Thoughts and Considerations
Considering The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy by Benjamin Studebaker
Benjamin Studebaker argues convincingly that reforming the State and political environment is impossible. Isn’t that terrible? In one way, but in another way it could be liberating: we could feel free to focus on our lives and other initiatives. “The way is shut.” Amen.
The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy by Benjamin Studebaker is a great book that I would suggest to everyone; here, we will start with his reflections about ‘[t]he economic historian Walter Scheidel,’ who ‘observe[d] that once extraordinary inequalities of wealth and power take hold in a society, they are only very rarely disrupted.’¹
‘Historically, peaceful reform just hasn’t managed to get the job done. Scheidel identifies four forces that have shown a real capacity to substantially weaken or displace entrenched oligarchs — war, revolution, state collapse, and pandemic.’²
These must be deeply existential risks, which means “proxy wars” and smaller pandemics will not suffice: the fate of the civilization must be in question. For what Scheidel calls ‘leveling,’ the ‘events [must be] truly existential.’³
‘The World Wars made it unsafe to move money and goods across the oceans. They made it unsafe to live and work abroad. The threat of losing the war enabled governments to impose large tax rates on oligarchs. The devastation the war visited upon Europe destroyed a lot of the oligarch’s wealth.’⁴
The World Wars allowed governments to do what otherwise would have been impossible, as can pandemics, revolutions, and social collapses. Existential events allow what otherwise would be unthinkable, because when the unthinkable occurs, the unthinkable can happen. But otherwise? Little — that’s Studebaker’s point. If this is so, do we really want “the way” to open? Might it be “a fanged noumenon?”
Studebaker reviews Thomas Piketty and the argument ‘that if we could get governments to club together and agree on common economic policies, the oligarchs would lose their ability to pit countries and states against each other.’⁵ True, but this kind of coordination likely won’t happen: ‘it lacks political[] feasibility.’⁶ Might a revolution work? Well, ‘[w]hen revolutions happened in the twentieth century, they happened at a time when Soviet-style communism had not yet been tried, or at the very least had not yet collapsed.’⁷ Now, people know the risks of revolution, which can destroy their will for revolution, leading ‘people to question the very possibility of there being any credible alternative to our system.’⁸ And we really could make things worse, and who today wants a war (especially with nukes around)? Ultimately, Scheidel ‘conclude[s] that it is probably impossible to reign in the power of oligarchs. Reforms and revolutions won’t work, and wars and plagues would cost too much.’⁹ Studebaker goes on to expound his case in powerfully convincingly ways, and I would suggest all readers check out his book today.
Wait, does this mean there is no hope for change? Maybe, but what Scheidel describes might just be how things can change without a deep change in subjectivity. This is the concern of our “new address” in Belonging Again (Part II), focused on social imagination. At the same time, we have to be careful to not fall into a mistake of Conservatives which Studebaker notes, where Conservatives argue that culture matters, but ends up in a ‘circular thinking [which] allows the right to find an unwinnable culture forever war, without seriously grappling with the economic conditions that make that war unwinnable.’¹⁰ This is something we must strongly keep in mind: if we are to focus on aesthetics, culture, language, and the like, we mustn’t at the same time ignore economics, which is why though in II.1 it was important to link changes in philosophy and language with “The Great Enrichment.” However, we have not proven able to keep those gains, thus why there is work to be done, but if we can “realize” from studying history what caused those gains, we will at least have a sense of what exactly it is we need to keep, sustain, and now lose again. But elaborating on this point will require turning to the II.1…
‘If the right really wants to reign in desire and create a more virtuous society, it needs to create the conditions in which it is possible for the desire to be reigned in.’¹¹ I agree, which suggests the Conservatives must take note of realities such as:
‘As our lives become more precarious [due to the Great Stagnation, for example], we also become more individually dependent on powerful economic actors. The weakening bargaining power of workers and professionals makes them more dependent on the oligarchs and corporations that employ them. The inability of small employers to easily relocate makes them dependent on market conditions in their local areas, and those conditions fluctuate too readily. In this sense, there has been a loss of freedom.’¹²
The hard way is the only way. Studebaker goes on to show why various political movements, such as those which orbit ‘the equality/equity distinction,’ will ultimately fail, benefiting the oligarchs and corporations and fragmenting the public into groups and tribes.¹³ Again, I’ve only scratched the surface of the book (he discusses ‘the four F’s’ and how they are ‘political stuck,’ making me think of Matthew Stanley’s work and inward-ranging), and I highly suggest you pick up a copy: mainly, I wanted to say that I agree with Benjamin Studebaker.¹⁴ We find ourselves ‘expend[ing] most of [our] time and energy doing [our] level best to avoid the dangers on the ground, to find safe places to hide for a while, to preserve [our] sanity in the face of new ruses.’¹⁵ “The way is shut.” And yet oddly, like a page out of Alex Ebert’s “Fre(Q) Theory,” this is why I find hope.
