open Democracy News Analysis - Kerry in Iowa, - Comments

ronr327 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ronr327 — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:07:37 +0000

Baardbl, As I stated in my initial reply to ursa9 on this question, to propose that material concerns, material possibilities, are, at times, determinative offers no real insight into human history; it is merely obvious. Therefore, doing so need not be understood as subscribing to Marx. It is a (curious?) reality that any nod in the direction of material causes in regard to “understanding history” gets sucked immediately into the whole of the Marxist miasma. It is a testimony, I suppose, to the fact the Marxism has been so consequential and impactful a presence in the history which followed after him. My problem with Marx, as I also indicated above, is that I see his insight as partial, and that he elevated this partial insight into a philosophical scheme “explaining” all of human history. Apart from the historical weight of experience associated with Marx, it appears to be a fact that “the theory” exerts a gravitational pull on intellectuals, and thereby on intellectual discourse. As a scientist, I can understand the attractions of some theory which brings together seemingly disparate information to form a coherent picture. That is what science attempts to do. And human beings, scientists or not, take pleasure in “solving” puzzles. As a scientist, however, I also am aware that simply discovering a theory which explains things is only a beginning. Experiment and refinement must follow – and it must encompass the possibility of abandoning the theory altogether. All of which brings me to the observation that application of such processes to human history is scientific nonsense. The reality is far, far too complex and “experimentation”, as a physical scientist understands it, is impossible. Some application of the process might yield useful insights, if cautiously pursued, but it should never be taken as a sure path to ultimate truth. That, as the unfolding of Marxism dramatically shows, can lead to great folly. By conflict thinker do you mean the concept of the dialectic as applied to labor and capital. Or do you simply mean the conflict he proposed would take place did, in fact, take place. On the later point, I conceed you are right. I accept Marx’s insight was real, and, as the Industrial Revolution unfolded through the 19th century, it applied reasonably well. As for the dialectic, it specifically envisions history as a process of conflict. With that I have some problems. We are, after all, social creatures, and forming a society is what we do. The human story can just as readily be seen as one of mutating structures of cooperation, as opposed to mutating scenarios of conflict. You touch there at very nearly the center of what I am trying to communicate. A substitution? Reflect on the nature of “work”. For a great long age the world prospered by the efficient organization, over time, of the sweat of our brow and the strength of our backs. For that, control of the coercive power sufficed, and top down authoritarianism was as close to an optimal organization as need be. If the nature of work changes such that the world comes to prosper by the educated creativity of its people, a far different societal organization is suggested. Repressive and exploitative governance no longer provides anything like an optimal arrangement for realization of what then becomes possible. Democracy as concept is well over two thousand years old. It had a fitful existence in ancient Greece, and then more or less disappeared from the world’s stage for two millennia. [Yes, there was Switzerland, and other more minor incarnations, but as player on the world’s stage, as a factor in the world’s consciousness, it was essentially hors de combat - a non-entity.] Yet, over the last three hundred years Democracy has swept forward to become the chosen mode of governance for all the world’s most dynamic and powerful societies. Does that suggest something changed? However simple (or idealistic?) it may sound, and I freely acknowledge that to be a plausible characterization, a world that prospers by the educated creativity of its people finds in democracy a key element in the realization of an optimal interaction with the new, and (yes!) material, possibilities which open to the modern world. I believe that is a reality central to the ascension of Democracy. There are many cautions which attend this emergence, and I have spoken to them here and elsewhere. There is reason for great hope, and there are great dangers as well. Message was edited by: ronr327

ronr327 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ronr327 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:31:16 +0000

KillforFreedom, Sorry, but we seem to be at cross purposes. What you speak about in your last has little or nothing to do with the Left/Right homily I referred to. That is back a bit on this thread: page 2, posted March 10.

