Thursday, September 1, 2022

Power


This class will examine the relationship between politics and culture. Cultural values shared by members of society have a strong impact on what type of government people have, and how they participate in politics. 

The challenges are to explain the mechanics of the American political system, and understand the changing nature of the purposes it has served throughout history. The nature of the American political system cannot be understood without accounting for the inclusion of groups that are, excluded from participation. As these groups gain the ability to participate, does the purpose of government change as well? We will also focus on aspects of the system remaining constant over the years.

Today's class there are three articles we are going over, "Inverted Totalitarianism" by Sheldon Wolin, a well regarded American political philosopher; the essay "Two Faces of Power" by Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, one of the most cited articles in the peer-reviewed journal, American Political Science Review; and an article I wrote called "Repressing Radical Protest, Tolerating Reactionary Violence." My article looks at the double-standard of American politics in how the government represses so harshly protests which are critical of capitalism and racism and other forms of bigotry (or left-wing protests) while treating right-wing protests much more gently. The most recent examples of both being the protests over the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the Capitol Riot in the beginning of 2021.

The George Floyd protests were met with severe responses from police and other law enforcement organizations, including non-state militias whose members are made up of right-wing extremists. According to a study by the political scientist Erica Chenoweth, the protests over the summer of 2020 included thousands of distinct events, and 95 percent of them were non-violent. Despite this, the interpretation of these protests by the media almost exclusively focused on violent episodes. Of the protests that turned violent, she found that most were initiated by the police or other counter-protestors. A particularly good example would be the severe response by authorities to non-violent protestors in Lafayette Square in Washington. This was done to give Trump a photo-op holding the Bible. I highlight this example because the many of the authorities on hand during the violent repression of this protest, were also on hand during the Capitol Riot on Jan. 6.



In this example, we saw a much different response. The police response was rather weak and ineffective at stopping the protestors from storming the Capitol. Given the events of the recent summer we know that the police certainly have the capability to crack down on protests if they want. The question is why didn't they want to? I believe the answer has a lot to do with the class and racial characteristics of the protestors of both groups. The Floyd protests were made up of a multitude of groups of all backgrounds but featured a large presence of working class black and Latino protestors, or people of color. The Capitol Riot were almost all white, and also mostly middle class people. It also has to do with what they were protesting. One group was protesting police violence, the other group was protesting phony claims of a stolen election for a President who had large support and several endorsements from police and law enforcement organizations. 

This double standard stands out even more, because the Floyd protests were mostly non-violent, while the Capitol Riot was extremely violent, and in some cases the protestors even made clear their intent to use violence. A lot of this is coming out now during the Congressional investigation into this. Before this, a lot of people dismissed the importance and seriousness of the Capitol Riot something that I have never understood why. I think the intent was quite clear, these people were literally trying to overthrow the government and establish Trump as a dictator, who would use this event as a pretext to declare a national emergency and stay in office that way. This is not all that different from how Adolph Hitler became the fascist dictator of Germany, who was an elected leader who then used a phony emergency (set up by the Nazis) to declare a state of emergency and became a permanent dictator, until his downfall.

I think the existence of the double standard in how authorities responded is clear, and I think the reasons for it are also clear. My explanation for it is also dialectical in that I look at the connections between various factors, and not just one thing. I also look for historical connections. From this point, I look into the past and see this double standard in historical context. I find pretty clear evidence that this double standard has always been around. I look at several Supreme Court cases from the early 20th century over the issue of free speech involving socialists, many of them criticizing the US entry into World War I, but some after as well. In all cases, the court ruled against people's right to free speech, leading to several people serving jail time, being deported, some were even killed by authorities, simply for speaking out or handing out leaflets and pamphlets against the war. On the other hand, cases involving white supremacists, like members of the KKK, had charges against them overturned or in many cases were not even charged at all. There is an event known as Red Summer in 1919, which was a period of particularly high levels of racial violence and lynching. Most of the perpetrators of this kind of violence were not even charged. The same year the leader of the Socialist Party Eugene Debs was sentenced to prison simply for making a speech supporting protestors of the war, his conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Democratic administration under Woodrow Wilson refused to grant a pardon despite public outcries over this. He would later be pardoned a few years later under a Republican administration and died not too long after this, his health being severely affected by his time in prison.