Overall, to incorporate Karatani, I would say that Studebaker makes a very strong case that efforts to directly oppose the Capital-Nation-State will fail. ‘This is a bleak book,’ he writes, ‘not deny[ing] it.’¹⁶ No exit. Does that mean there is no hope? Not necessarily; rather, it means we should focus on creating and cultivating “the social imagination,” which has been the main focus and concern of this book. If this is possible, then the fact that ‘American democracy can […] continu[e] on […] ‘muddling through,’ to use Runciman’s words,’ indefinitely, could mean that we have time.¹⁷ If America is undead, it could be around for resurrection. But for that possibility, we must overcome how ‘[t]he American political system is attacking our imagination.’¹⁸ A nonviolent and hence existential resistance of “aesthetic power” against this is perhaps the work of the Liminal Web.
Thomas Jockin in “The Net (106)” made the point that for Plato the virtuous are not virtuous if they don’t seek to govern and help the society advance and develop. We spoke in the Introduction of “The Ambitious Virtue Paradox,” and for Plato he’d say someone who doesn’t seek to help and improve the State isn’t virtuous: hence, in a way, it’s a false paradox. Fair, but if Studebaker is right, wouldn’t it be foolish for the virtuous to try to govern, and how can something be virtuous if it is foolish? At the same time, I come back to Matthew Stanley’s warnings regarding Silence, where there is a severe danger in letting ourselves be inwardly-ranged by any logic, which could include the idea that “the way is shut.” How do we address these tensions?
Speaking personally, I myself have always felt the tension of focusing on my individual life and not worrying about the government, global situation, and the like, for I’ve seen on many occasions how a focus on global issues can lead to dysfunctions in people’s immediate lives. And yet I also see the danger of “particularist projects” where we abandon hopes for social and political change. Yet if “the way is shut,” perhaps we’re off the hook? Perhaps we can stop worrying about trying to change the Capital-Nation-State and just enjoy our lives while we have them? And yet is this immoral and unvirtuous? Would not Plato frown?
There is something in Studebaker’s work that is liberating, in the sense that those who hate politics should not feel guilty for avoiding it. At the same time, what Jockin teaches and Stanley warns should not be overlooked. For me, thinking the need for “a (re)turn to common life’ (“particularist”) with “virtuously impacting a larger scale” (“universal”), is only something I can think when I think about focusing on and influencing “the social imagination.” This is for us to influence and impact aesthetics, which is for us to provide different ways for people to formulating themselves, say into Children (as discussed in Belonging Again). I am convinced that if we do not “spread Childhood,” the consequences could be dire, but I also agree with Studebaker that “the way is shut.” Thus, there is “The Liminal Web as a Grassroots Movements” to focus on…
‘All of them will tell you that the future of democracy is at stake,” Studebaker writes, and indeed it always is — that’s how it works.¹⁹ A trap? Perhaps, but it also might simply not know any better. ‘Andrew Gamble argues democracy can be in crisis even when its survival is never called into question.’²⁰ An endless game of musical chairs where the chairs are all gone — a crisis — but the music never stops. What then? Accept the endless dance and live our lives, ignoring it? We should live our lives, yes, but there is also a Liminal Web Grassroot Movement, where “faithful presence” and a careful observing and learning of what unfolds is possible. But even if we fail, we will not sacrifice the particular for the universal. If we succeed, we won’t live our lives any different. A success and way to live.
.
.
.
Notes
¹Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 15.
²Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 15.
³Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 15.
⁴Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 15.
⁵Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 16.
⁶Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 17.
⁷Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 19.
⁸Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 19.
⁹Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 22.
¹⁰Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 46.
¹¹Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 48.
¹²Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 99.
¹³Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 103.
¹⁴Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 149.
¹⁵Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 149.
¹⁶Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 157.
¹⁷Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 191.
¹⁸Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 195.
¹⁹Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 56.
²⁰Studebaker, Benjamin. The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy. Switzerland. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer Nature Switzerland), 2003: 73.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook.