KillForFreedom on "Kerry in Iowa"

KillForFreedom — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 02:00:55 +0000

Ron, I'm glad you asked my opinion on the rest of your 'Left/Right homily'. The only comment I have at this point is that I do believe your alarm is misplaced. Such misgivings have a familiar ring, as they are repeated continually by network news organizations, the New York Times, more frequently now in the Wall Street Journal, and certainly in many print and Internet journals. I am by nature a skeptic, and so approach the present accepted criticisms of the Bush administration with many questions. For example, what is it about the Patriot Act that so inflames the plaintiffs? My reading of the law raises no alarm. I ask this question frequently, and the most common response is that the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, etc., can now wiretap or otherwise invade the privacy of the U.S. citizen without the review of the judicial branch of government. This is patently false, as far as I can tell. Please quote the sections of the Patriot Act which contradict my reading. Another common criticism is that law enforcement and/or the military increasingly detain individuals without representation. In every case that I am aware of, the detainess are foreign nationals who are clearly implicated in terror investigations. Jose Padilla is a plausible counterexample, but I believe he is now represented by counsel. To suggest that since September 11, the entire body of U.S. law enforcement has been transformed into a juggernaut in quest of absolute power seems not only far-fetched, but unsupported by the facts.

ronr327 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ronr327 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:47:30 +0000

KillforFreedom, Thank You! But what say you to the rest of my little Left/Right homily above?

KillForFreedom on "Kerry in Iowa"

KillForFreedom — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:36:39 +0000

"Capitalism is best, and most usefully, understood as the organization and propagation of human creativity." Well said and rather on the mark. I would add that, in its drive to organize and propagate individual creativity, Capitalism necessarily promotes individual liberty. A slave may not fix a broken cart unless beaten, but a business owner will build a dozen carts a week if he is free to share in the benefits. I think this is why representative democracy and capitalism are so closely interwoven in modern society.

ursa9 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ursa9 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:16:16 +0000

Baardbl, Not to worry. This is not the first time I have been called a Norwegian hillbilly elitist namedropper and I'm sure it will not be the last. If I mention a book or two now and then it is hardly to show off .... after all I did not write them. I mention them in the same way some mention articles or websites. It is my attempt to be helpful. As far as the substitution of 'learning' for wisdom. I agree it is all too common. I don't think I lack wisdom, but to argue the point would be sheer vanity. Most Americans do not think in the way I do. Sometimes people can arrive at destinations by different roads. For instance me and your 'Norwegian hillbilly' , though I am sure that mountain and country people might have a spark of wisdom from time to time. By the way, your English is clear despite certain mistakes here and there and I admire your ability to use it. I would also like to hear more about the Norwegian political context, particularly differences from other Scandanavian nations, south vs. north etc.

baardbl on "Kerry in Iowa"

baardbl — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:37:05 +0000

ursa9 Again: No harm intended! Message was edited by: baardbl

baardbl on "Kerry in Iowa"

baardbl — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:48:54 +0000

ursa9 Historical irony was mentioned by you , and I find you illustrates such a point good, but rather as “historian irony”. (referring to various other postings on different threads) I think your posts give a fascinating example of the limits of human learning- you are obviously learned, surely multiple my own reading- to such a degree that constant namedropping seems a necessity and you feel inclined to address and valuate the learning of others, as well as their arguments. This is one of the true limits of knowledge, the one that fosters elitism, and separates it firmly from wisdom. No references will wipe that fact away. But I’m sure there are books that deals with the matter in a more intelligent fashion than mine. I say this not to shut you up, nor be aggressive, I find it quite entertaining and illuminating! But surely you must be aware that you use certain rhetorical techniques? Iwould say you display a fascinating mixture of elitism and knowledge. Another ironic aspect of learning is that transmitting book- learnings to political reality is a rather complicated affair, which most of us fails. We are on the same ground, and equally seductable to our own cultural constraints. To exemplify, ursa, your remarks on the “international community” would place you on the far populist right, touching onto the “hillbilly” voting segment in Norwegian political discourse. But I see you consider it a pretty commonground stance. I assure you, you come across as very “US” in your validations to me, and I must say again how interesting it is to observe what can be counted as middle off the road in the US. (I’m not “anti- american” in this respect) The view of the historian can be very deceitful, in spite of its objective appearance. Ezrahi illustrates this well with regards to scientific objectivity in “Descent of the Icarus” as I am sure you know. I have no intentions of discussing you at length, just take it as a silly comment if you will, the interesting part for me is the powerfull aspects of discourse, not your particular standings. Apart from Wilson’s bio and Chomsky’s overall relevance, I still think the Haiti example provides valuable insights, “Wilsonianism” is a strong feature in US foreign policy, in the Clinton era continued (in elements, though not the same) as global meliorism .This particular idealist blend that I imagine needn’t include other specific elements of ideologi than democracy.- combined with everlasting search for economic values it turns rather ugly when displayed. Message was edited by: baardbl Message was edited by: baardbl