Here is a link to a list of several important Supreme Court cases involving free speech, some of which I examine in my article. All of the charges involving left-wing protestors were upheld by the court. The only convictions overturned involved racists, the only exception is Hess v. Indiana in 1973 which concerned an anti-war protest (although by 1973 the war had become extremely unpopular among most segments of America) and this was during the court's brief liberal phase after World War II.

This speaks to the power of left-wing and right-wing protests. The left was a growing force in politics in the late 19th and early 20th century, but has been severely repressed by authorities. The result of course is that the left in this country is fairly weak in terms of its power over politics. The right on the other hand is relatively strong as a result of never being severely repressed by the authorities. This plays out today in that unpopular right-wing policies are commonly imposed on people in this country. The most recent example being the Supreme Court (who we also see historically plays an extremely conservative role in American politics) taking away the right to an abortion. There are many factors involved in this as well of course, but the weakness of the left and the strength of the right are important factors.

The political theorist and activist Cornel West gives many examples of American socialists, but probably none better than Martin Luther King Jr. King learned how to organize from socialists like A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, both members of the Socialist Party. King, especially, in his last three years, became much more radical, speaking out against the capitalist system, which exploits people of all backgrounds, and spoke out against the Vietnam War. In fact, King was killed (under suspicious circumstances), exactly one year to the day he gave his most well known anti-war speech. That a prominent socialist like this can be assassinated speaks also to the crushing of the left in American politics. There is no counter-part on the right, no prominent right-wing political leader has been assassinated at least not in modern times. I honestly cannot think of any off the top of my head. In King's writings, like "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he makes as many references to Socrates, the famed Greek philosopher and teacher of Plato, as he does to Christian theologians like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.

A person holding a poster

Description automatically generated with medium confidence


West also argues you cannot talk about racism without talking about capitalism. You cannot talk about racism without talking about colonialism, colonial conquest of indigenous peoples, slavery, the slave trade, all of which played a foundational role in the development of capitalism. As the capitalist system develops it replaces economies based on the exploitation of slave labor with exploitation of wage labor, or paying a wage in exchange for someone's service. Besides creating a volatile economic system that leads to frequent crashes and recessions and increasing inequality overall, the capitalist system based on wage labor turns everything into a commodity, including people. A commodity is simply an object exchanged on a market in order to make a profit. We can see this clearly with the slave trade, which reduced people to objects sold in a market, and used unpaid slave labor to create immense wealth. Racist ideologies, or beliefs, help rationalize slavery and colonial conquest, which also used religion as a justification early on. Again, capitalism turns everything into a commodity: education, healthcare (including prescription drugs), housing, food, art, news, etc. All these things are reduced to objects produced and exchanged in order to make a profit. Even today, this goes on with immigration. What value does the capitalist see in an immigrant? As a source of cheap labor, nothing more. Most people already understand, to some extent, the connections between racism and capitalism. However, there are attempts by certain institutions like the press and academic research, like at The New York Times, to attempt to talk racism without talking about capitalism. This at least is the charge made by the radical socialist website, the World Socialist Website, against the recent 1619 Project by the Times. They recently interviewed several historians about this, the links to the articles are here. I would recommend especially the interviews by Adolph Reed Jr., Victoria Bynum, Gordon Wood, and James Oakes. Of course, the Times is the same institution (with many others) that was pushing the Russiagate narrative that Russian interference is what caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 election, and pushing the Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs lie in 2003 leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Separating racism from capitalism is more than just a mistake, but a deliberate attempt to give people a false historical narrative that conceals the history of economic exploitation that continues in the present.


