http://www.jkarp.com/f2004/5327/hetherington_2001.pdf

On elites and the relevance of the political parties to mass opinion, polarization and party resurgence despite the common assumption that parties are less relevant. Locals here might want to note that in context of the threads discussing Arlo's decision to join the Republican Party.

It's something to mull over given a different thread on what can be done about picking a goal for becoming instead of simply trying to redress the wrongs of the past. If we earnestly desire to evolve away from the atavisms both cultural and instinctive, we have to decide what we want to become. That isn't always found in the rearview mirror or in fixing the potholes we're past. Then we have to understand what elites do and ask ourselves if we belong among them doing that.

i don't know...
but i found another article referencing marc j hetherington along with jonathon d weiler here that i found interesting (a bit more meandering here but anyway)...

http://crooksandliars.com/node/38462

just scroll down to the paragraphed section that is most indented along with the immediately preceding and following paragraphs that say a little bit about where it came from and stuff...

i mean read the whole thing if you want to, i haven't read the whole thing just now, will try to get back to it later,,,but anyway

Another Captain Kirk quote: "No more blah, blah, blah!"

the book didn't say anything about politics or economics. strictly about the individual. it did go into considerable length about dehumanization. as is always the case, Jane Goodall's observations of civil war resulting in chimp genocide within a chimp community being evidence that dechimpization is a conserved trait from the primate past. then the question of the bonobo's comes up. somehow reading this book is kind of like deja vu all over again.

Len wrote:

"It's something to mull over given a different thread on what can be done about picking a goal for becoming instead of simply trying to redress the wrongs of the past. If we earnestly desire to evolve away from the atavisms both cultural and instinctive, we have to decide what we want to become."


Even though we live in a universe of infinite possibilities, where we are at any given moment is, HAS TO BE, exactly where we are SUPPOSED to be.......it couldn't be any other way. We can't change the past, but, because we can make choices, we can affect the future. What I'm trying to say is that we are where we are because of what we have done and experienced, so it follows that we can be where we want to be by making different choices and experiencing different experiences. We are not simply "leaves blowing around helpless in the wind" unless we choose to be. Imagine, if you will, that we instead choose to be the wind.

it does go cosmic a bit. since it is written in quasi-academic fashion he quotes the appropriate enlightenment philosopher: Hume.

"we are placed in this world, as in a great theatre" blah blah...as capn Zap wrote.

but this is just as a preamble to reductionism, Mendel, traits and Darwin. quite sophomoric really, but he makes no bones about directing this book at the Pop Culture audience.

@agnes: That's a conversation impossible to have with partisans. It's simply too important for that.

Otherwise in the game of political football:

Republicans are an elite that takes pride in being an elite. The Democrats are an elite in denial. Denial degrades practice. That's why as Sorkin said in the West Wing, the "Democrats are always bumfuzzled." Republicans set a trap and the Democrats walked into it at the full momentum of their own use of the issue to marginalize their opponents and it closed on them robbing them of the spin cred for the victory of Wall Street reform. The Tea Party may be nutty but they are the amateurs and the pawns. The administration players and almost all of the press except for CNN are professionals who were just made to look incompetent. CNN got the authoritative source and did their professional best.

phrase for the day:

"spin cred"

There was a man online which I've read which gave me some great ideas. Maybe I'll post a link of his here someday. That would take finding him in my 1000s of bookmarks...

He wanted to change the executive branch to 6 elected Men and 6 women. If you think about it, that's not much different than the setup of the Cabinet right now.

He has some profound thoughts about this Planet in Peril, which we came down eons ago and swore to protect.

Oh one thing I meant to say, was that the Prez of this Nation is way too much power for any one man to have.

Even if its true the the FED have more power than the Prez.

Does any of that rhyme with you blunderights?

Isn't that what you do at the end of a movie?

Well, coming entirely from left field: I think we also see the human struggle to overcome the dark side of our nature throughout Shakespeare's plays, as well as how often and easily the struggle is lost. The background of every play is war or other violent conflict between people -- sometimes it's all out war right there with battles and horses and kings and words, sometimes it's about people between wars, sometimes it's about people returning from war, sometimes it's about people getting ready for war, but it's always there. Even in the "happy" plays. Sometimes life ends in tragedy because the people involved just can't break away from the violence that infects their lives and souls, sometimes it's all OK because the people find a way (or someone else points them to it) out. But the struggle's always there, amidst the poetry.

I think you make an excellent point Eilleen........alot of his stuff was also about our inner struggles (wars within).....when we can put balance into our inner conflicts, maybe the outer ones will follow "the way"....

Good point, Kevin, regards inner struggles and outer struggles. "Once upon a time we all had 'powers'".

In some models, that is really at the heart of it. "It's about power." - Buffy the VPS Season 7 Episode 1.

If war is a means to obtain resources as well as sustain or alter the relationships among elites, then a power model is useful. Some United Nations theorists talk about the balancing of power among elites and between elites and non-elites.

Rowlands’ four inter-dependent context-specific dimensions of power:

power-over: coercive force that forces one to do things against their will

power-with: emphasizes the collective forces, where people cooperate with each other to achieve some outcomes

power-from-within: the psychological power in the minds of people. overcoming internalized oppression and it focuses on ‘self-value, self-acceptance and self-knowledge’

power-to: the capacity of individuals to take action embedded in the three dimensions of power mentioned above

Different strategies for managing elites (eg, elite capture of resources) are expressible as differentiated strength of each power type in context as these power types are inter-dependent when applied.

An example from another blog I participate in is contrasting the John Birch Society and the KKK. The first conclusion some jump to is they are examples of racist organizations. In effect, the JBS (founded in Massachusetts) is not specifically a racist organization although as most organizations do it will have racist elements if it also shares the common denominator of situations (why created) and membership economics (downward mobility, aka, weakening elite status). This is a shift of power domains following movements of cultural structures as different and emergent elites vie for control of resources, particularly, the right to control transactions over the surpluses. (Marxists talk about ownership of production. Behaviorists look at the second and third order control of transactions, ie., mercantilism). These contests alter the relationships among elites and non-elites and these are encoded in institutional structures.

Dick Gregory said that in the South they don't care if you are black and get too close if you don't get too big. In the North, they don't care if you get too big if you don't get too close. While a stereotype (stereotypes are boundary creations structures), it does reflect the different emphases on inner-outer struggles in different elites (power-over and power-within) and how they affect power-with.

Doesn't the Folkslinger say something about how taking care of the little peace will take care of the big peace (in the intro to "My Peace")?

And Whedon is the Shakespeare of our day, Len (imho). Dr. Horrible also illustrates that struggle, and what happens to the other people (the "civilians") who get caught up in it.