ursa9 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ursa9 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:46:44 +0000

Ron, I tink your posting and mine might have been coterminous. I was just listening to radio and heard the story, so I was not addressing or attacking you. Some fellow was very enthusiastic about the story in a different way than you and he prompted my reaction. As far as my being an apologist for the Right Wing, It is just not so. I cannot really define myself using the reference points of the current political dynamic. There are aspects of conservatism in the 19th century European sense in my perspective, but I am also rather attached to some aspects of 20th century American Liberal Progrssivism. I try to look at foreign policy through the eyes of an historian, but I am not entirely confident that the outcome of our present policies will be all positive. That would be foolish. If you wish to define me, perhaps you will hit the mark and save me the trouble. I'm afraid I am an historian and tend to view things from large temporal and spatial perspectives. When it comes to politics, I think I am a rather pragmatic observer. My reasons for thinking that Bush will win the election have their source in factors rarely discussed. Alas, I have discussed them above, so you have it all before you to critique if you wish to . Of course, I welcome this as you seem to be a bright well-informed fellow.

ronr327 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ronr327 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:04:55 +0000

ursa9, Was that directed at my citation, as a separate thread, of Karen Kwiatkowski's piece in Salon? It would appear so. I do have zeal, but not exactly a hatred for Bush. I do lust for the defeat of an administration I perceive to be very, very wrong in its directions, but I would consider that the zeal of a concerned citizen. Re Kwiatkowski: It is not simply about perfidy. It is about a stubborn pursuit of bad policy, whether that pursuit be perfidious or not. I care not whether their hearts were pure, whether they were they honorable, but were they intelligent, did they display good judgment? (They were advising on war and peace.) Moveon and Salon have their points of view, as do Fox et al (who, I expect will be in full hue and cry after Ms. Kwiatkowski tomorrow). But the detailed testimony of a witness should be considered as evidence first. Considerations of the credibility of the witness are appropriate, of course, but you seem to presume the partisan keening of a zealot to be self-evident here. I have decried a certain pattern in what you present on this site. There is a high quotient of bile in all your considerations of liberal positions, and there is a constant suggestion that the actions of the administration, and the right in general, be viewed through rose colored glasses: to wit, repeated injunctions that "things", after all, could work out all right. Forgive us if many of us are less sanguine about those outcomes. Message was edited by: ronr327

ronr327 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ronr327 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:27:15 +0000