The issue of power, or the concentration of power is also discussed in Wolin's article published by The Nation, in 2003. The Nation is an important publication in US history, especially in the post-World War II era, under the editorial direction of Carey McWilliams, and provided a voice of dissent during McCarthyism, gave a platform for Martin Luther King Jr., and spoke out against the Vietnam War, when newspapers like The New York Times supported it initially. McWilliams even gave "gonzo" journalist Hunter S. Thompson his first job, reporting on the Hells Angels. Wolin deals with what he considers the corruption of all American political institutions: the Presidency, legislatures, courts, political parties, the media, universities, labor unions and more. He states:
Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.

Wolin argues, this is due to the American pursuit of Empire since the end of World War II, but during the Bush administration (and after) has become increasingly overt in its imperialistic designs: 
The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. “Empire” and “superpower” both suggest that a new system of power, concentrated and expansive, has come into existence and supplanted the old terms. “Empire” and “superpower” accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to “the Constitution of the American Empire” or “superpower democracy.” The reason they ring false is that “constitution” signifies limitations on power, while “democracy” commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens. For their part, “empire” and “superpower” stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry.

This has created a new form of political power in the U.S. in what he calls inverted totalitarian. Where historical examples of totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union featured a leader surrounded by cheering masses. The inverted state prefers the anonymity of the corporate-state the fusion of economic and political power, and passive citizens who do not participate in politics at all: 
By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the “streets” were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive–while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.
Or another example:
Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive.

Wolin still retained some faith in the Democratic Party, but had he lived to see the 2016 election (he died in 2015 at 93) would he still retain faith? Does the critique need to go even further back to the origins of the country? Although some may consider Wolin alarmist, it is hard to deny these conclusions if the institutions of American society are examined in detail, as we will do throughout the class. 

Another theme by Wolin in his earlier work is the extent to which people are taught an anti-political language, that elevates the private realm of economics, over the public realm of politics, something he associates with philosophers like John Locke. This theme is developed in his bookPolitics and Vision(1960), and relates to his later theme of inverted totalitarianism, particularly the passivity of modern citizens and lack of political education. For Wolin, "the political" is different from everyday politics, the political refers to moments where people act together cooperatively for their own well-being, seen for example when people respond to a crisis or a war, however moments of the political are rare. Politics, on the other hand, refers to the everyday business of government and the endless competition of interests. Power is the ability of the people collectively to do things they would not be able to do on their own, but the meaning of power is perhaps the most debated concept in all of the social sciences. Ultimately, Wolin comes to see democracy as something like a fugitive, harassed and persecuted by the authorities, and always on the move, something very temporary and fleeting. Even in academia, Wolin's views have a kind of fugitive status, as most social scientists follow the "pluralist" tradition, rather than the power based theories of Wolin, and earlier theorists like C. Wright Mills.

This speaks to the other essay "Two Faces of Power."  The authors of this article come out in favor of the pluralist idea of politics but still argues there are ways in which certain controversial issues are suppressed by not talking about them. Overall, I do not have much to recommend about this article. It was highly influential in its day, but this speaks to some of the limitations of the formal study of politics in America. In other words, most prominent American political scientists are committed to denying there is such a concentration of power as described by Wolin or Mills before him.

This should cover a basic introduction to the idea of political power, and how culture influences this. Next class, we will explore more the political culture of the US. If you have a chance listen to the interview between Sheldon Wolin and Chris Hedges.


Assignment: On Discussion Board, choose a quote from one of the readings listed on the syllabus that can be found on Blackboard, write out the quote. Then, explain the meaning of the quote, and why you chose the quote. In other words, three paragraphs: quote, meaning, why you chose it. All of the assignments follow the same format.

