Geo. Washington & Parties

I have often spoken against political parties as a matter of principle since at least my early days in college. Many events in the last decade have by and large strengthened my convictions by confirmation, revision, and addition of my assumptions. The historic election of Barack Obama and the not-so-different-in-nature populist momentum that brought George W. Bush into office eight years earlier have only served to highlight what I see as the most insidious institution in the American/Western political model: the Political Party.
By way of introduction I am compelled to invoke none other than President #1. In his long, wordy, meandering yet profound farewell address the father of this country makes an observation:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of [the Constitution], and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion...

...

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Washington's words amount to nothing short of a warning. One might wonder how seriously to take him. Perhaps even ask: Was he simply mistaken? While Pres. Washington may rightfully be said to have been politically disinterested, delivering this address at the end of a political life from which he was retiring, he was still a relative novice in the workings of American politics, as the country itself was an experiment whose results would be measured in centuries to come. His motivations, however, seem to be clear. A statesman and Soldier, Pres. Washington was warning against the human tendency for fractious politiking in a deliberative society.

A society where sound deliberation and agreement are integral to its function, is far more vulnerable to partisan dischord than one where direction is given by a few like-minded voices. While we take pride in this essential feature of American politics on principle alone, we rarely ever discuss the mechanisms that run it. Political parties are that mechanism, and today they form the only other group influence on government apart from interest lobbies.

What we have in America are organizations that exist to mobilize political effort around some agenda, influencing/running the deliberative and the managing organs of government. And of these we have only two viable alternatives on the national stage. In essence, the entire system is run by two membership-based shadow governments that then duke out their differences on the national stage and turn to the voter to arbitrate in their disputes when the Constitutional limit of internal decision making is reached. Is that ok?

There is nothing inherently obvious or necessary about a political party. Imagine for a second a Congress where members deliberated bills based on their role as representatives of a constituency and not as members of a super-lobby?

To be Continued....

On Polygamy and Modern American Perversions thereto pertaining (Part II):

Now on the question of Polygamy. A quick Google search on the topic will bring up three kinds of websites: 1. Academic references and discussions of polygamy around the world 2. Horror stories from western ex-polygamists 3. Fanciful prose justifying polygamy as a way of life...in the west. I should mention something about the third type, I have never seen such a justification (not that I did ALOT of reasearch, but enough to say I looked into the matter) without the context of an extreme form of a Judeo-Christian (mostly Christian) faith. That is, justification is sought from scripture and Divine inspiration.

This pattern points to an interesting fact about the way most westerners perceive polygamy, as a perversion of some norms that exists mostly among fundamentalist (read: oppressive, Scripture-perverting), cult-like groups. The media is almost exclusive in its treatment of the subject within that context. The problem with this focus is the cementing of the notion that this is the best way to understand the concept of polygamy. Of course, this is stupid. Taking something as diverse as polygamy practices within human society and then associating it with an anti-social ultra-religious trend within a very conservative society (America) is plain silliness. It is no different than saying that because you have some red apples that are rotten in your hand that all red apples are rotten. While it seems to be a good supposition, knowing the facts clearly makes this a silly assumption.

Curiously, I have never seen an intelligent discussion of this very interesting behavior outside of academia. The times I have heard it discussed (such as whole episodes on 24-hr news channels like Fox News Channel's "Dayside with Linda Vester") has ALWAYS been in the context of the extreme fundamentalist religious communities of the western United States. It has come to the point where I take no interest in the matter outside of academia because laypersons seem incapable of discussing the matter without appeals to morality, perversion, psychoses, and other such nonsense.

Polygamy is simply the practice of maintaining many wives and, extremelly rarely, husbands. That is the end of the definition. Issues of abuse, women's rights, oppressive communities, religious fundamentalism, and other such qualities are case-specific observations that may or may not have anything to do with the practice of polygamy itself. Once this is realised then a discussion on the question of maintaining many spouses could be productive.

On Polygamy and Modern American Perversions thereto pertaining (Part I):

This past week the terrible Warren Jeffs was finally apprehended in a nation-wide manhunt. Hurray for Justice and all that. I am not particularly concerned with him, he in no way affects my life. Nor do I care beyond the momentary satisfaction of my inner voyeur about his little community of nuts. However, I do care about the context of the discussion that surrounds him.

