That was good.

Hear, here -- but what of multi-party political coalitions? There must ways that a nation of 300M can keep politicians from becoming entrenched.

Not that I care. :-)

possibilities:

1. yes.

2. do you have evidence for this, in the television era? it sounds like it could be an incitement to entrenching resistance, e.g., the thing with lieberman backfiring — a somewhat special situation, i know, without a second repugnant candidate in the race, but, lots of nasty selfish pricks are incumbents unto themselves. i mean metaphorically. you're not just talking about electoral challenges. most of the really skunky people have a multi-year relationship with a horrible industry, for instance.

3. organizers are good. targeted and well-planned spending and regulation are not so good — less room for favors.

4. my feeling on this is a lot of the old industries are currently taking heavy blows to their reputations. before they buy their way out of it, it's a grand opportunity to force a cleanup.

5. we don't have a generation to wait.

You may suck, but you also rule.

With that in mind, we must change the way money works. What does the power of institutions stem from if not money?

BTW Jon, if that is the way even elementary schools work, you must have had a sucky elementary school life, no? I'm not American, but I at both my elementary and high school levels I have seen true examples of selflessness at work from my headmasters and I know then instinctively, that better ways are present.

SteveB, you're not even going to link to your own post?

Jon, thanks very much for this.

Nell, the link is the word "diary" in the first line.

I just skimmed that thread, SteveB. You have my sympathies. Your critics are locked into their positions and aren't listening to anything you have to say. None of them seem to understand that some of the "facts" Obama cites regarding Iran's threat are in question, or that accepting all these accusations about Iran as factual contributes to the prowar campaign or that maybe we don't assume that the US is in any moral position to blather on about the harm Iranian influence has on the Middle East--even if all the claims made about Iran were true, it's a sick joke listening to American politicians complaining about their malign influence on the region. American politicians are expected to talk this way, of course, but that's one of the things wrong with American political culture.

I suppose it's hard to work enthusiastically for a Democratic victory if you find mainstream Democratic politicians to be a pretty disgusting bunch. One way to avoid the problem is to adopt their views.

Jon - this post is astounding, which seems to be a pattern with you. But I disagree with your Iron Law. There are plenty of examples of people more devoted to the institution than to themselves. Plenty of people have died for their cause, for example, even with a strong leadership role. Let's leave a little space in that Law, least we be stifled by our own cynicism.

If you'd restrict the Iron Law to political parties, however, I'd agree with you. (4) is dead-on. Schumer and Hoyer will never have to scrub toilets, because no one can make 'em. The fundamentals of political organization - the meaning of "senator" - would have to change first.

SteveB - you're a brave man for even attempting that. That crowd seems unusually thick-headed. Maybe you should try some allegory:

"Let's kill that rapist cock-sucker Jedediah!" shouts someone in the lynch mob.

"Now, now, wait a minute!" says Pastor Ruben, climbing up on a stump in front of the crowd. "Jedediah may have despoiled Maybeline, that sweet flower of innocence, but killin' just ain't right! Let's tar and feather him, and run him out of town on a rail!"

"Yeah!" shouts half the mob. "No! Kill the bastard!" shouts the other half.

"Wait! Wait! Friends, I don't think Jedediah raped Maybeline AT ALL! This is all a horrible mistake!" cries out Rudy Butler, waving her hands frantically. But no one can hear her through the din.

THE FEAR that Obama could say anything to increase the chances of an attack on Iran, is that , just a fear. George and Deadeye don't care about ANYBODY'S opinion and will fire when ready.

I really enjoyed reading this post as it helps me organize my thoughts on the way things work. Culture is certainly a powerful force that too often is dismissed as unimportant, I think mainly because being immersed in it we cannot recognize its influence. It hardly seems democratic for our politicos to disenfranchise the masses in favor of the people who imbue them with what ever power our politicians posses. Coming to this site has certainly been an educational experience and am looking forward to more.

"when ready" has a domestic political component

Jonathan, I certainly wish our congressional polical class had the institutional pride. That they cared enough for their institutions of the Senate and House and they would quit abrogating their duties to the executive branch.

And whilst I respect and admire the CodePink ladies, they lost my emotional support during one of the hearings a few months ago when they were disruptive to the process. I frankly could see no difference in them shouting down Conzo, or whoever, than when the reichwing talivangicals shouted down the Hindu opening prayer.

Like Cindy Sheehan, I respect their views, their right to voice them, just not their tactics.

Another great thought provoking post.