34 comments:

  1. Cristina Morel
    Power is also exercised when issues are "re-framed" or in other words when the boundaries of discussion are changed. Two examples can be the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that reframed the economic discussion in the country to focus on income inequality using terms like "we are the 99%." Also, the "Black Power" movement in the late 1960s and 70s that changed the discussion on race in the country by taking a more militant stance than the earlier civil rights movement, as well as, focusing more attention on institutionalized racism in the North. By changing the debate, or reframing the issues, these groups were able to exercise power.
    The concept of power was further expanded on by sociologist Steven Lukes who argued there are actually "three dimensions of power": the first being political decisions (Dahl), the second is framing (Bachrach and Baratz), and the third is power to influence values or social norms. Lukes argues it is ultimately what people consider to be right or wrong, or normal, that will influence what choices are available and what decisions are made.

    For me the meaning of this passage is when people are together fighting for what they want they can obtain more power. This passage explains that when people are united is when they get strengths to confront any issues. For example, any social problems, like in our communities problems, or other problems which are affecting many people. However, many people think they cannot make any different and they prefer to stay out of the groups who are trying to change the government’s decisions. These passages emphasize about movements like, “Occupy wall Street” and ‘’Black Power,” which fought for their rights. These movements can be good examples on how to create conscious about something that are causing discomfort in our lives. But, when people are united in any country the government can recognize that not only the government can have power in the nation. Moreover, like Steven Lukes argued about the” three dimension of power,” first S. Lukas mentioned political decision, second is framing, and third power to influence values or social norms. In my opinion I think could be more maybe. About our political issues, everyone think they have the reason, the problem that can be hard for a group not are the problems for others. For example, people who have enough food at their home do not think about malnourishment. We do not have a balance for all types of problems. The government no always try to resolve the problems in the ways the people want. It is when people think about the selection they did when they went to vote for their candidates, and after that they realize if the nation will need a change or should continue with the same government.
    I choose this passage because every day we can see injustice around the world, not only at USA. At least, I like the USA justice system more in this country than my own country. I like when people can fight for their rights and they can be heard and can find solutions when they unite their voices. When people are guided by the country’s rules and respect those and they are also respected too, they like the system in which they are living.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Cristina! This is good but this should be posted on your blog. Also, you should quote from the readings on blackboard.

      People exercise power when they bring awareness to issues like malnourishment...It's true that many people don't realize that. I like what you said about people actually liking the system they are living in!

      Delete
    2. My mistake. Thanks for letting me know. It is my first time taking online classes and using a blog.

      Delete
  2. I'm confused on the assignment due the 19th.

    Do we choose a paragraph from what you've written above or do we choose a paragraph from one of the assigned essays ("Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't" by Frank Newport, "Americans Names Government as Number One Problem," by Justin McCarthy or "Two Faces of Power" by Peter Bachrach and Morton Barat)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Choose a paragraph from one of the assigned essays.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1236520776341974049#editor/target=post;postID=6546104950417867467;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am having trouble understanding the assignment do I just choose one ? do I need to write about the three of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read all three assigned readings, and choose one paragraph from one of the works. I was a bit confused at first as well.

      Delete
    2. Just a paragraph not one of the three readings? This is confusing

      Delete
    3. Just a paragraph not one of the three readings? This is confusing

      Delete
    4. yeah i know , was a bit confusing at first. read all three assignments , choose one that stood out the most to you and once you choose that one assignment choose a paragraph form it and follow the structure of what the assignments is asking to do.hope this helps

      Delete
    5. Thanks you guys cause it was confusing

      Delete
  6. I see my blog did not come up, need help to set it because I followed all the instruction and I did send the email.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello class I'm a little confused
    DO we have to choose a quote from what the professor wrote and posted above ? Do we have write three paragraphs and explain it in our own words ?

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. after reading all of the comments above I think katherine pena post is probably right

      Delete
  8. I'm not sure either about the homework either. I will be waiting for a response before I do anything

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am a little confused on the homework as well. To my understanding we were supposed to read the articles and "reflect" in our blog. Is this "quote assignment" a second assignment?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have added my assignment to my blog.
    Rudy74.blogspot.com
    My user name is: Rudylehman2017

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello,
    I posted my assignment my blog website is : http://frinnetruiz.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Sociologist Steven Lukes argues that there are “three dimensions of power”: the first being politically decisions (Dahl), the second is framing, or controlling what issues and policies are discussed (Bachrach and Bratz), but the third is the power to influence values or social norms, that is to control the basic ideas of right and wrong and what is considered good or bad. Luke argues it is ultimately what people consider to be right or wrong, or normal, that will influence what choices are available and what decisions are made”.

