Friday 24 August 2012

What’s the point of postmodern partisanship?



I remember many years ago in 1998, back when I was a political science student at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, James Carville came to campus to speak to us.  I eagerly waited until the question and answer segment of the program came up and I asked him what I thought would be an absolute bombshell of a question.  More or less, I asked him “what’s the point in having political parties if they continuously argue about non-substantive issues and don’t have clear values?”  Needless to say, the clever political strategist that Carville was hemmed and hawed about the stage with his Southern charm and the well-rehearsed sidebar, but didn’t really answer my question.  Silly me.

As the November elections in the United States loom closer, something that strikes me is the lack of genuine dialogue on the issues that matter from either the Democratic or Republican parties.  Sure, both parties are very competent at convincing potential voters that the other party is either wrong at best or insane at worst, but where is the vision for America that will propel the nation out of the doldrums and into the latter half of this century?  

As an expatriate American currently residing in Australia, I have the privilege of being able to compare and contrast what’s going on in the US with the similar state of party politics here.  Both the Labour and the Liberal parties seem to go around in circles with the same litany of issues as their American counterparts: illegal immigrants, small business owners, a diminishing middle class, a near-dominant China, and perpetual fear of economic slowdown.

You might immediately say, “Well that’s easy.  Social issues are the principal difference between the main parties.”  Are they?  If that were true, the allegedly left-leaning Labor party in Australia and the Democratic party in America would have already taken the federal lead on giving homosexual partners the equivalent of marriage, would have fought harder against xenophobic views toward immigrants, and sought to make vast improvements to the state of education and child care in both countries.  For the purposes of this intellectual exercise, imagine social issues as ‘window dressing’ so that we can get to the heart of the matter.  Patriotic rhetoric will not aid in this quest for truth, either.

I won’t be the first or the last person to tackle this question, but what do political parties really mean anymore, and moreover, what’s the point of political parties?  In both the United States and Australia, both pairs of major political parties take contributions from the same principal types of donors.  Politically astute corporations and wealthy individuals hedge their bets and back every ‘horse’ in the race.  Alas, individuals don’t have such a luxury as we get only one vote.  Studies generally show that we have a strong tendency to be heavily influenced on our choice of our political party by our parents and relatives, although a few of us switch as we change our level of income, education, and lot in life.  

What are the real differences between the Democrats and Republicans if they both take a similar tact in assertively supporting the extremely wealthy and big business over small business owners and workers?  As a big donor, you have the ear of your Representative, Senator, or even President.  If you give enough money or garner enough support, you earn a seat at the party’s table, an Ambassadorship, or a night in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House.  

 As an ‘average Joe American’ donor, your political seat is in the nosebleed section, high above one of the goalposts at the stadium next to the urinal block, or at best, a YouTube video, flyer, or a cleverly constructed infographic emailed to you because of your demographic profile… along with a heartfelt request for your lesser money.  Possibly a t-shirt, but it probably won't be 'Made in the USA'.  Most of us will never be so politically connected to be invited to attend a fundraising dinner at a crusading Hollywood celeb’s house, at a digital baron’s social club, or at the private ranch of a party power broker.  

Australia’s not much different from the US in this regard, except that the Australian constitution is brilliant enough to have the foresight to make voting compulsory for all citizens over the age of 18.  That's right Americans, over here you must vote or expect to be fined.  Anyway, there are the same relative levels of prizes for the big donors, but nix that bit about the Lincoln Bedroom, unless rooms in Sydney's Kiribilli House are being pimped out without the Aussie public's knowledge.   

For those of you who weren’t aware, about two years ago, the current Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, superseded her predecessor Kevin Rudd, also of the Labor Party, in a backroom, internal party preference vote.  Many observers questioned the legitimacy of this strange, secret coup. Some might argue that the Australian parliamentary system allows for this eventuality, and that this was not somehow distasteful.  But when Australians were given the opportunity to go the polls the next time, they returned a parliamentary tie between the parties, also known as a “hung parliament”, that forced both major parties to court the votes of independents that represent a range of special interests and views that were inconsistent with their own.  In the end, Labor and Gillard came out on top, but the politics of the party have become increasingly centric and beholden to the interests of the independents ever since.  Some argue that the Labor party is being torn apart from the inside by conflicting interests, as well.