"I frankly could see no difference in them shouting down Conzo, or whoever, than when the reichwing talivangicals shouted down the Hindu opening prayer."

I partly agree with you in that I don't think shouting people down is a good idea, but I think I can spot the difference (and presumably you can too) between the theocratic tendencies of the one group vs. the justifiable outrage at a war criminal in the other. Motivations do matter here.

To Dee--

That last comment sounded snarkier than I realized when I reread it. The "presumably you can too" was meant to be an acknowledgement that I think you agree with me about the motivations of the two groups, but it came out snarky. Sorry about that.

Excellent post.

Now that I've done my diary-pimping, I'd like to add to the general consensus about the excellence of this post.

A few questions, though:

1) How do you draw a line between challenging Democratic leaders at the voting booth and challenging their power within the party? If Cindy Sheehan becomes the next Representative from San Francisco (an unlikely prospect, I admit) then Pelosi's power within the party is obviously greatly diminished, since she can't be Speaker if she's not in the House. Furthermore, challenges at the voting booth seem like the only challenges we can make, now.

2) I'd really like you to expand on the theme of "much of the power in society lies elsewhere." (If you already have, could you provide a link?) Popular movements have been able to make remarkable changes in our society, while the political parties remain corupt and essentially unchanged. Do you see any popular movements today that are doing things right, in your opinon? (we already know what you think of the antiwar movement).

Maybe all we progressives should form a fifth column in the Republican party. See, what we do is to switch our registration to Republican and work to nominate a candidate that really threatens the entrenched Repubs.

If we can build enough mass, and Karp's theory holds, the Republican party will promptly self-destruct. We don't even have to back a progressive Republican (since such a thing no longer seems to exist) just someone so far out of their elite mainstream that the power guys just go ballistic. (Ron Paul maybe?)

Just a pipe dream, of course, since there are probably a million reasons it wouldn't work, not the least of which isufficient mass and focus to make it happen. I guess I'm just desperately trying to think of a way to make Karp's insights work for "we the people."

your post provoked a couple questions, Johnathon.

1)do you think this "iron law of institutions" would crumble if we publicly funded all elections, and every candidate got the same amount of money from the government ONLY, and the media was forced to give free airtime equally to all candidates?

2) this isn't a sideways dig at the idea of having more than 2 parties, is it? because other countries have multiple parties, and they work just fine, AND- it's more difficult for corporate America to pay off 5 or 6 different parties than it is to pay off the 2 we have now.

so....what?

your post provoked a couple questions, Johnathon.

1)do you think this "iron law of institutions" would crumble if we publicly funded all elections, and every candidate got the same amount of money from the government ONLY, and the media was forced to give free airtime equally to all candidates?

2) this isn't a sideways dig at the idea of having more than 2 parties, is it? because other countries have multiple parties, and they work just fine, AND- it's more difficult for corporate America to pay off 5 or 6 different parties than it is to pay off the 2 we have now.

so....what?

sorry for the double post. I was frustrated at the button....

I think you've confused a failure mode for inevitable doom. In the world at large, conflicts of agenda are a fact of life, but there are also ways to deal with or avoid them. In the case of American politics, there are also structural problems -- the generations of power stuggles within our government, have damaged various safeguards, and also allowed parasites to take hold. The current malignancy didn't grow overnight, it's just reached a critical mass.

In the world at large, plenty of people are working for their cause. But the most successful organizations have some things in common: among other points, they are led by the partisans of their cause, and have means in place to make sure that remains the case.

Currently, I really don't know what can be done about the situation. It's important to realize that the "old rules" aren't completely demolished; what's left of them won't automatically save us, but they can still be useful tools. There are also new tools, including not only the Internet, but the insights gained from it about cooperation, communication, and security. And there's us -- simply by refusing to endorse evil, we help shape the society around us. Come to think of it, there's also them -- their insanity leads them to self-destructive acts, and we can try to turn those against them.

joe mama-

I don't think the Law fails if you publicly finance elections, although that would help. Direct financing of elections is only one of the ways that elites control electoral politics.

At any rate, the Law applies to any (hierarchical) institution. So not only political parties, but corporations, military commands, whatever.

The countries you refer to that work "just fine" not as a function of having more parties, but rather a function of having a system that allows for more parties, which ours does not.

Countries with Parliamentary systems, runoff elections, and/or direct popular election of the Executive do get policy results that vaguely resemble public wishes, unlike here.

But at the end of the day, if you have an economic system that allows for concentration of wealth, government will be the preserve of the wealthy and will reflect their interests.