    Steven Lukes makes a couple of valid points when defining supremacy. Luke breaks down the word “power” in three parts which are all essential in defining what power really is. Individuals who are in control should be able to make smart political choices by addressing the concerns that affect citizens on their daily living. Luke also mentions that the alternatives and outcomes displayed by government authorities are based on the individuals customs and norms; “right, from wrong to normal”. Some examples that support this statement and mentioned in the txt are the issues of drugs, abortion and marriage within gays. Some topics were not “vital” to individuals before the 1970’s therefore; some conversations were excluded and not openly discussed as they are today. “Two faces of Power” by Bachrach and Baratz. Individuals, customs, norms, values and beliefs are the influential factors that will push people to fight for what they truly desire.

    I choose this particular quote because I personally feel that Steven Lukes strongly defines “power” compared to Dahl, Bachrach & Bratz. Luke provides a broader definition for control by including most components of authority. In the text power is defined in various ways by different socialist according to their own views. These definitions share the idea that power is a “socialist act”; therefore superior figures should be able to motivate individuals under their command to create the “idle” society that government officials foresee .I believe that influential people should be able to communicate effectively, model certain behavior, listen to their people and decide what is best for their citizens. The type of government that rules that particular society shouldn’t matter because the supervision should always try to acknowledge and serve their people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello,

    My blog has been posted at:
    https://aps-pol166.blogspot.com/?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  14. sorry for lateness, but I couldn't do it earlier
    My blog has been posted at:
    mathieu99.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. hello professor. Can you plea add me in the blog's class section so I can se you posy. I have sent you the assignment, but apparently you haven't received
    my blog is:
    yeridania.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can I be added in the blog's Class section so i can post. TiradoJohn17.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. This article speaks about Power. From what I have read, and I read this over and over to try and understand the reading. What I am understand is that the article speaks about democracy and total control. One controlled by the people and the other by the government.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Steven Luke when he says that power is determined by what the majority of Americans consider as normal. For example, Trump won presidency because people thought that his values was considered normal, so they voted for him. The supreme court ruled in Trump's favor when he wanted to ban countries like Yemen from entering the U.S. Some people from Yemen have family members that live in the U.S and they are not able to bring their significant others to the U.S from Yemen because of this ban Some of these people have kids to take care of, so it can be hard working and taking care of your kids without your significant other with you in the U.S. Therefore, because Trump influenced the supreme court to rule in his favor, he now has power over the lives of the people from Yemen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So I read this article maybe about 4 times just to make sure that I understand it and though I do understand the jist of it I have so many questions popping up in my head. I am still and forever will be saddened by what happened to the Jews under Hitler, but what is do question is: are we truly free. We hear over and over again how this is a free country and we are free to speak about what we choose, it is even a right that we have, yet when exercised we are at times penalize for it.

    With life's lessons and from noticing what goes on in the world, I sometimes think that there is a system in place that keep the poor, poor; rich, rich,; middle class, middle class. Now although it is a known fact that not everyone thinks the same, we can all agree that the struggle to get to a better place in life - statistically is real. Wolin's writing confirm conversations about unfair governmental treatment or inverted totalitarianism.

    What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  21. In reality, your opinions are of no value because there is always an agenda at hand. According to Wolin, “The increasing power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control the state has been in the making for some time.”

    Power came about to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I really enjoyed the first assignment. I especially enjoyed Sheldon Wolin's article. My understanding of the reading was there is no "true" power. There is only one power, and that power is absolute power that reigns with the most powerful political party. I liked how he compared Nazi Germany and America's methods of possessing absolute power, and the limits they would go to have this power. All in total, I am very happy I read this article. I also liked reading the other article by Bachrach and Baratz as well.

    ReplyDelete