Centrism is the fundamental flaw with party politics today.  In both countries, the major parties serve their wealthier constituents and interests without question, because the need for campaign contributions and the support of the power elite overwhelms the parties’ need to satisfice the wider body of their constituents.  In the US, the Democrats used to be the party that steadfastly supported workers and labor unionism before many of its other interests.  In Australia, the Labor party ostensibly still has strong ties with the unions as well.  Why is it that in both countries, labor unions are continuously finding themselves reduced and resolved to increasingly smaller stature and effectiveness, despite the ongoing federal-level presence of two governments that should logically do everything that they can to support unions?

Not to ignore the right of the spectrum, Republicans in the US used to be the party of smaller and more efficient government, and wide spectrum support for entrepreneurship.  The Australian Liberal party has a similar, traditional core agenda.  But how does creating private sector, pseudo-government services through outsourcing constitute smaller or more efficient government?  If it sounds like a shell game, that's because it is: except that elite interests win all the nutty contracts.

Both conservative parties are facing increasingly hostile ultra-conservatism that holds them hostage to radical viewpoints that dilute their principal agendas.  More than a decade ago in Australia, the Liberal party had to form a coalition with the National party, of principally rural interests, for their lengthy last go at rule under former PM John Howard.  American Republicans are now similarly being forced to stomach the reactionary tastes of the Tea Party caucus, even though many strongly disagree with their views.  And everyone knows that red-blooded Americans prefer coffee.

For most people, we proudly support our choice of political party until the choice becomes too confusing and murky.  This is why some Americans don't bother to vote, and Australians take the "donkey vote" or join the Australian Sex Party (not kidding).  I cringe whenever any of my friends begins to talk about the next election in the US.  To them it is fairly obvious who I will vote for, but it pains me to do so because I am not substantively satisfied with the answers proposed by either of our parties.  What point is there in having political parties in our postmodern world, when in terms of real vision and ingenuity, they are less substantively different than brands of soda pop?  If parties have no vision, then there is no point.  More so if they serve the same elite interests.

Political parties, especially in countries with two dominant, centric parties, need to be especially wary of not losing sight of having a clear message or real values.  Because in the histories of both American and Australian politics, a major party can find themselves increasingly less relevant and replaced by a party with new vision before they even realize it.  Have you ever heard of the Whigs?  Probably not.  But you might have heard of the Reform Party or the Greens...

Monday 20 August 2012

Negative musings on positivity, and vice-versa

After a two-week hiatus, I’ve returned with a critical eye focused on positivity and negativity.  What is it that leads people to encourage others to be irrationally positive?  Why is it that considering all of the possibilities makes one socially unacceptable rather than sensible and wise?
 
Contrary to the beliefs of some, critical thinking is not innately paired with negativity.  Simply imagining the negative outcome to a given situation before it occurs does not mean that you are encouraging that outcome.  The mission-critical planning for our societies are run by pessimists because these things need to be.  But too much negativity can lead some to engage in extremely self-interested or sociopathic behaviours.  Military leaders, corporate CEOs, politicians, and others navigate a fine line between reason and excess in their need to be swaddled in negativity due to the nature of their work.

Negativity exists to reinforce our natural suspicion of situations that are likely to produce less than optimal outcomes, based on learned behaviours.  But excessive negativity can lead to psychological disorder or even self-harm.

Positivity can have equally disastrous consequences if it is applied improperly.  A lack of consideration of possibilities leads us to reckless and self-endangering behaviours.  Crossing public streets becomes deadly, as do a great number of other equally mundane tasks.  Excessive positivity frequently leads to a lack of duty of care.  Simple failures that arise from a lack of attentiveness in our complex world can easily become fatal.  People who operate mass transportation, hospitals, and police officers know this all too well.  Positivists tend to inadvertently harm others and profusely apologise afterwards.

Positivity exists as an outgrowth of the desire to see the ideal possibility in the world around us.  Without positivity, we would not share or create.  Limited to simple needs-based imperatives, we would behave and react to our world like the lowly amoeba.  Positivity is the carrot reward to the eye-sticking of disappointments that we face in life.

How is it remotely logical to “choose” one over the other?  We all have the desire to be positive, but are faced with the harsh realities of less than optimal outcomes.  Choosing positivity or negativity exclusively is not optimal, nor is it meant to be.

Maybe the positivists cast aspersions on the pessimists to lend credence to their less-than-sane approach to life.  Even at the most basic level, a life driven by a positive or negative skew is going to produce less than desired outcomes.  It is hard to argue against the idea that the world could immediately benefit if people would stop to consider the facts when faced with difficult decisions, rather than just react.  Maybe the world desperately needs something in between the two poles of this extreme scale.  A true neutrality.