If Medea Benjamin wants to put pressure on Pelosi, she should be knocking on the door of Pelosi's boss. Which is what Jon meant when he pointed out the "much of the power in society lies elsewhere".

The WEATHEST PRESON IN THE WORLD IS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, he just has no CONTROL over his wealth.
WHO is PELOSI'S BOSS? I'll give him a call if you have the name 'cause I thought I was her boss.

Joe mama - the reason other countries have multiple parties is because their system facilitates that process, by allowing coalition governments. And in fact, in a Parliamentary system, since the Prime Minister is chosen based on which party or coalition has the majority seats in Parliament, small parties can have a lot of influence by serving as arbiters - moving between larger party blocks and swinging the vote. I'm not really sure how formalized our committee system is, but it seems like there's some room for allowing this kind of thing here; Lieberman's current seat is Independent, but he caucuses as a Democrat, so this might be a reform that would allow smaller parties into the system. However, I see no reason for the larger parties to encourage such reforms, since Jon's Iron Law prevents that.

Mike,

You thought wrong, I'm sorry to say.

"The countries you refer to that work "just fine" not as a function of having more parties, but rather a function of having a system that allows for more parties, which ours does not."

--true enough, scats. I was under the impression that WE are the actual bosses of this country, since 1) we pay those pigs every day thru taxes, and 2) they're terrified of us en masse!
Also, this being OUR country (an all-inclusive "us"), we can change it if we want to! legally! without signing statements.

saurabh-
"However, I see no reason for the larger parties to encourage such reforms, since Jon's Iron Law prevents that."
that is exactly true! even more reason to TAKE our country back from these parasitical enemies of the USA.

I bristle at the contention that "we can't do anything about it".
horse's ass, we can't do anything about it! are we adults, or a bunch of diaper-soiling babies?!?

I'm not coming down on YOU specifically--I'm pissed at the willingness of We the People to sit back and cheerlead their own destruction.
this has reached a "critical mass" ONLY because no one has done anything about it for 40 years or more.
Democracy without real participation doesn't work. sorry!

Off topic. Saurabh, was that a movie reference in your first post? Sounds like something from a Russ Meyer film. Just curious.

KevinD - No, I just wrote it.

How does this apply to Bush and Cheney? On wiretaps, for example, they could have easily gotten any changes to the law out of our compliant Congress (as proven with the recent FISA vote) but they deliberately refused to ask Congress for a law authorizing expanded wiretap authority, because they didn't want to acknowlege Congress' authority in the matter.

Thus, seeking to expand their own power, they weakened the government's power to actually protect us from the terrorist threat they claimed to be fighting.

Neat!

It's too bad reality is not conforming today, because I really liked that anecdote.

I liked Saurabh's little parable too. It reminded me of something Alexander Cockburn wrote back in the 80s I think, mocking the "balance" of McNeil-Lehrer. Cockburn imagined a spokesman for cannibalism, arguing that human flesh should be subject to government inspection to ensure its safety for human consumption; another spokesman argued that the free market should be allowed to decide such things. At the last moment, an opponent of cannibalism got out a few words before being cut off with "I'm sorry, we're out of time." There was also a spokesman for slavery, and a spokesman for the regulation of slavery, and a quickly silenced abolitionist. And so on.

Reading SteveB's diary and the comments was interesting too; it made me notice some things about Obama's op-ed that I hadn't before. For example, Iran as a "challenge to American interests" -- "American interests" meaning, of course, the usual elite corporate interests. As Noam Chomsky likes to say, when national politicians and the media denounce "special interests" they mean working people, racial minorities, women, the elderly -- in short, the vast majority of the American population. By "the national interest" they mean the wealthy, the corporate, a tiny percentage of the population.

Bearing this in mind, the main threat to American interests in the Middle East is the government of the United States of America. It is also the main threat to peace in the Middle East, with Israel a close second. The foreign country most responsible for violence in Iraq, including arming Shi'a terrorists, is the United States of America. That Obama would single out Iran, in the face of this well-known reality, shows just how dangerous he is.

His insistence on diplomacy is not reassuring. Some of the Kos commenters yelled that Obama was calling for diplomacy, not war! But by chance I looked at Jon's post of April 19, 2007, in which he quoted George Bush saying, three days before the invasion of Iraq: "Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work..." Bush always pretended -- not very convincingly, of course -- that he only went to war because diplomacy had failed. (So did Clinton, so did Bush Sr.)
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001426.html
So, who'd trust Obama? Not me.

TPR: Hear, hear. Good points all.

