More on What is Conservatism

One important reason I wanted to discuss Agre's essay is because, while it was written a decade and a half ago, the issues it raises have become particularly salient since then. He noticed phenomena that were not as obvious then as they are now. Today I note the following excerpt:

Conservatism promotes (and so does liberalism, misguidedly) the idea that liberalism is about activist government where conservatism is not. This is absurd. It is unrelated to the history of conservative government. Conservatism promotes activist government that acts in the interests of the aristocracy. This has been true for thousands of years. What is distinctive about liberalism is not that it promotes activist government but that it promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority. Democratic government, however, is not simply majoritarian. It is, rather, one institutional expression of a democratic type of culture that is still very much in the process of being invented.

 

The final observation is tossed off more or less as an aside. (Actually I think the essay was intended as a sketch for a longer, better documented piece, or even a book.) But this is an extremely important aspect of our current condition. If the past five years or so have taught us anything, it is that formal institutions alone cannot protect democracy or guarantee that government will act in the general interest.

One complication that Agre does not really address, because it wasn't as obvious at the time he wrote, is that the formal institutions of government in the U.S. are not in fact structured as an institutional expression of democratic culture. They were originally designed for rule by white men of property, and to give disproportionate power to slave states. Although the franchise has formally expanded, it is still limited by white-dominated governments in the former slave states who design electoral systems to suppress non-white vote. Furthermore, the Senate strongly over-represents small, predominantly white and rural states; and the concentration of non-white voters in urban areas causes them to be underrepresented in the House. Finally, the electoral college also causes overrepresentation of small, rural, predominantly white states. The 50 Democratic senators represent more than 40 million more people than do the 50 Republican senators. 

But that isn't really Agre's point here. Those structural imbalances wouldn't matter so much if we had a truly democratic culture. White privilege wouldn't matter to most white voters. On the contrary they would see why it is harmful to them in the long run. They would have an understanding of their own interests based on an egalitarian ethos. The structural advantages of the overtly more conservative party are amplified by the failure of the more inclusive, ostensibly egalitarian party to truly understand and respond to the condition of many people who have become Republican voters. This happened because we don't have the sort of democratic culture that would make the Democratic party truly democratic. It is a coalition of somewhat disparate interests including a donor class that has veto power over any truly radical economic reforms -- at least until now.

The failure of the democratic party to reflect a truly democratic culture opened the door to a far more radically undemocratic movement. The formal structures that are supposed to protect democracy utterly failed against an autocratic regime that simply chose to ignore them. It got away with it because of the norms of the corporate media and class of professional political analysts that simply could not see it and name it for what it was. It got away with it because of its structural advantages and because of the false consciousness of most of its supporters, who were more concerned about keeping "other" people down than about their own true interests. It got away with it because a substantial segment of the corporate media is an unabashed propaganda machine for the ruling class of plutocrats. 

Structural reforms are important, even necessary. But they won't be enough until we succeed in inventing a truly democratic culture.

Oh for Chrissake: Every publisher has a back catalogue, most of  which is out of print. The owners of the Dr. Seusse ouvre - a private, family owned company, a capitalist corporation -- decided to stop publishing six books that have not stood the test of time. This was not a political action, Joe Biden and the Democrats did not make them do it or even suggest it. A private corporation exercised its liberty or freedom or whatever you want to call it to make a business decision. The books are not censored -- they are still in libraries and you can buy them second hand. My grandfather's books are also out of print which is too bad but that isn't censorship.

Similarly Hasbro, also a capitalist corporation which has stock that you can buy, decided to rebrand the toy called Mr. Potatohead and justcall it Potatohead. There are still male and female characters, the product has not changed. The new name makes sense because Mrs. Potatohead, or Ms. Potatohead whichever you prefer, is also in the box. Neither Mr. nor Ms. has been canceled. If either of these events is going to affect who you vote for, you are an idiot.

 

Which is exactly the point.  This is bullshit intended to deceive people and distract them from issues that actually matter. Which is the essence of conservative messaging, just as Agre says. He's right and you just proved it.

And if you think that whether the box says "Potatohead" or "Mr. Potatohead" is what "actually matters," as opposed to, I don't know, for example 600,000 dead people, there's no point in communicating with you.