Ursa9, bardbl, Good points for some dialog, and I expect to respond over the next few days, although likely in bits and pieces, beginning here. It was an aside and certainly painting with a broad brush. But, however simple, that can help highlight something pivotal in such a way as to stimulate enlightening discussion, as witness your beginnings. My continuation: A splendid way to cast the matter!. My reply would be that he was half a “brilliant diagnostician”, however hapless a physician. This relates to my understanding of Capitalism as the organization and propagation of human creativity (yes I AM serious about that one!). A bit of background. Marx saw, quite correctly, that something had decisively changed: that the prosperity of societies was passing into the hands of a new class, an entrepreneurial elite. Prior to that it was not how you functioned in essential economic terms that set up your place in the world, but your relationship to the governmental, religious, and military elites who ran human societies from the dawn of civilization forward. Those societies functioned, in very broad terms, through the efficient organization - over time - of simple repetitive tasks of physical labor. Those tasks could be, and generally were, compelled by main force. It was a world in which most in found themselves consigned to some form of peasantry, peonage, surfdom or slavery. The early stages of the Industrial Revolution looked, quite plausibly, like a replay of the same thing, with the “wage slave” replacing the peasant/peon/surf/slave. To that point Marx was correct. What he did not understand was the way Capitalism (which pre-dated the modern industrializing era) would trend in a world of rapidly advancing science and technology. Therefore, he understood the new elite in terms of the history of the older ones – it was, in the end, all the history he knew. His first critical mistake (and arguably his greatest mischief) was to turn a sharp, and real, insight into a mechanistic system of thought which sought to embrace all human development. (It is a cliché by now that extrapolations of Marxism back through history have not been persuasive, that any real plausibility seems limited to the modern world.) It is no real insight to observe that at some points in history changes in material circumstances, in material possibilities, become central, even defining. Marx found himself in the middle, as it were, of just such a moment. But to then transform a perception that a new thing, a new elite, had emerged, into a philosophic system of history is quite another. Consider, to choose a couple of examples, there is no way a materialist view of historical development could have predicted the Muslim explosion through the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, nor could such a view encompass the slow, and equally remarkable, ascension of Christianity to power in the Roman world. Both of those, of course, took place in a world of relatively settled, and limited, material possibilities. [Note: neither would have taken place if their adherents had found that what they were about decisively compromised their material well being.] What was happening in Marx’s time was a rapid and endemic explosion of material possibility, courtesy of science technology. It would first empower a new entrepreneurial elite, but a process rooted in scientific advance inclines not only to towards a continuing expansion of material opportunity, but towards a world in which the ability to interface intelligently with work leads to greater and greater productivity. It can lead, in other words, to a world that prospers by the educated creativity of its people. (Have you ever considered that had you proposed universal public education - that every child in your society had to be educated - you would have been dismissed laughingly by your world at any point in recorded history prior to the modern era? What might have been derisively dimissed a few hundred years ago has become commonly accepted wisdom in the developed world.) The emergence of just such a world, and the attendant turmoil, has been the defining story of the modern era. And it is why Capitalism is best, and most usefully, understood as the organization and propagation of human creativity. What Marx missed, then, was that Capitalism was at least as much about creativity as it was about profit. That the narrow logics of power and profit, of overweening elites gathering and holding power - which fit all too well with the older understandings of history - might not be the whole story. So it has proved, and thereby Marxism’s other great failure: to predict the unfolding of the modern world. Message was edited by: ronr327

ursa9 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ursa9 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 03:42:22 +0000

Do you notice in certain people opposed to American foreign policy and with a zealous hatred for Bush et al. that there is a lust for perfidy. Now it is a woman in the defense department that they can turn to with the aid of those neutral folks at Salon and Moveon. Why not just respond to argument about policy rather than obsessively looking for villainy .... Zealots are easily seduced. Oh well .... At least they exist on both ends of the spectrum.