First, let me point out something, incidental. How is it that this guy's father (whom he succeeded as 'King of the Hill') and community have been around for decades and only NOW seem to have committed some crime? Seriously, does the state of Utah really want us to believe that only now they have something on him? Whatever statutory rape clause that was used to indict him must be seriously missapplied, or something credible needs to explain this lack of the State's interest in the goings on in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT. That being said, I do start to wonder if he did not run afoul of the State in some tax matter that made it take a seriously hard look. In any case, the particulars of this case are wholly irrelevant to my life and well being.

Now, more to the point of interest. Looking at the current media interest in the case, Jeffs is almost invariably described as "the Polygamist." Now, while this may be a statement of fact on paper, one cannot help but notice the tone and usage. It is no different than when the media speaks of "a murderer" or "a gangster." In other words, 'polygamist' is emphasized as the key adjective in understanding why this man was wanted. I find that strange since polygamy tells me nothing except about a particular form of social organization. I understand it is a 'crime,' I admit I do not understand why, but I realize that were he to be punished for that, then labeling him a 'polygamist' would be descriptive. But even now, he isn't charged with anything of the sort. He was arraigned on participation in rape (statutory rape, I presume, but do correct me if I am wrong), flight from prosecution, and arranging an illegal marriage. Nothing about polygamy, yet he is not the "alleged rapist," no, he is "the polygamist." What gives? Where is this natural connection from the definitions of 'polygamy' and 'rape' that I seem to be missing?

This leads us to the heart of the matter. His prosecution, while for real crimes that violate some laws of the State of Utah, is not the matter of interest. After all, not every rapist in the country gets prime-time coverage. The star of the show is the context. It is sensational that he is a polygamist. A creature that practices a tabboo, as a cannibal would. Some unhuman perversion of a life-style that intrigues and yet disgusts. So, that is the real reason we hear about nut-job-messiah-wannabe Jeffs.

On the Question of Qualifications:

I pose this question to anyone who reads this. What qualifies a man to administer and lead in the general government?

On the Questions of Authority and Public Education: Post-Katrina Traffic Patterns.

As a member of the military I spent more than a couple of months of my life on Katrina-related duties. Early on, in the first few days after Katrina in the New Orleans metropolitan area I began noticing some odd traffic patterns. Odd not because of the peculiarity of the situation (e.g. no electricity, road obstructions that required creative navigation, etc) but because of the way average drivers (of whom there were plenty in the unflooded areas) had reacted. Early on there were several major traffic accidents involving civilians and authorities. The aftermath of a couple of these accidents (an several near-misses) that I observed were at major intersections. So, I decided to see if traffic patterns are affected by the presence of authorities on the road. A pattern started to emerge. In general it seemed that three factors affected how people navigated intersections in the absence of traffic signals and signs:
1. Volume of traffic
2. Presence/behavior of authorities or official looking vehicles
3. Size of the road

(Note: before I delve too deeply into the matter that none of the major factors have anything to do with what people were suppose to have learned to do in Driver's Ed.)

Consider this setting on which all three effects can be examined in isolation and in combination:
A 3-lane highway (3 lanes each way) ( we will call this road A) intersected by residential side-streets (road B) and other major streets as many as 2 lanes wide each way (road C). There are no working signals and since it is a major highway there are no static intersection controls (i.e. stop/yield signs that don't require electricity). On such a highway the following scenarios would be observed in the first two weeks after the hurricane:

1. If there was a heavy volume of traffic (estimate at or more than 1 car per 3 seconds) on road A or B then that traffic would not yield an intersection. This of course becomes a problem when similar volume is on an intersecting road C. I observed the aftermath of two such accidents and participated/observed several such close calls. Conversely, a low volume of traffic (and I believe this is when the more serious high speed accidents mostly occurred) would most usually see people blow through intersections with caution mostly thrown to the wind.

2. This pattern altered when there was an official presence in the traffic flow. A HMMWV (hummer), a police cruiser, or other official vehicle would inadvertently lead traffic. For example, if an official vehicle blew the intersection, regardless of whether it was A crossing B or C or any other combination, any traffic following that vehicle would follow suit and any intersecting traffic would generally yield regardless of whether the official vehicle was running code (e.g. police cruisers with emergency lights/sirens on) or not.

