Odyssey. Stifling, and Departure
The following is an essay on German politician Joschka Fischer, a man I admire and find as a kindred spirit in the march toward cosmopolitanism, or at least a unified Europe. The essay is quite long but marks the interesting odyssey of Fischer from young anarcho-marxist, engaging in acts of violence against the state, to pragmatic leftist statesman and central figure in Euro-federalism.
What is particularly interesting is the difference between German and American politics. In Germany an individual can develop politically, including even what some would consider wild miscalculations and acts of moral impropriety, and emerge as a figure in official political circles. In Germany parties can develop at any time provided that they are backed by ideas that people support.
In America one must be the institution their entire life.
We are currently saturated with John Kerry's youthful "indiscretions" such as suggesting that Vietnam may not have been such a noble cause or supporting internationalism, God forbid. John Kerry has been notably sucked of life since the man who appeared before Congress in the 70's(?) to testify at hearings on Vietnam. That was a man imbued with (at least the appearance of) spirit, personal integrity, ideas, and courage. Fortunately for his political prospects he has lost all those rather "unseemly" traits that the American public seems so averse to.
In America it is funny that we do not see any incoherence in having the 1st amendment of our Bill of Rights address the preservation of a diverse marketplace of ideas, and having our democratic process stifled by the institutional preservation of only two sets of ideas. At any given time those two sets are functionally limited further by such discursive notions as in the late 60's and 70's that to be "conservative" was to be wrong, or today that to be "liberal" is to be wrong (Note how the democratics are trying desperately to prove they are not liberal...).
When will America wake from its "dogmatic slumber" and realized it is being stifled? Will it take the eventual and impending loss of our global economic and moral superiority?
I get so frustrated and bored with American politics, I long for an arrangement like that of the European democracies where diversity of political ideas are encouraged rather than ridiculed. If we don't shape up then I am out, I will not serve out my time in a place so devoid of genuine political spirit!
Here is a quote I liked in particular:
"During the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Fischer met with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in Munich to discuss the evidence for invading Saddam’s Iraq. In a now famous exchange, Fischer, gesturing with his hand, nearly shouted at Rumsfeld in accented English, 'Excuse me, I am not convinced!' In German he continued, 'We owe our own democracy to America, but we have to be convinced.'"
What is this? How could anyone demand to believe the proposed foundation for a set of potential actions? This is certainly un-American! We believe what we are told and do not ask questions, at least not until we have "shocked and awed" with our military eroticism. Fortunately for Fischer he is not an American.
Then again, in retrospect Fischer was right, the intelligence was bad eventhough it was widely accepted. How is it that a political body could have more than one set of beliefs? Because they have more than two (one?) parties! Because they have the institutional framework to support more than a narrow set of ideas!
Anyway, here is the link, read it if you like http://bostonreview.net/BR29.3/hockenos.html.
What is particularly interesting is the difference between German and American politics. In Germany an individual can develop politically, including even what some would consider wild miscalculations and acts of moral impropriety, and emerge as a figure in official political circles. In Germany parties can develop at any time provided that they are backed by ideas that people support.
In America one must be the institution their entire life.
We are currently saturated with John Kerry's youthful "indiscretions" such as suggesting that Vietnam may not have been such a noble cause or supporting internationalism, God forbid. John Kerry has been notably sucked of life since the man who appeared before Congress in the 70's(?) to testify at hearings on Vietnam. That was a man imbued with (at least the appearance of) spirit, personal integrity, ideas, and courage. Fortunately for his political prospects he has lost all those rather "unseemly" traits that the American public seems so averse to.
In America it is funny that we do not see any incoherence in having the 1st amendment of our Bill of Rights address the preservation of a diverse marketplace of ideas, and having our democratic process stifled by the institutional preservation of only two sets of ideas. At any given time those two sets are functionally limited further by such discursive notions as in the late 60's and 70's that to be "conservative" was to be wrong, or today that to be "liberal" is to be wrong (Note how the democratics are trying desperately to prove they are not liberal...).
When will America wake from its "dogmatic slumber" and realized it is being stifled? Will it take the eventual and impending loss of our global economic and moral superiority?
I get so frustrated and bored with American politics, I long for an arrangement like that of the European democracies where diversity of political ideas are encouraged rather than ridiculed. If we don't shape up then I am out, I will not serve out my time in a place so devoid of genuine political spirit!
Here is a quote I liked in particular:
"During the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Fischer met with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in Munich to discuss the evidence for invading Saddam’s Iraq. In a now famous exchange, Fischer, gesturing with his hand, nearly shouted at Rumsfeld in accented English, 'Excuse me, I am not convinced!' In German he continued, 'We owe our own democracy to America, but we have to be convinced.'"
What is this? How could anyone demand to believe the proposed foundation for a set of potential actions? This is certainly un-American! We believe what we are told and do not ask questions, at least not until we have "shocked and awed" with our military eroticism. Fortunately for Fischer he is not an American.
Then again, in retrospect Fischer was right, the intelligence was bad eventhough it was widely accepted. How is it that a political body could have more than one set of beliefs? Because they have more than two (one?) parties! Because they have the institutional framework to support more than a narrow set of ideas!
Anyway, here is the link, read it if you like http://bostonreview.net/BR29.3/hockenos.html.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home