KillForFreedom on "Kerry in Iowa"

KillForFreedom — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:48:29 +0000

Kerry will lose for a very simple reason. His platform is mostly built on lies and distortions about i) his record, ii) President Bush, and iii) the war on terror. The American people are savvy enough to collect information and opinions about these topics from a variety of sources, and will easily determine him to be a charlatan and opportunist. Edwards would have been a better choice as far as integrity and an honest message. On this basis he would at least have been competitive with Bush.

baardbl on "Kerry in Iowa"

baardbl — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:02:12 +0000

Ursa9; To start of, I’m in no position to take on the overwhelming amount of information you are clearly capable of discussing within one post. But relating it more precisely to the coming election I find it very interesting to note on a few simple points. I fear you and ronr327 alike seems, good intentions aside, to miss the fundamental point about the US engaging in foreign warfare. Ronr327; “I was among the many Democrats who were not at all pleased with the Democratic Senators, Kerry included, who went along with Bush in the fall of 2002. …I won’t go into that here, but suffice it to say Kerry is both persuasive and plausible in offering that neither he nor (nearly) anyone else would have gone forward as Bush did: without broad international (United Nations) assent or support, and without proper consideration for both the short range tactical problems, or the long range strategic question the Islamic world presents to us.” Ursa9; “It may be ironic, but is it not possible that governance under Bush might lead in strange ways to a more communication business sector, just as his so called 'Imperialist' thrusts in foreign policy may lead to more progressive cultures in decidedly non-progressive societies. Bush did not enter the Presidency to put criminal capitalists in prison or to liberate women in Afghanistan and yet both these things are happening. Is it not possible that this tool of demonic cabals may inadvertantly make the world a better, more just one.” In my view, it is exactly the “idealistic” strain in US politics that restrain it from playing a true progressive role in world politics. International support would simply not have occurred- Kerry still voted as he did. He might not have initialized it or played it out as it did, were he in office, but he still succumbed to the war rhetoric. I take it you’re both placed in a “liberal” political stance by US standards,(?) but does ursa cope with the basic concept that inventions of the sort conducted in Iraq must be rooted in UN- resolutions or not conducted at all? It is not up to the US to label out “progressive” and “non- progressive” states and acting accordingly without wide international consent. According to some of the standards applied in deeming states progressive or not, the Soviet- backed Kabul regime, that unwillingly fostered the Mujahedin resistance, was progressive. That does not mean it was lawfully or widely accepted. Idealism of this sort serves the sole function of confusing rational economic and strategic interests with the liberal good intentions. Are woman in Afghanistan beeing liberated? This is a topic of discussion- not a proven fact. Afghanistan is in a terrible state, with unsettled fractional powerbattles between the Westerly appointed regime and local war- lords.This idealist- mixture has proven fatal many places. A nice take on Wilsonian idealism in foreign relations, here on Haiti, by Chomsky here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5115 As of domestic social issues in the US the same confusion seems to me to thrive in on- going politics. I’ll not develop further the state of these issues, that is not within my capability, but I’ll offer a historical take: No western welfare- state was built on vague assumptions of liberalism, charity or discussions of the justness of tax- reductions. The basic feature was thinking in terms of rights, rather than do- good charity. Militant rights- consciousness was met by reform. Paradoxically, the US provided the starting point and funding for most of the social sciences that constituted the framework for the welfare- state corporatism. I consider it one of largest problems of modern age that the US did not develop in a similar way, and a tradegy that the unionizing laws are still not enforced satisfactory. Not that US capitalism and imperialism is worse than that of European states, but more influential. And the lack of a genuine, large- scale, social democratic party speaks of a massive depravement of the political arena. Indeed, I find the story of post- war USA a compelling one. Instead of coming to grips the New Deal legacy and realizing the ideals that were fought for, collective values were discredited. And the welfare- capitalism priorly ridded out during the Great Dep. reinstated and institutionalized through collective bargainment. I see very little willingness on this discussion, considering it is somewhat US- dominated (?) To come to terms with what elements of individualism needs to be reconsidered or reformulated in the US to take genuine steps towards entering what I consider “progressive” states. All of this might have been subject of thorough prior discussions, I haven’t read all that much, in that case- don’t take me too seriously. Ronr327; I find your take on Marxism pretty entertaining “Marx’s greatest success lay not in understanding Capitalism (he didn’t), but in characterizing it: an overbearing monstrosity,” Your claim that he did not understand capitalism joins rather unwillingly with you quoting his ideas on materialist concept of history in the following sentences, and refrasing the materialist view of the capitalist mode of production “Capitalism becomes the organization and propagation of human creativity”, through exchanging “work” with “creativity”? I can not stress enough that what is important about Marx is him being the foremost conflict thinker, seeing through the idealist cloaking such as the one you present. One does not need to be a marxist to acknowledge his function as instigator of conflict-orientation, nor to share his communist conviction to se that he formulated rather on- the- mark points on 19th century capitalism. His weaker parts would be mostly about how capitalism developed further- though he has been proven somewhat right on the monopolization of capital, as well as the imperialist bit- am I right? Ursa9; “…importance of 'authority' in society are unforgivable. The latter is an unfortunate legacy adopted by not only marxists but social democrats who still maintain that twinkle of utopia.” Though the authoritative aspects of social- democratic regimes were rightfully questioned during the 60’s and forward, it is hard to get around the point that it was precisely the same authority that secured the welfare states. I think it might be valuable to consider that the rethinkers of Marxism, such as the Frankfurter- school, mainly adresses societies already reformed to meet the demands of a militant working- class, I doubt very much that they would replace it with pure market economies, in spite of the democratic dilemmas social- democracy caused. appealing to the ethics of capitalists, making them “socially responsible” is your chosen path. I hope you are right that this will bring about changes, but I must say it seems quite an effort.

