I've thought something roughly like that before about the stock market, that the small investors don't grasp what the company officers and boards are doing to them, and of course at times that becomes clear in the news, when someone plays too far out of bounds, as Kreizer says.

And traditional left parties have tried to warn the people of something like this forever, although perhaps not in such a catchy way. One problem has been that a lot of people seem to want to be deceived, want to go on thinking that they might be the exception, that they might really become players.

And when - every time! - the workers figure out how they've been suckered, they cut off a bunch of heads. The players are always playing with fire; always betting that they're not in that doomed generation.

quote:

---

And the answer, at least one of the answers, is this: they can't see that they're not players. They can't see because the game is all about making them believe that they are players, and because the real players have gotten very good at the game. Finally, they can't see because it would be almost too sad to bear if they could.

---

Precisely. This is why the game may be truly over in the USA. Even if you get through to these people they will hate you for proving that they have been suckered. They'd rather continue living in the illusion than to admit they have been had.

There's another side to the coin here that may or may not be covered in the article. The whole idea of "the American Dream (tm)," which is part of what I call "The Cult of America." People HAVE to buy into this in order to stay sane in our culture. It is very much a cultlike phenomenon that comes with its own symbols, mythology, stories, codes of conduct, belief system, etc. It's predicated on the greatest lie - that is you swear your allegiance to the Cult of America, you are by extension, as great as America is and you will be rewarded, if only by that.

I covered this is an column I wrote for rabble last year. Hitler once said something to the effect that the lowliest street sweeper in the Reich must feel himself above a king in a foreign state. That is exactly the mechanism behind the Cult of America.

Many Americans who call themselves Christians will not admit that the notions of their particular form of Christianity and the Cult of American nationalism have merged. Now that I work in the religion section of the bookstore, I read quite a bit of the books put out of the religious right that merge the commandment to be patriotic with the commandment to be an obedient Christian.

In this way, they can anoint George W. Bush as the talisman of this great movement and also justify the war in Iraq or any other war he chooses to start. Its really quite an eye opening experience to read the religious and biblical (complete with the requisite bible cites) that justify blind obedience to American nationalism.

In this way and many others, the religious right in America behaves in cult like fashion when they talk about political will and destiny. I don't know if Keizer goes there (I guess I'll have to shell out the $5 to buy Harpers) but you ignore it at your peril. You can only move an American so far with a simple patriotic appeal. But merge that with a messianic, apocalyptic religious fervor and you've harnessed some real destructive zealotry.

I doubt whether many people here have grasped this merger. Most people I think, still believe there is a line of demarcation between religion and politics in American life. To many, there is, but to many others there isn't.

If we go back to Keizer's Uncle Teddy, the player analogy works here as well. There is a cache around the whole public Christian conservative movement that accentuates wealth, health and good looks. Again, study the books and literature. What I see is that all of the major Christian conservative media figures (including authors) all . . . well, spookily look similar. Preternatural smiles with flawless teeth, giant glittering Nashville homes, flawless hair and clothes, and a completely convincing and determined air about them. They radiate "winner" which is extremely important in American culture and this is why they draw so many working class (or poor) whites to their side. They are also "players" in every sense.

Of course their actual religious lives may be 100 miles wide and one inch deep, just like George W. Bush's but that's almost beside the point nowadays. Appearances are everything and lip service to Christian principles is good enough. Look at William "Double Down" Bennett - did all that high stakes gambling hurt him with this crowd ("I tell you it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. . .")? No. He's still trotted out for comment as well.

Again, one has to ask what is a progressive to do in this case?

If you tell them the truth about themselves, they'll hate you for it and plunge deeper into denial. If you try to sugar coat it, either they won't get it or interpret your mealy mouth appeals as a sign of weakness next to the crisp, decisive rhetoric of the other side.

In the end, will they see the light once they are totally stripped of their goods and powerless?

Keizer writes:

quote:

---

Not to put too fine a point on it, change will not come from deciding which former member of Skull and Bones will get to drape the coffin of American labor with the Stars and Stripes. Change will come only when people who work, who love to work, whose conception of the world is of a work in progress, come to realize they have no choice but to fight.

---

I would have to ask what he means by "fight?" Does he mean an armed uprising of the proletariat? Hard to image that in America and in every other instance where that has happened in this country it has been brutally crushed. Is he talking about fighting through politics? That avenue is also closed by the "players" who have complete control of the system.

You cannot ignore decades and generations of social conditioning of which religion has played a role as well. The American people have been conditioned to believe that whatever lot they have is one they deserve, obedience to authority is mandated by God, and that all forms of collectivism destroy the human spirit and are evil.

I try hard not to be a pessimist but its difficult. Keizer nails a lot correctly in the part of the essay that are in the blog but I guess we part company over any real belief that the American people will rise from their ignorant slumber and put things right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
You cannot ignore decades and generations of social conditioning of which religion has played a role as well. The American people have been conditioned to believe that whatever lot they have is one they deserve, obedience to authority is mandated by God, and that all forms of collectivism destroy the human spirit and are evil.