I am a Democrat. Registered as one in Pa. (Georgia doesn't have party registration but I've voted in every Democratic primary). As Will Rogers famously said: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." But I have no illusions. My Congressman, a Democrat, was perfectly happy to serve in a minority party for most of his tenure (1993-current) in D.C. so long as he got to be a Congressman. The above article illustrates why ordinary people who are Democrats or Republicans can't believe that the top leaders in their respective parties seem to be engaged in the kind of politics which is not only bad for the country as a whole, but bad for the party's chances in coming elections as well.

To most of us, this stuff is stunningly obvious: human beings care about their position, their power. They'd rather be captain of a sinking Titanic than a deckhand on a floating ship. Some of them (Russ Feingold, the lone vote against the 2002 Patriot Act, Charles Hegler, the Republican who called out his President on the insanity of the lack of strategy for exiting Iraq, to name a prominent Democratic and a prominent Republican) do seem to put country ahead of party or self. But they are oh, so rare. More likely we will have a Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side or a William Frist (former Tennessee senator and Republican majority leader) on the Repubican side who put aside country, party, and reality. Frist, a physician, famously diagnosed Terry Shiavo's medical condition by watching a videotape. Hillary will pay lip service to any cause that will get her elected (her pandering to the Israel lobby to get Jewish votes in 2000 disgusted me, and I am, of course, a Jew and a Zionist; her attempt to do a black woman's dialect on MLK in a speech in Alabama was more amusing than anything).

An easier way of understanding the "Iron Law" is thinking of a CEO of a corporation. If his pay is determined by the board of directors, he will fill the board with people who will pay him more - whether it hurts the company or not. If it's tied to the stock price, he will do whatever raises the stock price - whether it's good for the company or not. If it's tied to that year's net profits - he will do whatever will raise that year's net profits - even if it destroys the company's long term net profits.

If you had to determine the most productive way of structuring the CEO's pay, in a way that would cause him to act in the company's best interest - it becomes clear that the first question to answer is: what *is* in the company's best interest? Stock price gains? Net profits over a certain period? Market share? Market capitalization?

Assume that your hypothetical CEO is both very capable, and completely selfish.

To apply this way of thinking to your political party - you have to ask yourself what the best thing for the party is. And that's where you'll get confused - because you don't actually care whether the Democratic party is in good shape, you care whether the *country* is in good shape. It'd be nice for your party to be responsible for it too, but that's not your first priority.

The exception to the "Iron Law" is laid out very well in Orwell's fictional novel 1984, and in the actual rise of Scientology or old school Republicans - even Al Quida. These models favour the "True Believer" approach - selecting leaders who genuinely care more about the survival of the organization than their own position in it, or their own survival for that matter.

In all of these organizations, the groups fared far better than they should have given their actions, because the members at all levels - as selfish as they were - put the survival of the group above their own advancement.

This is a dangerous approach, because it's so effective that it creates a self-sustaining entity that is under no one person's control.

So we have two choices. Either decide what's best for America, and tie selfish leaders advancements to that benchmark; or restrict membership to people who genuinely care more about America's well being than they do about themselves.

Neither option is easy, but both have been successfully carried out. Study the inner structure of those groups that have succeeded to learn how to do it for America.

If the "true believer" groups I mentioned are to odious to look at objectively, then study the history of Apple and it's "True Believer", Steve Jobs. You just won't learn quite as much there though, because Apple's goals, being good ones, were easier to achieve.

Re: people missing the diary link -- that obscure color change is why it's such a good thing you have underlines under your links now. I wonder why the comments still have the old style of link?

I loved your Kos-baiting, by the way...good one.

Well, I'm not sure I should be accepting complements from a guy who got himself disappeared by Common Dreams. If I keep hanging out with people like you and our host Mr. Schwartz, I won't be fit for polite company.

"The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."

...and thus, we learn why Amurrican business is so inefficient at actually making money. The patron saint of this in the private sector may well be the Pointy-Haired Boss in Dilbert.

Thanks a lot for this-- I need more and more education on how power works in the political parties. Just got done with Legacy of Ashes/history of CIA; took some with grain of salt, per don't know if I'd want CIA at all and it definately was in favor of it-- plus this guy obviously has some stake in keeping good name with CIA; but nonetheless, was good education.

You're doing a good job

Dear Mr. Schwarz,

I think you nailed it.

This is why Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and not that hack Regan. Gorbachev actually did things he knew would reduce his own power in Russia. So rare and so worthy of praise because of it.

Excuse me...that hack Reagan...