Politics

anthropology article on magical thinking + punditry around Obama


debates
abortion
pot
immigration (sym.int. article on AP using term "illegals")
http://www.latinorebels.com/2013/04/02/associated-press-drops-use-of-illegal-immigrants-or-illegals-when-describing-people/
gun control

Politics – history

(for possible debate fodder  - article about sociological brief obliterating the idea that same-sex parents are bad for kids)

institution that distributes power, sets society's agenda, makes decisions.

Power is the ability to achieve ends despite resistance. Governments are a major excerciser of power, and they are formal organizations that direct the political life of a society.

Society's organization depends on agreeing on ends and means.

Authority is power that people perceive as legit rather than coercive.

Traiditional authority is from respect of cultural heritage and history. It declines with industrialization.

Rational-legal authority is legitimized by legal rules and regulations, that are supposed to make sense.

Charismatic authority is legitimized by awesomeness, but it is unstable, so to continue on it must be routinized, or transformed into a more stable form.

There are many political systems, but 4 of the most common are:

monarchy (family, traditional authority)

democracy (usually democratic republics)

we are not TRULY democratic because of unelected bureaucrats & the power of $$$

authoritarianism (no popular participation)

totalitarianism (extensive regulation – total institution?)

is there a global political system emerging? Multinational corporations have power and authority too. Information technology connects people like never before.

USA politics

cultural emphasis on individualism, capitalism, emphasized small, non-intrusive govt. But in the past 50-60 years, expanded into Welfare State with social programs to benefit the population.

Political spectrum(s) – economic and social issues (p.357)

left----socialists---progressives----democrats---moderates---repubs----reactionaries----libertarians----right

past 100 years? check out this animated map.

special interest groups are loose networks that use lobbyists to influence politicians' decisions

PACs are organizations formed by special interest groups to pursue a specific goal by raising and spending money

HOW DO POLITICS AND ECONOMICS INTERTWINE IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA?
There is growing polarizaiton (cite?)
which leads to increasingly competitive races...
combined with Citizens United and the recent legal changes to PACs and SuperPACs allowing unlimited donations (cite)...
and combined with the increased inequality triggered by the recent Recession...
leads to what this article explains... the growing need for campaign cash combined with growing inequality that has concentrated more wealth in the hands of fewer citizens.  
"Electoral campaigns are extraordinarily expensive, and they have become considerably more so over time. The “professionalization” of political campaigns, with their increased focus on paid advertising and sophisticated targeting operations, has increased the value of money relative to other resources (like the ability to mobilize large numbers of volunteers). The growing need for campaign cash has combined with a growing economic inequality that has concentrated more of the country’s wealth in the hands of fewer of its citizens. Together these developments threaten to produce a vicious cycle in which affluent Americans shape policy in ways that enhance their existing advantages and further their ability to determine the course of government policymaking."
This threatens to create a vicious cycle in which affluent Americans shape policy in ways that entrench their status and enhance their existing advantages and further their ability to determine the course of legislation and policy-making (in ways that further their own interests).  As less wealthy Americans struggle to get by on less and less, they no longer have disposable income to donate to political campaigns that reflect THEIR intersts...

another way they intertwine: budgets bring fiscal and social issues together (video on the debt ceiling).

political apathy – conservatives call it indifference, liberals call it alienation

but US has lowest voter turnout among rich countries.

Who votes? Women, elderly, wealthy, non-hispanic whites

What about the VOTER ID bill being discussed right now? (April, 2011)

You have to get a special ID card, to prevent fraud?   How much fraud is there?

Who will this disenfranchise?

Apartment movers / college kids, elderly/disabled, poor, rural (far away)

Are you disenfranchised if fraudulent votes are cast? How much makes it worthwhile?

THEORY

pluralism – power is dispersed through many competing groups. Decisions are negotiated.

Power-elite – social conflict views only the rich as having much power.

Marxist political economy – money is power.

Revolution!

Sometimes there is a radical break with normalcy, and a system is overthrown.

1. rising expectations, 2. unresponsive govt., 3. radical intellectual leadership, 4. establishing a new legitimacy. (see the movie about Cuba)(look at Arab Spring 2011?)

terrorism – violence or threats used as a political strategy. A matter of definition.

WAR is organized, armed conflict among two or more nations/governments.

Factors

1. perceived threats
2. social problems
3. political objectives
4. moral spin
5. absence of alternatives

class and military – no draft any more, we have a volunteer military. But not all kinds of people are equally likely to volunteer – few rich and few poor, mostly working class.

Most people are happy there's no draft.  What if there was one?  Would we be as likely to go to war?