ursa9 on "Kerry in Iowa"

ursa9 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:41:31 +0000

Ron, Quite frankly your comments may apply and be 'useful' to those who view these matters simplistically. I am quite sure you do not and this is meant as a little aside. Still it is a vulgarization and too many people are receptive to gross generalizations. Marx was a brilliant diagnostician, but a hapless physician. He was perhaps a better historian, as evidenced in his essay on Louis Bonaparte and the role of class consciousness in his assumption of power. His flaws and virtues can be detected in his earlier writings which were influenced by the Rousseauian part of the French enlightenment. His explication of 'alienation' and 'species being' remain valid and powerful. His reluctance to attend to practical matters and in particular the nature and importance of 'authority' in society are unforgivable. The latter is an unfortunate legacy adopted by not only marxists but social democrats who still maintain that twinkle of utopia. Schumpeter must be addressed and looked at seriously because he more fully examines the actualities of economics on the ground and the ironies of the capitalist ethos. Not all capitalists are social darwinists in the John D. Rockefeller Jr. mode. Rather than alienate them and assuming them to be callous from the start it is important to engage them and perhaps prove to them that socially responsible behavior is not only ethical, but can be of value in long term self-interest. It is interesting, that like Nixon's approach to China, it is under the watch of Bush and the Ashcroft justice department that vile capitalists are beginning to play a serious price for their behavior. Most of these men and women were basking in the illusory boom of the Clinton years. Let us never forget the connections between Wal-Mart and the Clintons and the 1993 telecommunications act. If Reagan began the MV equals PT world which ended not in competition, but in concentration, many Democrats completed the deal even though they had more evidence that the actual marketplace was encouraging dissociation and dehumanization. Much of the suffering in America today; especially in the midwest and far west is a product of the anomie resulting from the inattentiveness of Democrats whose rhetoric covered up lack of deed. While Mrs. Clinton was saying, ''it takes a village,'' and many were speaking rhapsodically about the nonsensical idea of a 'global village' communities -- villages -- were dying on the vine while the interstate rolled through. I'm afraid that the new Democratic ethos encourages dissociation in many ways. This coupled with radical attempts to alter cultural norms through the device of identity politics has scarred this country. The zeal of the Left is being countered by the zeal of the right, leaving most of us disabled. Zealots on the Left reeling from the beginning of the end of their tyrrany of gesture like to paint Bush as a Right Wing zealot. They believe it to be true. The world is more nuanced than this though. Bush and Kerry will inevitably hang out about the middle. It may be ironic, but is it not possible that governance under Bush might lead in strange ways to a more communitarian business sector, just as his so called 'Imperialist' thrusts in foreign policy may lead to more progressive cultures in decidedly non-progressive societies. Bush did not enter the Presidency to put criminal capitalists in prison or to liberate women in Afghanistan and yet both these things are happening. Is it not possible that this tool of demonic cabals may inadvertantly make the world a better, more just one. The Democratic party has all the rhetoric, but what will they do if they ever regain power. I'm afraid Head Start, subsidized Community Colleges and retraining are dead ends and ultimately insulting to those who seek a better way of life. I have witnessed these programs and others like then up close. It is all false. All