The world we live in is a complex place, driven by complex interactions that cannot be readily dealt with by a dichotomy of positive or negative worldview.  Just like salt and sugar, positivity and negativity both have their place, and should both be used in moderation.

Tuesday 7 August 2012

The final update from the Primae Noctis Kickstarter project

Primae Noctis will not reach its goal of funding independent editing and promotion via Kickstarter.  I want to genuinely thank all of the backers who took the time to support my efforts to bring independent science fiction work written for adults to the market, as well as thank all of the well-wishers who have lent their support in intangible ways to this effort.

A Brief Analysis:

For its funding goal of $5,000, 30 days was simply not enough time to raise this project's funds on Kickstarter.  Although Kickstarter's own recommended period of funding is 30 days, I don't believe that a non-young adult science fiction project that doesn't have in-build graphics or significant marketing collateral can easily raise more than $2,000 in such a short period of time- unless the author already has serious street credibility and access.  This begs the question as to why they even really need Kickstarter.  As a new author, there are too many hurdles to simply getting people on your side to begin with.  Getting visibility within the Kickstarter site itself was very challenging, and It is of note that more than 70% of the pledges raised came from efforts generated by weblinks outside of Kickstarter, such as Facebook, Twitter, and from other sources of traffic.


As an exercise in public relations, this Kickstarter campaign has been of some assistance in getting word out about my novel, which has gotten me valuable exposure and feedback from genuine players in the world of science fiction literature.  Showman P.T. Barnum allegedly once commented that "there's no such thing as bad publicity", and for the most part, he was right. 

As for Primae Noctis, I am considering my various options in moving forward to proceed with a November release via Amazon.  I am still examining ways to get the novel in front of professionals in sci-fi before independent release, but it is likely that I will turn to even more informal methods of peer review (such as readers circles) to get the novel prepared for market.

You can continue to find me at the following places across the web:

www.aimerythomas.com
www.twitter.com/aimerythomas
www.facebook.com/primaenoctisnovel
aimerythomas.blogspot.com

Thanks again for all of your wonderful support, friends and strangers, and I hope to continue to be able to bring Primae Noctis to you sometime in November.

Aimery



Friday 3 August 2012

Why you should back the sci-fi novel Primae Noctis at Kickstarter (with less than 5 days to go)

The Kickstarter project to get Primae Noctis edited and published has reached its final 5 days, and there's cause for renewed optimism.  With the project having reached 26% of its goal and a large surge of new backers coming in, there's still a good chance for success.

So why would you or should you back Primae Noctis in a sea of projects that all deserve your attention?  Here's the requisite (but vastly expanded) 'Letterman-style' list:
  • You genuinely like science fiction because of your love of new ideas and prognostication;
  • You read the 80-page excerpt and wanted to read more;
  • You are an adult who wants a new science fiction story made specifically for grown-ups;
  • You like to support the underdog when you follow your favorite sport;
  • You are a muse who likes to inspire and support others through life-changing moments;
  • You're an iconoclast who likes to stand apart from the herd;
  • You have an extra fifteen dollars that you were going to drop on candy or beer (not nec. in that order);
  • You have a negative karmic inbalance that you've been trying hard to overcome;
  • You dislike the current political state of the world and are looking for non-violent answers;
  • You like your sex and violence with the high-pitched 'pew-pew' of lasers in the background;
  • You don't know the difference between an AI and an AIC and are dying to learn;
  • You haven't been watching the Olympics and are looking for something to read;
  • You want to learn more about the salacious aspects of cohort marriage;
  • You've just received your Household Assistance Package deposit and want to spend big (AUS only);
  • You like grand conspiracy theories but hate to admit it;
  • You've been waiting for a book to come along to titillate your senses and make you think simultaneously;
  • You're hedging your bets for an acknowledgement in Tempus Belli or Corpus Novus; or finally,
  • You like me.  You really, really like me.
Whatever your reason(s), Primae Noctis really needs you!  If you can spare as little as $1, your backing can bring this novel to the world of readers in a properly edited form.  They say that 82% of Kickstarter projects that reach 20% or more reach their goals, and we're at 26%.  Even if you hate statistics, help me be on the right side of these numbers.  Thank you for reading this blatant plug/rant, and you can find the Primae Noctis project here: http://kck.st/M9vhX2