[CIMC-work] Re: political spectrum

[Thomas Westgard]

PREFACE

Well, I fear that this thread may take over the list if pursued too
aggressively, but at the same time it seems an important definitional issue
for the organization if it has not yet been addressed.  I think most likely
I will make this my last post on this matter unless a lot of people show an
interest

INDYMEDIA SHOULD FOLLOW STANDARDS PRIMARILY OF JOURNALISTIC CHARACTER

I think it's important that Indymedia have some guidelines for what fits,
but I would like to think that the guidelines will be on a unique, Indymedia
view of what constitutes "quality journalism," not just trying to make sure
that whatever gets put up here is "qualified lefty."  There are already
people doing that, some very effectively.

AYN RANDERS PRESENT A POLITICAL CONUNDRUM, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A
JOURNALISTIC ONE

Witness the Ayn Randers as potential contributors to Indymedia.  Let me say
as a caveat that every time I remember that a major publishing house for Any
Rand works is (or was) the "Center for Independent Thought," I have to laugh
at the oxymoron.  If they're so darn independent, why do they need a center?
There's some interesting insight into the contradiction at the base of that
paradox in a book called, "Why People Believe Weird Things," in which the
author postulates that, despite the emphasis on objectivity, Ayn Rand had
(and has) people who would best be described as "followers," who exercise
her philosophical perspective in a cult-like fashion, with her support and
encouragement.  Despite that, Indymedia's genesis matches a topic which Ayn
Randers have been contemplating for years.

Like other perspectives that seem to come more naturally to Indymedia, the
Ayn Randers don't get much mainstream press.  Also, they aren't in favor of
"privatization of certain resources and technologies among a select few," at
least not in the same way as it currently works.  The Randian philosophy
argues for elimination of all corporations and inheritance, among other
things.  Thus, any and all individuals can build from their own skills, free
from constraining concepts of property ownership that were designed to
support a monarchical hierarchy (or so the theory goes, anyway).

Indymedia's birth comes from a protest against the globalization of commerce
by a cadre of the privileged.  I don't think anyone concerned in this debate
believes that world trade itself is wrong, it's that major corporations work
hand-in-hand with governments to control it in ways that "we" find
objectionable.  Expand that idea to the transmission of ideas in the world
commons, and KABAM! you have a need for Indymedia.  So here we are, agreeing
with the Ayn Randers on that point, at least.

Further, the "right wing" has a serious fault line that the "left wing"
somehow fails to exploit, namely the gap between fiscal conservatism (where
Ayn Randers are often filed) and social conservatism.  Despite the rhetoric,
the social conservatives view government as a useful tool which should have
extensive powers over wide aspects of human interaction.  Social
conservatism calls for utilizing large governmental resources, e.g. police
and prisons, to enforce certain definitions of marriage, to prevent
particular sexual practices, to prevent abortion and/or birth control, to
enforce restrictions of chemicals (FDA, DEA, etc.)  Paying to investigate,
arrest, and keep people in prison for these perceived social ills is
anathema to the "small government mantra" that the fiscal conservatives
promote.

CONCLUSION

In summary, that governments should allow the "little guy" a chance to get
some of the benefits is something that Indymedia and Ayn Randers share, and
frankly, the Ayn Randers have a lot more experience talking about it and
researching it, albeit from a perspective that Indymedia may find foreign.
There are some kooks there, but there might be some good ideas.  Why not let
them participate?  Especially if they write well.

AFTERWARD:  DEFINITIONS

This is long enough, so I'm not going to include all the other things that
come to mind on this topic.  I have to say that your definitions are
troublesome:  

LEFT  Although I like Democrats (center left) better than Republicans
(center right) as a rule, your definition, "leftists are for generalizing
the fruits of the earth and technology to all people of the world," is
pretty hard to take seriously.  Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerhardt
Schroeder (and Stalin!) are all from left-wing parties, but they aren't
accomplishing anything significant in "generalizing the fruits of the earth
and technology to all people of the world."  They are broadly in favor of
the status quo.  As are the Republicans, for that matter.  The WTO would say
that their promotion of trade is intended to accomplish exactly this.  Are
they some of the good lefties we want to help?

RIGHT I discussed the social/fiscal paradox above.  The "right" is not a
monolith any more than the left is.

APATHY  Well, I'm sure we're all familiar with the expression about the
universality of opinions, and if this proves that no one is apathetic, then
of course, you're right.  However, voting rates in this country are much
lower than in other developed countries.  Ability to name elected officials
and candidates is much lower in this country than in other developed
countries.  We are the world leaders in time spent watching (apolitical)
television.  Most people in this country know more, and care more, about the
Bennifer breakup than the social impact of their economic choices.  And the
number of people who will go out and demonstrate is razor thin.