---

I apologize for Godwining (or is it Godwhining ? ) but I was struck by the similarity of the above statement to something I just read in Octavio Rodríguez Araujo's interesting book "Derechas y Ultraderechas en el Mundo" (Siglo XXI Editores, 2004). Speaking of the rise of fascism in Italy, he writes (my translation):

quote:

---

pp. 167-168
Based on the [First World War], Benito Mussolini's interpretation was that in his country the nationalist sentiment was a political and ideological force with more potential than that implicit in the class struggle and the socialist aspirations... [what is important here is] the fact that fascism was born as a movement just as nationalist as it was anticommunist, which gave it support in many countries, including Great Britain and the United States, and obviously from the large Italian capitalists. The principles of the class struggle, in his interpretation, promoted the division of society, and this division impeded the unity of the nation, its growth and its prosperity. One of the spokespeople of fascism, and in his time the principal theorist, Alfredo Rocco, made a very clear synthesis of his view of the fascist power at the time (1925). Fascism, said Rocco, has had a historical virtue: "reestablish the equilibrium between the classes, putting itself between the classes in the form of a referee and moderator, by way of impeding that one of the classes win over the other, and also impeding the weakening of the State, and also the servitude and misery of the citizens caused by the fight between one class and the other..."

From there, the glorification of the State, given that the State was the representative of the unity of the people under the State, was like a guarantee of unity, of a united nation, of the possibility of a nation in front of other nations. The fascist ideal was the absolute unity, but under the State, which is to say under the leader: the leader who both guaranteed unity (with the State) and gave direction (with the government) to make the nation great.

---

Incidentally, I like the article (my university library has full-text acess so I read it), but it bugs me in one way. Speaking as a lazy guy, can I be on the "worker" side without actually liking to work? I'm not a "player"--I like my play to be the real thing, play, with limited consequences, a good time had by all and so forth. The version of "play" the article discusses is more like "the quest to make any given interaction involve a winner and a loser, and then to win it". I am so totally not into that.
But I'm not really into working either. If I lived on a technologically advanced planet with a small population where all the grunt-work was handled by robots and people all lived in elegant leisure, I'd genuinely enjoy it more than practically anyone I know. Where do I fit?

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Most can indeed believe their leaders would lie.
But they can't, or refuse to bother to, figure out whether some lie more than others. The typical reaction to discovering that politicians lie is to decide that all of them must lie equally and so the whole thing is futile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by white rabbit:
Most politicians ARE first and foremost motivated by self-interest. Are you suggesting that left-leaning politicians are less inclined to be corrupt Rici? I believe most of them voted in favour of giving themselves a raise the last time a vote was held in parliament.

---

I don't understand what's with this babble habit of replacing debate with putting words in someone else's mouth. Where did you see me say that?

Since you ask (sort of), I happen to believe that the Canadian politicians I've met (more of which happened to be left-leaning than right-leaning, but I'm not distinguishing here) seemed to me to be well-motivated people who were honestly trying to do their best for their country. Whether or not I agree with their analysis (and often I didn't), I don't doubt their motives. There are exceptions, but I feel no need to name them.

On the other hand, I think that George Bush is a serial liar, and that Tony Blair ought to apologize for his porkies, too. And I'm glad to say that I've met many Americans and many Brits who are honestly shocked by this.

If we stop being outraged at lies, then we've lost it all together.

First Bush Jr administration, I thought the same thing about what was being done in their name IN AMERICA...but by now I've realised they do know, if they want to know. Heck, most of the information I get is from American sources.

Nothing in the past has ever been changed, except by desperate people with nothing to lose, or by optimistic people who saw a fresh beginning.
I don't see a fresh beginning.

You won't destroy the system that destroys you, until you give up hope of reforming it.

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonsuch:
Nothing in the past has ever been changed, except by desperate people with nothing to lose. . .

---

That's the key. As long as most Americans are personally comfortable, there will be no changes. Its what I call the Grand Tradeoff. You accept all this shit done in your name and you can continue to play with your toys unmolested. Start meddling where your opnion is not wanted and things start happening - to your tax returns, your job, you ability to fly, little things at first but things that hurt your ability to enjoy "The American Dream" (tm).

If you're Cindy Sheehan or someone too famous to screw with like that, they'll ruin your reputation in the media with all kinds of slander. But notice Sheehan again - there's a certain kind of bravery that works. She feels she has nothing to lose here, so they can't hurt her through conventional means. All they can keep doing is try to marginalize her effectiveness as best they can.

As for her public arrest and escorting out of the state of the union address - that would be enough to silence most people. Not her.

Now if the economy really craters ala 1929 and the formerly fat and happy (and well armed) middle class starts seeing their kids go hungry or start freezing when oil and natural gas gets too scarce and expensive. . .

They might demand that our government seize those assets from other countries by whatever means possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:

That's the key. As long as most Americans are personally comfortable, there will be no changes. Its what I call the Grand Tradeoff. You accept all this shit done in your name and you can continue to play with your toys unmolested. Start meddling where your opnion is not wanted and things start happening - to your tax returns, your job, you ability to fly, little things at first but things that hurt your ability to enjoy "The American Dream" (tm).

---

quote:

---

They might demand that our government seize those assets from other countries by whatever means possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
.......................

