarm fires are sometimes real and not rhetorical.

During the Anschluss, sardonic wits made wry commentary about false alarms distressing Europeans needlessly. There's scarcely anything more forlorn than human targets for extinction waking up after a safe exodus has been shut down.

It’s us, dividing against our neighbors and friends, unwilling to think skeptically about our own opinions, or treat opposing views with any good will. — Fire Ologist

You speak of one of philosophy's indisputable merits: the dialectic. Bravo! Keep on refuting me.

ucarr

↪Tom Storm

To a detached observer, Trump seems a very astute proponent and beneficiary of this identity politics. — Tom Storm

Preternatural mastery of gaslighting: massaging the Supreme Court into giving you cover for the insurrection that wasn't an insurrection.

"Now ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look straight up. Do you see that? You think what you see is blue, don't you? No, no. It's not blue, it's green."

ucarr

↪NOS4A2

...the president cannot create an office. Offices are "established by law", or "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers — NOS4A2

Yes. If the president wants an official investigated, the investigation must be run through either the Congress or the Attorney General.

Fire Ologist

Bravo! Keep on refuting me. — ucarr

I didn’t think I was taking any sides, or trying to refute anything. Didn’t mean it that way anyway.

"Now ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look straight up. Do you see that? You think what you see is blue, don't you? No, no. It's not blue, it's green." — ucarr

One of our problems is, that could be a quote from any candidate on every side.

Wish more people saw that.

Shadows of puppets for all of us political activists.

And we like it that way.

The republicans are told the democrats are a threat to democracy, and the democrats are told the republicans are the threat.

There is a threat to democracy, but it is division itself. WE are the threat, and how we treat each other.

In the meantime, speeches and finger pointing inspire votes, and power is pooled, and goes to our representatives in government. Our representatives. Duly elected to represent some faction and keep us divided because that’s the only way to win elections.

There needs to be more goodwill. Just as a baseline for conversation.

Simple maturity, that gives respect regardless of whether it is earned.

No one has all the answers. We need each other as much if not more than we need our government. We need a better attitude towards those we disagree with. First. Or the platitudes and exaggerated emotions will fuel the same old pleasures we take when we divide ourselves, when we belong to a group, the best people on earth group, to feel better about “our side.”

“At least I’m not a stupid, evil [check your party affiliation and insert highest polling sub-human identity type].”

Bylaw

Since the Republicans are turning away from the vision of the Founding Fathers towards the ancient blood royal system of governance by divine rule of monarchs, and the Democrats are holding firm to the vision of the Founding Fathers who turned away from royal blood to individual freedom, the country is now experiencing a square dance do si do, with Democrats momentarily in the role of conservators and Republicans momentarily in the role of radicals — ucarr

We have the illusion of two positions and tendencies and point taken we now have the illusion of role-switching. But behind this we have incredibly wealthy people in both 'houses' and Trump like Obama who he criticized for doing it, brought in Goldman Sach's et al, the moment he was in office last time. Even then Trump was saying he was in the opposite role, but did precisely what both sides have long done, which is to increase the power of the banks and financial sector and weaken the power citiizens have over both government and corporations.

The founders, for example, were wary of both corporate and government power. Try to find someone in either group, dems or reps, who is open to revoking corporate charters. They've long forgotten the founders' wariness of the ______________India companies. That just one example amongst many.

We have tag team politics - good cop, bad cop - and the assessment of which is the bad cop and which the good varies amongst the voters, but essentially it's all tactics.

Fire Ologist

We have tag team politics - good cop, bad cop - and the assessment of which is the bad cop and which the good varies amongst the voters, but essentially it's all tactics. — Bylaw

Totally agree. Because the only way our politicians know how to win an election is to divide the people into those for one and against the other.

ucarr

↪Fire Ologist

There is a threat to democracy, but it is division itself. WE are the threat, and how we treat each other. — Fire Ologist

There needs to be more goodwill. Just as a baseline for conversation.

Simple maturity, that gives respect regardless of whether it is earned. — Fire Ologist

A strong institution with generally accepted moral authority that establishes the moral compass is what humanity has been losing since the Enlightenment.

After the rationalism of materialist science started pushing back against the church, the objectivity of the church-sponsored moral compass started losing its power.

Apparently, it's no good turning to the scientist or atheist philosopher for moral direction. The power of reason is too flimsy for checking the onslaughts of emotional storms. The general public will not learn to read sentential logic. Those who can read it will not always obey it.

ucarr

↪Fire Ologist

"Now ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look straight up. Do you see that? You think what you see is blue, don't you? No, no. It's not blue, it's green." — ucarr

One of our problems is, that could be a quote from any candidate on every side. — Fire Ologist

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place?

wonderer1

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place? — ucarr

An understanding that we have an evolved social primate nature rather than a mythological fallen nature. Though perhaps it's not a widespread understanding, due to the human propensity to cling to simplistic comforting myths.

Fire Ologist

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place? — ucarr

The way I see it, humanity evolved to remove itself from nature, so now the weak sometimes proliferate, and the strong are kept down, the mutation is ostracized, and evolutionary forces are frustrated. That’s humanity.

Not long ago (maybe 8,000 years ago plus) looking beyond nature for guidance, we turned to our God.

More recently, maybe 2,000 years ago plus culminating in the enlightenment, finding that God was illusion, we have replaced faith in God with faith in humanity.

But humanity got us into the trouble with evolution in the first place. So we are rudderless, either having faith in humanity anyway, or simply accepting we are a mess and likely going to stay that was for a long time to come.

And like I said, we currently prefer feeding the mess and creating extra strife in order to organize our governance. Which is why I offered simple acceptance of the mess as the way of our human world.

Faith hasn’t been obliterated by materialist science. Faith remains necessary to set any goals. God as goal has been refuted by science, but replaced with humanity’s self-assessment of “human progress” as goal.

ucarr

↪wonderer1

An understanding that we have an evolved social primate nature rather than a mythological fallen nature. — wonderer1

Are you proposing sociology as a replacement for the moral authority of church and bible?

Shakespeare Comes to America

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions