They create crisis and spectacle!

I finished the book Mexico by James Michener. It is similar to many of his other books that use fictional characters, usually in long family lines, to tell the history of a place. I had previously read a few of his books. First was The Source about the entire history of what became modern Israel. I read this one back in high school when I thought it looked cool to carry around a book of about a thousand pages. I’ve also read Hawaii (turned into a movie featuring Julie Andrews), Centennial (about the settlement of Colorado), Tales of the South Pacific (from which the musical South Pacific was created), Alaska, and Poland (which I read while living in Germany). There are many more that look interesting. This novel, at almost 650 pages, is narrated by Norman Clay, born in the fictional town of Toledo, Mexico. He is descended from a native group that built a pyramid north of town in 600 AD, from Spaniards who invaded in the 1520s and supplied the town’s Catholic bishops for several generations (you say Catholic clergy cannot marry? There are ways...), and from a disaffected Southern gentleman who can’t tolerate that the North won the American Civil War). Overall I enjoyed the book. Michener is a fine writer and storyteller. He adds wonderful detail to the story he’s telling. This book would be a great recommendation to his other books. Except... all that history is wrapped up in a story of bullfighting. I had heard about this book many years ago and heard it was about bullfighting. Though I wanted to know more about Mexican history I made a mental note to stay away from this one. Of course, by the time I saw this book in my local library’s used book sale I had forgotten that mental note. I bought it for 50 cents (or maybe 25), which is a good deal when paperbacks are going for $16. That bullfighting story is about Victoriano of Spanish descent and his rival Juan of native descent. Clay is dispatched to the town by his American magazine because there is rumor that one of them will do something during the final fight of the Toledo festival to cause the death of the other. While there are descriptions of bullfights, there are also descriptions of how the bulls are bred and raised, how the matadors are trained (please leave the ugly term “toreador” with the opera Carmen), how frequently they get a timid bull, how they strategize during the fight, how they can corrupt a fight, and how death is central to a Spaniard’s worldview. At times I wondered if Michener understood genetics. The fictional Spanish line that came to Mexico in the 1520s was two brothers. The sons of one always married Spanish women, the sons of the other – the line of bishops – always married native women. So after five generations the offspring would be only 3% Spanish. But they’re not described that way. Clay is about 25% European, yet he is depicted as if he is white – he lives in Alabama for a time and doesn’t describe encountering racism. Yesterday I quoted a couple things from a pundit roundup by Greg Dworkin of Daily Kos. But the last couple of things of interest were too interesting and too long for the time I had. So I’ll delve into them now. Dworkin quoted b-boy bouiebaisse who quoted a tweet from House Judiciary GOP: “If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you.” To which bouiebaisse responded:

really interesting how the republican line on this is “some people should be above the law” “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

I had heard that quote before, though don’t remember where. The quote was followed by a link to a post on Crooked Timber. I didn’t quite follow the original 2018 post (strange characters for apostrophes didn’t help). So I searched the page for the quote and that got me to a lengthy comment by Frank Wilhoit (comment 26). Wilhoit wrote there is no such thing as liberalism, progressivism, or most of the other political philosophies one hears about. There is only conservatism, as defined by the quote above. Wilhoit doesn’t give a source for the quote. Even conservatism didn’t have a name or definition for millennia. When there is a king or dictator no other political philosophy is needed. But even then there is an in group of the ruler and his cronies and an out group of everyone else. There is an opposite to conservatism, called anti-conservatism, and can expressed simply, with no need for commentary:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Not sure what all that binding and protecting mean? Think of it this way: The law protects the rich guy and his property – his land, his business, ... his slaves. Damage the property of a rich person and you’ll be in a heap of trouble. The law does not restrict what a rich person is allowed to do. As for the poor person the law places a great deal of restriction on what he is allowed to do, yet does not protect him or his property. Dworkin also quoted a tweet, the start of a thread, by Teri Kanenfield. She is a former appellate defender and her analysis has appeared in the Washington Post, NBC, and other outlets. Kanenfield is interested the social hierarchy, as I am, and her thoughts are very similar to mine.

