Why Shouldn’t You Read My Writing?
I may risk intemperance — even arrogance — in the effort to convince you of my ability to make you think.
Friedrich Nietzsche, arguably the most iconoclastic philosopher of the 19th century, once titled the chapter of a body of prose he wrote in the book Ecce Homo: “Why I Write Such Excellent Books”. The German philologist deserves credit for raising readers’ awareness about language and values; how centuries of orthodox thinking by clerics and theologians, monarchs and popes, enforced a narrow range of values and morals.
Through his reading of Christendom’s metanarrative (a “big picture” story), he developed a method of interpretation known as transvaluation. Among numerous readings, it framed Western religion as an act of resentment by the weak against the the mighty. At best, its code of morals were suspect — in the words of French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, worthy of suspicion as opposed to unquestioned belief.
Even while writing as a believer, Paul Ricoeur has the sense to acknowledge the cultural estrangement of the modern world from the time and place of biblical narratives — what makes belief so problematic for contemporary readers and thinkers.
Even during our contemporary, ‘enlightened’ times, there are so many narratives or discourses — political, cultural or otherwise — that get a pass without so much as a wince of reflection from readers or audiences. One particular field of conversation that I’ve addressed repeatedly within this venue, is campaign finance accountability.
It is my conviction that how and from whom campaigns for public office are financed weigh as a matters of crucial importance; shaping such issues as our standard of living and national security. I readily admit this line of thinking hovers outside prevailing fixations like cultural war, identity politics and social media personality cliques.
Perhaps it can be accounted for as a mass complacency enabled by the blizzard of distractions one must endure while navigating social- and multi media communications. However, it is very telling how headline writers crow about the latest broken campaign fund raising record, but never a word about the political influence said monies purchase.
So, here’s where I risk a self-congratulatory gesture. By asserting that we should discuss campaign finance within parameters of real, actionable reform— the very terms that media- and journalist tastemakers must avoid at all costs. Their very own bread and butter depends on pricey media buys that campaigns spend on every election season.
It has been projected that 2022’s election costs have reached $16.7 billion, nationally. Limiting all campaign spending to publicly financed budgets would most definitely miniaturize the media buys as well as hopefully choke-out the donor class.
There is a very good reason I mentioned Friedrich Nietzsche and cultural estrangement, (aside from my hope for a casual, very glancing favorable comparison to the German philosopher). Far too few writers and commentators have contributed to a consensus about the toxic impact legal bribery has on our republic.
By the time Nietzsche arrived on the scene in Western thought, a number of thinkers like Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim had already dismantled the prevailing ideological scaffolding. By contrast, there is no ongoing conversation in which the ruling class has had to account for the outsized scope of power and influence they wield. The mere condition of possessing an obscene amount of wealth cannot pass as a justification.
Our contemporary cultural estrangement illustrates why such justification prevails: we suffer as a result of a lack of understanding of how elite business interests have flexed their considerable assets over the last 50 years, to attain the control they now have over public policy making.
There is a specific story with real participants organizing their economic and political clout since the late 1960s. As a result of their efforts stretching over decades, they’ve achieved such victories like the Citizens United Supreme Court decision; a case that hinged on a specious argument that equated free speech with the ruling class’ financial capacity to legally bribe politicians. If that isn’t an affront to the principal of one voice, one vote, then this type of political injustice serves fascism’s growing momentum.
As misguided were the agents of insurrection who attacked Capitol Hill on January 6, 2020, their movement was a blind conduit for the collective outrage against the ruling class; elite interests that have cranked the vice of political control to tormenting levels of pressure upon the standard of living of rank and file citizens.