That's Bush's problem; he hasn't cared for the little people. He could have gotton away with all of his stunts if he was taking care of the little people, as other Presidents have done, but Bush is unabashedly stealing from them. Big mistake. Bush won't be brought down because of his lies, or wars, or thefts, or destruction of the Constitution, but because he failed the little people.

---

Two problems with that; the "little people" are disproportionally Diebolded, their votes not counted. If the poor and disenfranchised actually take to the streets, there is hope but a political solution seems unlikely.

Second, many of the "little people" seem to have embraced the Bush religion wholeheartedly, regardless of the fact that Bush ain't embracing reciprocally. This little tidbit, noted by the blogger made me jump out of my seat when I read it in Harper's:

quote:

---

Keizer has some interesting observations on Bush's relationship to religion and the religious, including the cheezy little detail that the Christian Booksellers Association has posters "of George W. Bush in the robes of the prophet, perhaps those of Jesus himself, healing the wounds of the nation." But Bush as Messiah is also, Keizer says, "prophetic." What is happening is inevitable, a serious battle, a playing out of history -- and I've agreed with him on this for years, through all the blog conversations about how to get rid of Bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Two problems with that; the "little people" are disproportionally Diebolded, their votes not counted. If the poor and disenfranchised actually take to the streets, there is hope but a political solution seems unlikely.

Second, many of the "little people" seem to have embraced the Bush religion wholeheartedly, regardless of the fact that Bush ain't embracing reciprocally.

---

On the surface, I think you are right. In the long run, I think I am. Only time will tell.

The little people don't create revolutions; they supply the fodder. Misery sets the stage for opportunists (of whatever variety) to move in and take over. The lesson is simple: take care of the little people so that the opportunists won't have misery to take advantage of.

I don't expect many people to take to the streets in the US. Not yet. Things aren't bad enough yet. However, the Bushies are rapidly losing their support. Katrina probably did more than anything else in that respect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:

The little people don't create revolutions; they supply the fodder. Misery sets the stage for opportunists (of whatever variety) to move in and take over. The lesson is simple: take care of the little people so that the opportunists won't have misery to take advantage of.

... Katrina probably did more than anything else in that respect.

---

Time will tell, most assuredly.

It's funny, when I was typing my response to you, Katrina kept thumping into the back of my brain. America, like everywhere else, is full of good people. It is certain that the pictures that emerged from New Orleans shocked many of them, as well as reverberating around the world.

A new poll today, seems to suggest that Bush's inability/unwillingness to help the poor during Katrina is playing poorly across the nation.

quote:

---

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.
CBS poll

---

quote:

---

Speaking as a lazy guy, can I be on the "worker" side without actually liking to work? I'm not a "player"--I like my play to be the real thing, play, with limited consequences, a good time had by all and so forth. The version of "play" the article discusses is more like "the quest to make any given interaction involve a winner and a loser, and then to win it". I am so totally not into that.
But I'm not really into working either. If I lived on a technologically advanced planet with a small population where all the grunt-work was handled by robots and people all lived in elegant leisure, I'd genuinely enjoy it more than practically anyone I know. Where do I fit?

---

You're still the worker, but our associations with the word "work" confuse the issue, as they are predicated on the notion that there is an awful lot of stuff to do that nobody likes to do. We often hate "work", because we feel we are being taken for a ride. Cleaning someone else's toilets while they relax in the sun, or doing tasks that are perfectly meaningless outside the context of serving the elite. I think truely necessary jobs, like garbage collection, are not intolerable in of themselves. Rather it is the lack of respect, compensation, and equality that is associated with them that makes them intolerable. I think people are naturally inclined to be busy, in one way or another, but if people's efforts are not valued appropriately, then we see the tendency to opt out altogether through sloth. It's something of a societal disfunction.

If we think of work as simply effort expended towards a goal, like in physics, then work and play are not distinguishable. The true difference, as you say, is that the player only wants to conquer and enslave others and is unlikely to have any interest in an activity that doesn't offer that, whereas the worker does what needs to be done for that reason alone. Can we ever say that nothing needs to be done, no matter how many robots there are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Incidentally, I like the article (my university library has full-text acess so I read it), but it bugs me in one way. Speaking as a lazy guy, can I be on the "worker" side without actually liking to work? I'm not a "player"--I like my play to be the real thing, play, with limited consequences, a good time had by all and so forth. The version of "play" the article discusses is more like "the quest to make any given interaction involve a winner and a loser, and then to win it". I am so totally not into that.

---

Your interpretation of the article's definition is pretty much the same as mine. I think the fact that we're being "taught" (the "we" here is the national, or perhaps even worldwide "we") that the way to get ahead is to game the system, to search for any and all shortcuts no matter how unethical, improper or just downright wrong they are, is a very dangerous and self-destructive thing. It's the way, ultimately, to the breakdown of the social contract as each person comes to believe, more and more, that looking out for oneself to the complete exclusion of any remnant of benevolence towards others is the way to go.

For all that the conservative right likes to trumpet the value of hard work and industriousness they seem to have a very singular contempt for them and for the people who embody those virtues.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]