[MD] The Greeks?

[Matt Kundert]

Matt said:
Spoken like someone that doesn't have to vote in the 
United States.  (Which is to say, think strategically--i.e. 
rhetorically--in this political environment.) 

Ian said:
Spoken like a US citizen who thinks the US is somehow 
supremely different to everywhere else. You think the 
politics of governance in Europe or Asia doesn't have 
personal, rhetorical, tactical and strategic aspects, static 
and dynamic aspects, economic and moral aspects .... etc ?

Matt:
Heh, no, I meant you have the virtue of not having to 
think strategically about US politics because you are an 
outsider to that extent.  Having what they sometimes call 
"perspective" can help, giving one a less charged view of 
situation.

You said you aren't prejudiced who you side with so long 
as they talk wisdom in--and this is the important bit for our 
conversation--response to me asking, "Why would you side 
with George W. Bush?"  

Now, unless one took a big, cosmic, 
external-to-the-political-scene view of the world (which 
one can afford if you have no stake in the outcome of 
debates), the idea of "sides" has more relevancy to the 
strategy of effecting change than your comment illustrates.  
I could admit Bush said something smart, but I wouldn't 
side with him (unless something radical happened to his 
positioning on the political map).  And your response to my 
rhetorical question implies to a certain extent that 
someone who considers "sides" is being prejudiced (and I'm 
guessing in a pernicious sense, not the Gadamerian sense).

If you would stick to that view, that I'm prejudiced to that 
extent, then I can't help but think that you're being 
unstrategic and unrealistic.  In the US political landscape 
these days (I don't know what other electoral situations 
around the world look like), some people thump the table 
and yell (it's always yelling for some reason...), "I listen to 
my own reason and my own heart!  I don't listen to the 
political machines!  I don't think stra-te-gic-ally!  I'm an 
Independant!"  What these people are, however, are 
pawns in a game that, ipso facto by not thinking 
strategically, they've renounced playing.  They think they 
have greater freedom to think, but they don't realize it's 
at the cost of less power for getting what you think in 
action.  They don't realize that the power of thinking is 
that it's in your goddamn head and no one's figured out 
how to control that yet, so you always have that 
freedom, and the real question is about power and efficacy.

I wish we didn't need to think strategically, which is a 
parallel to wishing we didn't need violence.  But as long as 
we do, it doesn't help to shut your eyes to that fact 
(though it also doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards 
that scenario--we just need to do it stra-te-gic-ally).

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3