For some people (like us) purpose of government is to help people. We think fairness is possible, and that the government's job is to try to create fairness. ... Hierarchy people, in contrast, think there’s a natural order: Some people belong on top. Others are at the bottom. They think that people with money and power have that money and power because they deserve it. An example: The white supremacy theories that informed the Confederacy. Hierarchy people don’t believe equality is possible because they don’t think people are equal. They think the purpose of government is to allocate power and maintain the hierarchy. When a government helps people, they think the government is taking away from the “makers” and giving to the undeserving. When people lower than them on the hierarchy demand equality, they think those people want to “replace” them.

Kanenfield said that 19th century law was to protect and reinforce the hierarchy. Rape laws were to protect the white man from false accusations. Rapes were evaluated on where the attacker and victim were on the hierarchy (see black man raping a white woman). Kanenfield wrote that the Civil Rights movement “smashed” the hierarchy and we’re now riding the backlash. I wouldn’t use the word “smashed” because white men never lost their position at the top. However, the gains – reductions in oppression – that women, blacks, atheists, and LGBTQ people made plus the falling percentage of white people in the country did scare them. The backlash is real and has been building since just after the Civil Rights laws were passed (see the Powell Memorandum of the 1970s and Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and his union busting in 1981 – I see those tax cuts as giving the rich the ability to buy Congress). Back to Kanenfield. She next discussed people who supported the hierarchy, even though they were not the ones with power. That reminds me of a quote attributed to Lyndon Johnson, which is paraphrased: Give a person someone to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you. Those who support the hierarchy aren’t and never will be anywhere near the top. But they’re not at the bottom, either. They will give up a lot to be able to say: My life may be hard, but it is much better than the poor soul below me.

When fairness leaders are in power, they try to create fairness, they do things like try to make sure everyone has healthcare and inexpensive medications. OK, so if leaders don’t govern in the usual sense (devising policy to better the lives of the citizens) what do they do all day? They create crisis and spectacle! GOP members have said that if they come to power, they will impeach Biden and Garland. (Spectacle) They identify enemies and promise to “neutralize” the enemies. The play on people's fears.

How do we move forward? There is always a push and pull. Progressives push forward, try to create fairness. Conservatives pull back. It’s constant work.

One bit of advice not on my to-do list: Hold on to your ideals. The hierarchal worldview is deeply cynical. The fairness view is idealistic. We can never have perfect fairness, so fairness people run the danger of becoming cynical. Positive change requires ideals.

Those ideals need to be rooted in reality. Change won’t happen all at once. It will be slow because there is always pushback.

The founders rejected monarchy and created a rule of law society that rejected autocracy but nonetheless embraced a hierarchy. ... They created a rule of law government. The laws favored a certain group of people, which is different from a monarchy.

Kanenfield concluded by saying hierarchy people see law enforcement as protecting their power. They don’t believe in equality. Fairness people want law enforcement to create justice. Yesterday I discussed far right militia types saying the FBI search of the nasty guy’s estate meant they had crossed the Rubicon towards Civil War. I knew what the phrase meant but not its origin. My first memory of the phrase was during the musical 1776, about the passing of the Declaration of Independence. It came out in the early 1970s and I saw the movie version while in college. During that show the John Adams character is alone on stage and wonders why no one sees the future he does. He sings “Is Anybody There?” which includes the lines:

For I have crossed the Rubicon Let the bridge be burned behind me Come what may, come what may

ThoughtCo provides a pretty good explanation of the phrase. In 49 BCE, when Rome was still a republic, Julius Caesar was at the head of an army that had broadened the influence of Rome. That year he was at the northern border of direct Roman territory, which was the Rubicon River. He faced a choice. Roman law said a military general could not enter Italy, the territory around Rome, with his army. ThoughtCo put it this way:

If Caesar brought his troops from Gaul into Italy, he would be violating his role as a provincial authority and would essentially be declaring himself an enemy of the state and the Senate, fomenting civil war. But if he didn't bring his troops into Italy, Caesar would be forced to relinquish his command and likely be forced into exile, giving up his military glory and ending his political future.

Caesar deliberated for a while, then crossed the Rubicon with his army. As he did so he said, “Let the die be cast.” And soon the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Die is singular for dice. As soon as a die is cast or thrown, the fate it represents is decided.