The Problem with Radicalism

It is never easy to talk about radicalism without everyone wanting to say what it is, but let's start with a dictionary definition:

 Radicalism: The state or character of being radical; the holding or carrying out of extreme principles on any subject; specifically, extreme political liberalism; the doctrine or principle of uncompromising reform in government; the system or methods advocated by the political Radicals of a country.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Why is radicalism a problem? It depends who you ask, but since I am writing this, it is a problem for me because radicalism and its ideas take time to become mainstream ideas, for instance, the abolition of slavery (at the time a radical idea) took a civil war to become the law and 100+ years to successfully implement civil rights for all. Radicalism operates with the mindset that we don't have time to wait to act on the things we believe are wrong. Sadly, since we can't all share that belief, at the same time already we are in conflict. Secondly, because we are living in a representative democracy within a republic, it requires enough votes for change. Since elections are on two, four, and six-year cycles, fast change is almost impossible to legislate and enact.

And, that is perhaps the strength and weakness of our governance that has intentional checks and balances, nothing moves at the speed of those who are in the need of fairness, justice, or equity. Nonetheless, firebrands are always storming the castle with ideas that we must enact asap. Even when a hurricane devastated a community, we are not able to fix everything good-as-new immediately. Change takes time and persistence. 

This does not minimize the need for those who embrace radicalism. I will argue that radicals are as necessary to good governance as rain is to a field of wheat. Without rain, no wheat. Without radicals, no change. It is fair to say that helpful radical ideas do get absorbed into the mainstream, presuming they are credible ideas in the first place. 

Now the weird part of radicalism. Radicalism is not just a bunch of people screaming in the streets about an issue, radicalism may come from any sphere and dress in a business suit. When it comes in dress clothes, we have a different view of it, like it is somehow more reasonable than when it comes in bare feet. The difference, as you've likely surmised is the packaging and presenters. In the old TV westerns, when TV was in black and white, it was important to distinguish the good guys from the bad ones. How it was done was with black and white hats. We picked sides that way and we do where radicalism is concerned.

Some radicals use flag-waving jargon to make their case. "Texas should secede" scream secessionists, while corporate radicals want to drown the government in a bathtub for freedom from taxes, and leftie radicals want Medicare for all as a basic human right. So there is another problem with radicalism, it takes the shape of its ideologues. But the devil of it is that we don't recognize some things as radicalism. For instance pride in our country is seen as an honorable/good thing and, therefore, nationalism is not universally seen as radical, just a logical extension of democracy. In the same way, we don't label capitalism as radical, because it is our primary economic model. But surely even if you love capitalism, you have to agree it was a radical idea that some people would benefit from it much more than others and often at the other's expense.

So, this brings us to the last problem of radicalism, by necessity it leads to anarchy. Without having an anchor on a boat, the boat will drift. Radicalism wants to burn the mother down for change to happen and so does anarchy forming a vacuum of leadership. Most people are ill-prepared for the sudden change that comes from radicalism, let alone the void of governance.

Radicalism is a problem and governance is a clumsy way to codify a way for things to change and this clunkiness means that nothing happens as fast as those who need it to change need (enter human suffering). Is radicalism a big problem as compared to other disrupting forces at play? I don't think it is, but it is the most visible form of dissension and because, at its core, it is intent on aiding the public good, it is hard to be mad at those who advocate for radical change (unless you are the mother that has been burned down). And radicals are right! We need things to change ASAP. But they won't, at least not without creating a deeper mess that history has shown us time and again can be disastrous (e.g., life in Haiti, the madcap adventures of the former Soviet Union). 

I say that we embrace our radical tendencies, but moderate our expectations in terms of deliverables. The one thing the radical right has shown us is if you have an agenda and you are relentless with it, you'll get things done.

News Desertion

 Ever since CNN became the first 24-hour news network, it has been difficult for news to report just the facts. After all, in 24 hours how much news rises to the level of consequential except to those who are involved? Nonetheless, the news is now an endangered species on the local level as newspapers are either gobbled up by conglomerates or shuttering up in less populous areas. On the TV front, it is much the same as local channels are bought up by companies like Gray Television or Sinclair Broadcast Group. With the consolidation of news media on the local level, there are fewer eyeballs on the ways that government officials fail us or how business interests expand their influence, and frankly, even fewer human interest stories that remind us that there is good going on as well.

Democracy thrives by factual information being widely available for all who care to know it. Today's media is more marketing than it is news. Hence to attract a certain demographic, you have right- and left-leaning flamethrowers like Tucker Carlson or Michael Moore and then form stories that conform to a prospective. Other than Reuters or the AP, most news is preferential to the way it treats stories. Of course, there is a long history of this. And somehow democracy has survived the disparity between what is true and what people believe.

However, with the evolution of social media, the blurring of fact and fiction is widening; to the point ere at one time Jon Stewart was the most trusted news anchor in America. I'm not dissing Jon Stewart, as we have seen recently comedians can come across as very credible (see:  Volodymyr Zelenskyy), but clearly, people are struggling with understanding their world and the bipolarity of how news is reported. With the ability to pick and choose your sources on social media, we are rapidly submerging into a gray area where it is not shared or even common knowledge on anything and the barn door is wide open for out-and-out propaganda to pose as news.

So, I am left with this question: Did the news desert us or did we desert the news? A case for both can be made and particularly when people stopped paying for reliable news sources via transitioning away from newspapers and magazines and even network news in favor of web-based sources which have, up to now, been harder to monetize around. At the same time, the consolidation of news media is the egg in the chicken and the egg analogy. 

