I voted to abolish the office of the president in 1984, a write-in of course. My "candidate" did not win, and I gave up on the enterprise of voting. The intervening 24 years found this committed anarchist eschewing the polling place in favor of direct action.
Politics for me are local. I altered my own communities. Most notably, I decentralized the decision-making in the classroom and the debate squad room, willingly giving up the authority bestowed upon me as teacher and coach.
Consensus rather than hierarchy set our course. In class, direct collaboration among all participants determined curriculum and grading. On the debate squad, everyone together decided travel, scholarships, budgets, partners and arguments.
Responsibility resided in the group, not abdicated through recourse to some outside authority. Decisions took longer and involved more interpersonal consternation by members, but the results were dramatic. Students and debaters were personally invested in their respective communities.
We never voted. No need for tyranny of the majority. Not everyone agreed all the time with the consensus, though dissenters always had their say and regularly decided to disagree without preventing consensus. Policies were made openly and fairly.
Unanimous direct democracy is discordant, difficult, loud, and beautiful. With responsibility came overriding commitment and intense loyalty to the group and its decisions. Dissent rarely became divisive and never festered, as authority-driven decisions often did.
My voluntary political disenfranchisement left me wanting, however. Eight years of Cheney, Bush and their cronies of genocidal violence forced me to reconsider my political path. I almost voted in 2004, but blood-red Kansas convinced me otherwise, or perhaps fed my anarchist disinclinations.
Kansas is changing, and so is America. Kansas' radical turn to the right after Wichita's 1991 Summer of Mercy has forced moderate conservatives to abandon their party. National ridicule about absurd science education practices further sowed the seeds of moderation.
Nearly three decades of Reaganomics have convinced many Americans (and Kansans) that the only boats raised on rising tides were the yachts of the already wealthy and that all waves eventually crash. Conservative trickle-down economics became a sad joke more reminiscent of overflowing diapers than financial justice.
John McCain scoffs at Barack Obama's notion that fairness should help chart our future capitalist course instead of greed and avarice. Hell, even the greatest proponent of free market ideology, Alan Greenspan, admits his assumptions about corporate America were seriously mistaken.
The weeks since the financial implosion have revealed Mr. McCain to be frighteningly uninformed, erratic and ill-equipped to shepherd America through the myriad crises that face our great nation. Even his running mate Sarah Palin has gone rogue, hoping to preserve her political future.
Joy Glick, in a recent letter to the editor, is convinced "nearly everyone" believes I am incapable of judging character. How Ms. Glick knows what nearly everyone thinks, I do not know, nor am I convinced that 8 minutes of video are sufficient to judge my capabilities.
Nonetheless, you certainly are capable of judging Ms. Palin's character and finding it seriously wanting. An independent investigation found she "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." Simply, she broke the law.
Ms. Palin was chosen, according to Mr. McCain, due to her ethical character and independent streak. Yet, when the RNC offered her $150,000 worth of designer clothes, she did not refuse what should have been an affront to her "hockey mom" status.
This pattern of unethical behavior is easily gleaned from her close political association with newly convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens. Ms. Palin was the director of his 527 group, an independent political corporation designed to circumvent campaign finance restrictions.
Whatever doubt about Mr. Obama's qualifications as commander-in-chief were vanquished when America's most venerated warrior-diplomat, Colin Powell, endorsed Mr. Obama and castigated Mr. McCain for his selection of Ms. Palin, his poor performance responding to the financial crisis, and the despicable tenor of their campaign.
Mr. Obama can restore America's lost luster. What Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin denigrate as "socialism," Mr. Obama celebrates as equal economic opportunity and a reversal of the devastating economic policies of laissez-faire capitalism run amok. The only hope to recapture the American dream for the middle-class and working "poor" is to elect President Obama.
Complacency is a real danger right now. Do not rest on the laurels of an extremely well-run campaign or succumb to the lure of attractive polling data. Send Washington and the rest of America a message: Nothing is the matter with Kansas. We learned our lessons and want to stop the bleeding.
This anarchist is going to vote for the first time in a long time, for a true giant, Barack Obama. America the beautiful again. Yes, we can!














Comments (3)
Good post Bill. I have to admit I don't quite understand what an anarchist believes. I know Noam Chomsky, Grace Paley and Lawrence Ferlinghetti are anarchists, but I don't think any of them gave any explanation on what that means. Are anarchists just progressive versions of libertarians?
Posted by Angelo Lopez
|
November 1, 2008 12:54 PM
Posted on November 1, 2008 12:54
Not surprisingly, Angelo, there are many different currents of anarchism. The common theme, however, is a strong belief that human beings are better off without government. The name, from Greek, means "without a ruler." Some of the traditional forms mirror other radical political philosophies, only without the state: communism, socialism, syndicalism, egoism, and mutualism (i.e. Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Max Stirner, Emma Goldman, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon). These 19th century, European traditions typically called for the abolition of the state and variously proposed ideal societies that might emerge subsequently. Generally, anarchism opposes the imposition of authority and coercive hierarchy, while affirming direct action, consensus decision-making, and voluntary association. The overriding value for most anarchists is freedom. An authoritative definition, of course, is anathema.
Personally, I now believe in what David Graeber refers to as small a anarchy--that is, the attempt to fashion a new society in the shell of the old (a former IWW slogan). Rather than smashing the state as big A Anarchy would have us do, this alternative focuses on shaping the communities we inhabit to exhibit less authority and more freedom. Graeber argues that the revolutions of the 21st century will be small a anarchist. He sees loose coalitions of aligned movements as indicative of this trend, sometimes referred to as "anti-globalization" and "anti-imperialism," among others. My anarchism today enacts anarchy by altering my relationships with others in the ways described above.
Chomsky actually writes widely on anarchism and is quite explict about his beliefs. I suggest "Chomsky on Anarchism," a 2005 anthology of those writings, if you are interested. As with most matters, he is quite eloquent, illustrative, and informative.
Libertarians tend to emerge from the economic brands of anarchism that were popular at the turn of the 20th century (e.g. Benjamin Tucker). They do believe in minimalist governments and hence are not generally considered anarchists, at least according to traditional definitions. Progressive is such a broad label that it is hard for me to apply effectively.
Probably more than you were looking for, but thanks for asking.
Posted by Bill Shanahan
|
November 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Posted on November 1, 2008 15:11
Thanks Bill for the explanation of anarchism and libertarianism. I appreciate the time for the long explanation. David Graeber's idea of small anarchism sounds good for community building and empowering people and it sounds like what a lot of people in Everyday Citizens are doing. I've checked out some DVDs of Chomsky's lectures, so I'll have to check out his book on Anarchism.
Posted by Angelo Lopez
|
November 2, 2008 1:27 PM
Posted on November 2, 2008 13:27