I want to say this to Chris Hedges. While I agree with many of your criticisms of our current condition, your proposed remedy is hopelessly old-fashioned, out of date, even reactionary. In the 1930's, when millions of people lived in shantytowns, calls for revolution might have seemed understandable, but even then the countries that avoided violent upheavals (like the United States) seemed to emerge more whole than those in which protest movements triumphed, because those protests often led to fascism. And in the 1960's, in the wake of the civil rights and anti-war movements, it also might have seemed understandable to call for violent protests, but the upsurge in violence in the late 1960's in fact led to a law and order backlash, the election of Richard Nixon, and 40 years of a conservative counter-revolution. If the peaceful, democratic revolution of 2008 was such a jolt to the American system that it has sparked yet another conservative comeback, what do you think would happen if people took to the streets in a lawless way, as you are advocating?
And Chris, if you want to view Bradley Manning as some kind of whistle-blower, hero, or political prisoner, who is being tortured to dissuade others from revealing war crimes; instead of as a criminal who got caught reading other people's mail, and is being treated no differently from others in similar circumstances, I suppose that is your privilege. But you should understand that your perspective is not going to be shared by more than a small minority of Americans. If we learned anything from the 1960's, we should have learned that people are turned off by violence and lawlessness. When they see disruptive behavior, they tend to follow figures of authority. You could try pointing to Egypt and Tunisia as counter-examples, but my response would be that whatever the faults of the American system of democracy, it has not reached the level of repressiveness of the dictatorial regimes that demand to be changed by massive, peaceful protests.
Bill Boyarsky made the point that as far as he can tell, civil disobedience is not what most people are looking for. And it was either Boyarsky or the middle of the road panelist, Joe Mathews, who has co-written a book on California's dysfunctional political system, who pointed out that much of what Hedges is saying is wrong could be fixed by re-structuring the tax code, which would do more good than marching in the streets. Mathews advocates a new constitutional convention for California, on the ground that our current system is so beyond our control that we cannot fix it through regular democratic means. At least in Wisconsin, he said, the voters could choose a slate of candidates and actually give them the power to do what they said they would do. And if people don't like it, they can go to Madison and protest at the center of power. In California, we can elect a Democratic governor and Democratic legislative majority, but they are still powerless to enact the programs that they and a majority of the people favor. And if we don't like it, there doesn't seem much point in marching on Sacramento. We should probably march against the system that we ourselves have set up over the years, and which is now beyond our control.
My real problem with writing this post is the following, however. Why am I obsessing about the most doom and gloom panel of all the ones I attended? I should be talking about Patti Smith! I saw her yesterday talking with Dave Eggers about their respective memoirs and art and life and stuff, and it's hard to think of two more inspiring and uplifting artists to have the privilege to listen to. On the other hand, Patti also mentioned that she thinks it might be a good idea if billions of people start taking to the streets demanding change. Well, if she led the charge, I'm sure that at least she would try to channel all that energy in a positive direction.