the revenue going in this direction is wasted, wasted and wasted again. Likewise, blithe cooperation with the so called World Community in foreign affairs, would be mere gesture. Until there is substance behind it, it is counter-productive. I wish someone would actually reply to this posting and my previous one. Prove me wrong. Deny the possibilities of historical irony. Leave invective, conspiracy, identity politics and zeal behind. I am open to all rational possibilities. The American electorate is not in a general sense idiotic. I used to think so, but now that I am well travelled in my own country and have talked to 'common' men and women, I have come to the conclusion that their measure is a greater force for good than ideologic zeal. There are of course non-rational impulses that arise in choosing leaders, but there is often a sord of rationality here to; what Joseph de Maistre called a 'Raison d'ignore'; a reason unaware of itself. The American President is a fusion of Chief of Government and Chief of State. What Bagehot called the 'dignified' and 'efficient' aspects of political constitution are not separated as they are in pure Parlimentary Systems. This creates certain problems, but it is the reality. Even though it is difficult to scientifically measure the effectiveness of a Chief of State, both roles are of equal importance to a nation. One cannot detect this in polling which, as in the Clinton administration, suggested that a leader who fails as Chief of State is still effective and suitable because he is on the job. The wording does not work precisely here, but the Chief of State is principally a focus of the continuity and cohesion of the nation. The Chief of Government is principally a legal figure. When voters cast their votes they do so with this in mind, even if they cannot or wish not to articulate it. In times of great flux, shocks to the system and uncertainty the role of Chief of State acquires more attention than is otherwise the case. In analysis of the American election this and other factors rarely mentioned must be taken into account. Zealots and partisans have no time for such thought and rarely have the background for it. Media figures and ''public intellectuals,'' are increasingly mediocre and atrociously reflexive. Please consider and if you have not, begin to comment with more depth. I do not direct this to anyone in particular, so please do not be defensive. I have to recommend two essential books for those who want to learn. One is a popular economics reader by the liberal economist, Robert Heilbroner. It is enjoyable and colorful. The older editions do not include the essay on Schumpeter so look for the later editions. The book is called, The Wordly Philosophers. I'm sure that some of you are familiar with it. It is very basic, but addresses complicated issues brilliantly. The essays include interesting biographic information as well. Even though it was written in 1867, Walter Bagehot's 'English Constitution' remains current and insightful. This Victorian English thinker is also a fine and clear writer. His essays on a range of subjects are also essential. I find them as enjoyable as Orwell's essays.

Kerry in Iowa,

David Wood — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:07:09 +0000

Todd Gitlin's piece on Kerry's victory in the Iowa primary seems to miss the fundamental point. George Bush will not be quaking in his boots at the thought of facing Kerry. The Democratic voters in Iowa appear to have gone for the blandest, safest, least inspiring candidate - which if nothing else seems to play to the steotypes of Iowans!. But Kerry has nothing to say, no real message, no policies to speak of. Unless the economic situation worsens dramatically or US casualties in Iraq skyrocket instead of continue steadily, I can't see Bush being worried. Does a safe choice for the Democrats mean no choice for the wider electorate when the real test comes...? Message was edited by: David Wood