It may be argued that this is a temporary problem and that the marketplace will eventually solve it as people seek out reliable sources. I don't see that happening. Using a different analogy, people know that there are healthier food choices, but we lean into salty, sugary junk food because it tastes so good. And like junk food, sometimes we feel bad about it, but we go back to it. News as we've known it is dead and its replacement is partisan news--not as healthy for us, but we can't seem to get enough of it.   

Gimme Back My Freedom of Rest

  Iowa lost its mind in 2017 when Terry Branstad signed into law and allowied category 2 fireworks to be sold legally in the state (category 1 are things like sparklers and the like). This past year, the  governing Republican triumverate went a step further and said that cities have little say where they can be sold (even though cities and counties may continue to bar them from being set off in incorporated areas). Needless to say, the jury is back and has had enough, as places like my neighborhood sound like eastern Ukraine with explosions that can wake a sane person out of a night's sleep and cause pets to run for cover before, during, and after the 11 pm curfew for unincorporated areas. Also, there is no telling what effect it may have on the PTSD-suffering among us. 

And I am not against fireworks, I know that all the cities of any size have wonderful displays of them annually and it is a, pardon the pun, blast to see them. But, seriously, unless you are a pyromaniac or have a death wish, you are as likely to end up in the hospital, lose some degree of hearing, and/or make some poor decisions if you are blowing off firecrackers for the fun of it.  There were an estimated 11,500 emergency room-treated injuries involving fireworks in 2021. (down from 15,600 in 2020, when many public shows were canceled due to the pandemic). But the types of accidents seen ranged from burns, demolished eardrums, and, loss of limbs (e.g., hands, fingers).

From a story from today

At least three people — including a child — died and more were injured in fireworks accidents across America over the July 4 holiday.

In Montebello, California, police reportedly found a severely injured man unconscious and not breathing around 6:30 p.m. Monday. He died at a hospital and reportedly used illegal fireworks.

In Mount Vernon, Indiana, 11-year-old Camrynn Ray McMichael died in a firework accident Sunday night. Police were investigating his death.

Look, if you are in the highest-risk category, typically men between the ages of 20-24, and you want to do something fun with explosives, study, and become a professional demolitionist or pyrotechnician, heck even take up amateur or professional rocketry. But for the sake of those who value our freedom (of sleep), do us a solid and curb your enthusiasm. And to state lawmakers who thought it was a good idea to make it possible for others to profit from others' misery, you really can't call yourself a public servant can you?

In Iowa, if you want to let key legislators know what you think of the Senate File 2285 signed into law, here are a couple of folks to communicate with besides your own district's Representative and Senator:

Floor manager Mike Kelmish who also is on the Appropriations Subcommittee for Health and Human Services and the Legislative Council for Health Policy Oversight Committee

Legislative Email: mike.klimesh@legis.iowa.gov

Home Email: mike@graphicsinc.biz

In the House, it was floor managed by Brent Siegrist who sits on the local government committee:

Legislative Email: Brent.Siegrist@legis.iowa.gov

Home Email: siegrists1@cox.net

Also, since she signed the bill, you might also want to send a shoutout to Governor Kim Reynolds.

I'm tired of being tired and from June 1 to July 8th and late December, I have no right to sleep. Until I do, these leaders should be awakened to what they've created.

Considering Independence Day 2022

 In 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written. Thomas Jefferson enumerated why the original thirteen colonies found it necessary to seek independence from the British Crown. In it, he listed the following "injuries and usurpations": 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Clearly, these were excellent reasons to seek freedom and independence. However, in 2022, how are we doing with our independence in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and self-rule? Some might say that we traded in one kind of authoritarianism for another where the executive, judiciary and the legislative bodies in states have outsized power over the day-to-day existence of women, people of color, and those lacking financial means to influence. It would seem that the "checks and balances" are failing many and therefore our self-governance is being usurped. Thankfully, our form of government does have an essential safeguard, the power of the electorate to vote for change and this has likely kept us from entering into a second civil war. However, when the halls of Congress are largely occupied by self-serving interests and wedge issue wars are being promulgated by monied interests to prop up economic interests who largely do not represent the vast majority of us, it is right to ask how will we continue to make this experiment in representative democracy work? For too long the interests that guide our state are largely economic and the welfare of the residents has taken a back seat to those interests that fuel the economic engine. This is not a new phenomenon, but it has become outsized and power has been consolidated along the way. 

With each gerrymandering of a district or removal of authority of a city or county, local law has been reduced and therefore the freedom of those impacted by the law. In a way, we are being micro-managed by power-grabbing entities that have formed an unholy alliance--such as church and state, industry and state, parties and supporters. Freedom shouldn't be this hard, but it has been made so by professionalizing politics and underlying bureaucracies, pitting neighbor against neighbor by militarizing the public sphere, and creating an environment of chaos by undervaluing and encouraging propaganda over education. And on top of all this, we have allowed a hellscape to be carved out of our environment such that massive effort will need to be undertaken to support the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of people living not only in this country, but around the world.

Paraphrasing Meridith Willson, we've got trouble, right here in the US of A. Without a coming to grips with how we got here and working together to change the dynamics in place, I fear the state of the union looks quite bleak. So here is an exercise I would like us all to consider, if you were responsible for writing the 2022 version of a declaration of independence, what might you say?