Politics

No Mystery On The Science Of Political Theater

by

One of the groups protesting (counterprotesting?) the genetrification and changes in Silicon Valley* protested at the home of Kevin Rose of Digg and Google Ventures fame.  They also apparently asked for $3 billion to establish anarchist communes, which will doubtlessly lead to many sarcastic analyses of investments.

Kevin Roose (not Rose, but boy he’s apparently had problems with parties over the names) referred to this as political theater.  Indeed, political theater is something the Bay Area** is used to, usually from the left and in this case anarchists, unless that’s also part of the joke.  Except, the more I think about it, it seems that who uses political theater has changed, and I think this is where the protestors are going to experience backfire.

Political theater in America is now the domain of the Right.

The right is the realm of elaborate Tea Party costumes***.  It’s the realm of Glen Beck’s blackboard.  It’s where Clint Eastwood does performance art talking to an empty chair.

I don’t know about you, but I associate political theater with the Right in America, not the Left or Anarchists.  As Roose (not Rose) notes, the more “mainstream” protestors are involved in anti-eviction, city planning comissions, and the likes.  Those prone to political theater are in the realm of the Right at this point, and that may hurt their cause, whatever it is (one guy even suggests it’s a false flag), since the traditional Left won’t be sympathetic, the Right isn’t sympathetic, and others may just be confused.

* I should note that the exact geography of Silicon Valley is up for debate.

** Not necessarily the same as Silicon Valley, but let the debate begin.

*** Cosplay for people into politics.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.

Review: Twilight of the Elites, America After Meritocracy

by

Twilight Of The Elites CoverReview: Twilight of the Elites, America After Meritocracy

ISBN-10: 0307720462
ISBN-13: 978-0307720467

PROS:

  • Book transcends petty politics while being straightforward and realistic.
  • Proposes understandable models of elite decline.
  • Reviews historical issues past and present on elite decline, providing useful fine detail.
  • Explains its subject matter smartly, realistically, and accessibly.

CONS:

  • Proposed solutions could focus more on actual solutions.
  • If you follow news closely, some sections will literally be “old news” and will be more of a review.

SUMMARY: Must-read book for people concerned about what’s gone wrong in the American (and world) culture and economy.

I’m going to be putting this review in the “Geek As Citizen” slot for this week because this is a book that aspiring Geek Citizens really should be reading – though it’s focus on economics, psychology, and systems also makes it a heavily – but accessibly – geekonomic tome.

Christopher Hayes takes on a subject that we’re all concerned about, but not always inclined to analyze, namely, what happened to our elites and how have they gotten so much wrong despite supposedly being so, well, elite

It’s easy to understand why the subject is important, because we’ve seen a decade or two of serious problems, often build on foundations of previous decades of elite incompetency we missed. Financial meltdowns, housing bubbles, pointless wars, Catholic Church sex scandals, lead many of us to figure that something has gone terribly wrong with the people who supposedly are qualified to run things. Worse, it seems the people who messed up haven’t been punished or in a few cases were even rewarded.

So, what happened – because we really wonder how much more of this our culture, economies, and planet can take.  How did we end up with, well a Twilight Of The Elites? (Yes, a reference to the oft-quoted Twilight of The Gods).

Off the bat a book like this could descend into political polemics, or even be focused more on selling books via outrage than solving a problem (another issue of elite incompetence in a way). Hayes, to his credit, both wears his liberal politics on his sleeve but also shows both an open mind and a lot of empathy in his subjects. Hayes isn’t busy wagging fingers and feeling self-righteous, he wants to solve problems and understand what’s going on; he even empathizes with some dysfunctional elites because some of us might be just as messed up were we to exchange positions.

This is a guy who can look at people who have done massively awful things and actually take a moment to empathize with them – before explaining how much they messed things up.

Thus the book, though very readable and even at times a bit poetic, has a refreshing and blunt realism without rant or contrived outrage. This makes it very useful because you can get maximum information with minimal BS.

Hayes starts off by reviewing our discontents about our elites, and then jumps straight into the nearly unquestioned idea of meritocracy, the belief in a system where people succeed on their merits. This rather beloved myth actually has its roots in a political parody, and the irony becomes even more apparent because the parody being taken seriously in many ways resulted in a rather mockable system. It’s apparently produced an elite that is not meritorius, but one that starts poitness wars and covers up horrible sex scandals.