Costs and causes –
list of causes
putting yourself into the Middle East's shoes...?

costs: how many countries spend at least as much as the US?
how many half as much?
a quarter as much?
in fact our next closest competitor, China, spends less than a quarter.
We spend nearly as much as the rest of the world, combined.

Military Industrial Complex

close association between govt, military, and defense contractors.
from MercenaryZoop in reddit

For context: generally the international community was okay with the US going into Afghanistan. It was and still is a troubled poor region with a weak government. We also had fairly solid evidence of threats living in the region. Hard to say no to anyone wanting to help that situation... (albeit the US tends to like to help via bombs and drones... sigh)

Iraq was a very different situation. While Saddam was mighty horrible, without a doubt (look up his sons, and the death squads), Iraq was also relatively stable all things considering. The various factions were not outwardly fighting, the economy was stable, etc. It was a delicate balance. Although most countries agreed that the Saddam regime was mighty bad, many were not willing to stir up the bees nest to get rid of the regime.

Then we know the rest: America being America, brought the elephant to the China shop. We cared less about the advice the international community had. America had an agenda to accomplish. To this day, we aren't entirely sure what it really was. Money? Power? Greed of individual politicians?

I would bet the latter. As most of us know, our politics are hugely impacted by money. Plenty of our politicians have connections to the infamous "military industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned the world about in his exit speech as president. It's pretty straight forward: the military industrial complex isn't going to make nearly as much money if we're not at war. With 9/11, we had the perfect excuse to go rampaging around.

Since I have gone this far, I'd like to comment on how I think we got here. In World War II, the US contracted out car factories and the like to start building war materials, because we needed to "catch up" in war production since we joined late and were not eager to join at all. Nothing "evil" there.

After World War II finished, several of those contracted companies lost their contracts. There was no longer a huge need for tanks and other materials. Of course, the companies didn't want to go back to building cars or whatever they were building before... it's tougher. They need to build better consumer products, compete with others, etc. It's a whole lot "easier" to just have a guaranteed government contract.

Then Korea happened. "Great," those military producers thought. The good ol' days were back.

Then Vietnam happened. Yet again, yay for easy government money. It can be debated whether or not we went to war for additional factors beyond what we were taught in school: fear of Communism.

The Cold War satisfied many who relied on government military contracts. We were producing a huge amount of equipment, even without an official war. In fact, the Cold War is the best of both worlds: there is no need for a real war, but you still develop as if you are at war.

Then Saddam was stupid enough to invade Kuwait. As much as we tend to hate upon the Bushes around here, the first Bush did not seem eager to have a "real war" meaning prolonged. He worked with the UN, and the UN agreed gasp!. An international force went in, kicked Saddam's forces out (granted most of them ran for the hills once they knew we were coming), and then we went home too. Exactly what "police action" should be: get in, save the innocent, get out. Our goal wasn't regime change, or anything grand and huge. Like all plans, precise goals are important. They're easier to accomplish and are less likely to blow up in your face.

Then we get to 9/11. The US had been half-way peaceful (at least not officially at war anyway) for about a decade. There was no huge need for military equipment, and those who relied on military contracts were getting itchy. Their goal is profit, like every company, and war nearly guaranteed large profit margins. Thus... guess what they pushed for when given the opportunity... a nice long war.

In fact, let's compare the Cold War to our current war on terror.

• Enemy we cannot beat. Check. (Since we weren't actively at war with the Soviets, it was hard to imagine "winning" that. Terrorists, well, anyone can be a terrorist. In fact, I have probably been declared a terrorist because of this comment. Hi NSA!)
• Excuse to build military equipment. Check.
• A cause the civilians can get behind. Check. (Red scare versus fear of terrorism.)

From someone profiting from war, it's perfection. The US can be at war nearly indefinitely, thus securing those much beloved military contracts. Even better yet, since terror can happen anywhere, we can also arm police with military equipment, thus needing even MORE military contracts!

And there you have it. It's not that "America is evil," or that there is some kind of huge group of "bad guys" doing these horrible acts. In fact, I bet most of the people in charge of this mess have families and nice children. This whole situation evolved slowly, naturally. That's why so few people see it. It's not any one person's fault, or any one particular organization's fault, it's our inability to see the problem and willingness to solve it.

Here's something I learned the other day, and it's terribly true from what I can see: given any society, and a strong belief in one particular measure of success, they will eventually become ruthlessly efficient at achieving that measure of success. In terms of human psychology: we desire what gives us the most positive reinforcement, and we're willing to work hard to achieve it, oftentimes with disregard to anything else (whole another debate about human psychology causing problems).

For the United States, and less broadly the world: it's money. Money drives everything we do. Money is how we gauge success, from a societal level to an individual level.

Media – has power to spin wars, propaganda