In the study of American history, party lines have always had a degree of fluidity, unless, of course, you gaze upon recent politics. “Politic” in its modern formations (or what we as laymen would refer to it as) has arguably tarnished itself, irreparably. Why would we ever debate others, in the American agora, if we find ourselves living in a “post-truth” era?
Not, of course, all of this is doom and gloom. The production and dissemination of media have carved out pathways that make “post-truth politics” an antiquated lamentation of the death of formal debate. A marker, though, of the complicated history of American politics (and, indeed, post-truth) can be found in an anthropological analysis of early American themes.
Local versus Federal Governments
As discussed in P.I, these take the forms of two ideas: imperative gaps and local versus federal government. Consider the question: Are we a group of states or statesmen? In the end, it is about the principles of the people and the selection of a proper authority to govern how they wish. Especially never was this intended to continually and abusively use the “the power of the people” to cycle and destroy consolidated government and the goods it hath wrought. Thinking of monarchs, the greatest form of centralized power, we can not help but concede they must have their place, even in a post-democratic world.1 As is common discussion within sections of generative anthropology, we would be remiss to ignore that sacral kingship offers a stepping stone for the ironic democratic and omni-centric usurpation of its own center.2 Further, the solution to this self-usurpation mechanism and the consolidation of democracy with monarchy has been presented simply and effectively through, what Bouvard calls, “imperative gaps”.
There really only can exist a kind of mourning in the prevalence of nationalistic philosophies on the fundamental central authority that kingship provided. There were clear routes. Derisive but understandable commands, i.e.: reduced gap in imperativity (and if you remember what we outlined in Suicide Prevention, the increased blockage of imperative commands opens up the pathway to self-harm). Since Hamilton we’ve been progressively ““centralizing”” government. The increasing federalization of American politics, and development into a ideological gridlock3, is one of many symptoms of widening imperative gaps (for the sake of, what, exactly?). Rather than establishing routes in which citizens can make a change, we seek to continue to expand and develop arguably frivolous procedures and positions to further increase the “illusion of central authority”. These are not built on a stable foundation of existing because they must, but a bureaucratized faux-aristocracy.
Local versus Federal Environmentalism
When it comes to the major political parties in the United States, there are two prominent ones, with sufficiently complicated histories: Democratic and Republican. The Democratic-Republican party, commonly known as the Jeffersonian Republicans or simply Republicans, developed into what we now call the Democratic party. While the Republican party stems from the Federalists. However, the history is a bit more mucky than that.
Jefferson, culturally, was inarguably conservative. His environmentalism runs where his love of nature is. The modern conservative, far right or simply slightly off center, shares these same values—or at least those groups that herald the “wife standing in a field of corn”, hillbilies and most especially rural areas, where hunting is a lifeblood, sport and past-time4—which unequivocally mirrors Jeffersonianism “agriculturalism”. Not to mention the prevalent disdain for bourgeoise in modern culture is a reflection of Jefferson’s views on aristocracy. Although this last one is debatable and arguably a symptom of not having proper communicative channels between our economic and cultural classes.
If we take a look at modern environmentalism, ala the Green New Deal, we actually are seeing a bit of a historical snag happening. The Democratic party has cemented themselves as neo-fascistic proponents of anti-trust regulatory procedures for “out of line” aristocrats. It really should have been a fairly bi-partisan issue, if you’ll permit me to generalize. However, it most notably differs in exactly what we have outlined. Federal lee-way and localized governments. The American dream of building up a business only to be held down by federalized regulations, is contradictory and mustn’t be allowed, to many of these conservative types. Yet, for some reason they never think about who they are exactly defending.
End Notes
Should we have bipartisan ship, in this moment, over this issue? That isn’t for me to decide. The intra-political disputes between actual decision makers in society is the only real security on that issue. Current Status…it’s complicated.
In terms of influence on political mechanisms, eschewed from the books I’ve mentioned in the footnotes, we will be extending this discussion to Think Tanks in the next article.
(in the sense that all authority is some kind of central authority; furthermore, increasing centralization of authority by definition pinpoints disruptions in a chain of commands, i.e.: clear effectual communication, such as divine providence, as a raison d'être may prove more effective than democracies in times of crisis)
It is only the disintegration of traditional imperatives that once held the social order in place, the right of kings if you will, that then illuminates to citizens a kind of zeitgeist. One of which signals and opens up channels of discussion akin to, “well, really any one of us could do his job. It’s only because he has royal blood…”
On the side: feel free to see the Institute for Political Innovation website, founded by Katherine Ghel, on one of the many ways this has developed into convoluted gridlock systems. I think it is one of many options available on, what is ostensibly, poor governing declarative rule sets. There has already been some change in the local Alaskan governments adopting some of these changes. She and Michael Porter have a book on this called, The Politics Industry, that I haven’t been able to make through yet. But, you might take a liking to it.
See also, "Why Cities Lose” by Jonathon Rodden for more on declarative gapping that causes this divide as well. This book might become the topic for another post, perhaps a PIII.
To talk like those dang ol’ kids nowadays: I’m thriving