Ironically, there clearly developed a pattern of expectation that official vehicles would not yield intersections, such that when one did it was cause for confusion. I observed an official vehicle yielding an intersection approximately 1 week after the storm. On a two lane road the official vehicle was in alone in one lane. Next to it was a civilian sedan and following that sedan was an 18-wheeler flat-bed truck at approximately 50 meters behind it. The official vehicle treated the intersection as a 4-way stop (incidentally, this is technically what we all learned in Driver's Ed) and the sedan next to it stopped as well. The sedan had to brake rather rapidly as it seemed to be surprised by the official vehicle's actions (which also suggests that the civilian driver was tracking its actions). What followed next was the thoroughly surprised truck-driver, who also was not expecting the official vehicle to stop at a major intersection, having to leave the road completely at what I estimate to have been over 40mph in order to avoid the civilian sedan. Needless to say, had the 18-wheeler not been paying attention there would have been a very dead civilian on that day. Also, it seems that many official vehicle-civilian accidents occurred early on while this pattern of expectations was establishing itself.

3. As a general rule the size difference of the road often promoted caution in people entering/crossing A from road B. Many heavy-damage accidents that I saw were at major A-C intersections. It appears that when people perceived they were on a major road they felt more entitled not to yield or treat intersections as 4-way stops as opposed to the smaller residential roads. Naturally, the problem would lead to accidents when two such large roads intersected.

Another interesting element that seems to indicate the poor quality of public road discipline/education is the pattern observed at intersections once partial power was restored. Many intersections would have a blinking yellow on one road and a blinking red on the other. Now, before the partial power was restored in any meaningful amounts, the city of New Orleans deployed portable STOP signs at most major intersections. These STOP signs again contributed to a sort of acculturation that seemed to cause confusion once the environment began to change with the introduction of the blinking lights and the failure of authorities to publicize appropriate behavior.

For example, an intersection of A and C. For 1 month the portable STOP signs were deployed. Then, power is restored to the traffic lights, but not operation, so what you get is A having a blinking yellow while C has a blinking red. 2 months hence, the proper operation of the light is still unrestored while the STOP signs are removed. However, now people are accustomed to treating it as a 4-way stop. Firstly, we consider that we all learned that in such situations the intersection is to be treated as a 2-way stop (blinking red = stop, blinking yellow = caution). Secondly, at this point the city's heavily damaged infrastructure is supporting returning resident traffic, construction contractor traffic, waste disposal traffic, and official traffic. So, the increased volume with poor infrastructure and incessant 4-way stops created a traffic nightmare with numerous low-speed accidents. So, in this case can it be said that public confusion and poor traffic education caused unnecessary traffic problems? Also, can it be said that the same factors contributed to the confused mess in the first two weeks of the disaster? I think a case can indeed be made.

Lastly, I should point out a peculiar behavior that contributed to the confusion. The official vehicles, especially ones able to run code, contributed to the confusion. Using emergency lights and sirens often seemed unnecessary. I personally believe that this excessive use of emergency signals following the storm caused unnecessary confusion. It is commonly known that young cops often speed and run code excessively. While in normal times this is handled as a matter of discipline (if at all), the 'anything goes' attitude of many people caused accidents. More than once I heard "wild west" being applied to the situation and I recall thinking that this was rather silly since any sense of chaos outside of the flooded areas was entirely a self-fulfilling prophecy. But those are just my thoughts on that and has little to do with my observations of traffic patterns I described above.

So, it has indeed been a while since I intended to "blog." I have decided that the purpose of this site should be to record my thoughts-of-the-day. The 'available anywhere' capability of the internet should off-set my ADD nicelly, allowing me to record thoughts so long as a computer is around. So, here we go....

FINALLY, I have reached the wonderful bloggosphere. Soaring from these heights all the rest of humanity seems but a speck of fleeting thought, whilst here, in the bloggosphere, thoughts can be preserved for posterity. So long as the blogger.com server doesn't crap out. Ahh, let the journey begin.