Next, Hayes explores exactly what happened, and the political theorists who have touched on similar issues for years if not centuries. Though it’s hard to do justice to his ideas – and indeed a short review isn’t enough – essentially meritocracy breaks down because those who benefit from it eventually subvert any ability for people to rise through the ranks. At some point the people who got to the top – even if they did so virtuously – will often be interested in making sure they stay there and only people they want get there as well.

Having established his theories, Hayes then “treats” us to an overview of our dysfunctions, from what builds functioning systems and builds trust in our systems to what happens when things break down. He points out, essentially, how one by one major social systems people rely on to know what’s true, to build trust, to get things done have stopped working. A lot of this seems to be common sense, but he uses examples and analysis to help give a near-visceral understanding of what’s wrong.

Finally, Hayes gives us a tour of major malfunctions. This is, oddly, a less interesting part of the book for anyone who’s a news junkie (like myself) as you’ve seen it all before – only in this case he puts things in context. This is useful and appropriate, but for some people this part of the book is “yeah, I know.” It is necessary for the overall context of the book however, so it’s inclusion is understandable.

Hayes lays out an excellent model for elite dysfunction, shows how things have broken down one by one, then looks at major scandals and issues to show just what happened behind the scenes of the last decade or so. He gives a small-to-big picture view in the book that makes his theories and analyses applicable . . . if you’re not too busy being depressed.

The book closes with a look at what can be done. This chapter is a bit weak because though Hayes remains hopeful and optimistic, a great deal of change is not made by grand outlines and scenes, but actions at critical points by people and groups. Thus he gives possible outlines of what may and could happen, but it is vague – and he knows it. Frankly, I’d like to see a followup book on specific actions.

Is the book worth it? Frankly, yes. In fact it’s not just a good book, Hayes’ empathy and understanding, building of systems and connections, is actually a good model for writing a book – it actually has influenced some of my writing goals already.

I consider this book a must-buy for:

  • Citizen geeks who want to know what went wrong and how to fix things.  As he proposes theories and systems there’s stuff we can work with.
  • Econogeeks who want to understand much the same thing – and get some good historical context.
  • Anyone who wonders what the hell happened the last twenty years.

This is a must buy, must keep, and a must-get for others book. I look forward to Mr. Hayes’ other works.

– Steven Savage

Does Consumerism Undermine Sustainable Government?

by

So as I watch the meltdown in DC, it’s an oddly destructive course.  Looking at it distantly, it appears to be people elected to assist people undermining the very system they are to sustain and indeed that sustains them.  It is, frankly, insane.

So I’ve wondered just what are the various people who backed the shutdown expecting?  What do their backers – both the voters and their donors – expect?  What of the media people who appear to back this insanity, the talking heads and talking mouths?

Of course threatening the financial stability of the government – and with the debt ceiling, the country and world – is insane.  Yet there seems to be less panic than I would expect, and it doesn’t seem to be bluff.  I feel, at least intuitively, that far too many people are passive over this, or even flippant – and that’s honestly how some people feel.

Now I could probably analyze the various factors about this forever.  Indeed, I expect some historians, scholars, and writers will get weeks, months, or years of work out of this.  But the flip attitudes keep making me think – because they seem familiar.

They remind me of the people who would complain endlessly about free services and websites they contributed nothing too, as if they themselves were capable of making them.

They remind me of people who write off disasters that “don’t affect them” and then wonder why prices on something have gone up or why their vacation is ruined.

They remind me of people who figure we can change the environment with no repercussions.

They, in short, are people who seem to act like there’s always an option.

So it struck me that a lot of this is a “consumerist” attitude.  That you can always buy more, that people’s work is only to please you, that there’s always options.  It’s a lack of sense of what is necessary to create that thing you like, or the society you enjoy and the government you’re part of.  It’s the idea you can always go to the store and buy a new one.

Government that functions long-term can’t be consumerist.  It requires a plan and it has to be long-term.  It has to be realistic.  It is to an extent an act of caution, like an insurance policy.  Government can’t function on the idea of discardable and purchasable.  When it gets away from these things it has trouble.

(Not that the U.S. government hasn’t had trouble with some of these things for awhile, but that’s another story.)

So, no, this isn’t exactly a well-formed thought, but it’s made me think that one of our problems with the U.S. government is it’s treated as something we can wad up, toss away, or purchase anew with ease.

This isn’t the case, as we’re finding out.  Hopefully, enough people find out fast enough.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, nerd and geek culture at http://www.nerdcaliber.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.