grassroots vs state solutions. Or if state solutions are put into place its due to a grassroots / collective push, rather than one person saying “do” and it gets done. Another is “cell” style grassroots, which is a little more what I was thinking of. Example: working on one’s community issues, only involving institutional forces minimally.

grassroots vs state solutions. Or if state solutions are put into place its due to a grassroots / collective push, rather than one person saying “do” and it gets done.

Another is “cell” style grassroots, which is a little more what I was thinking of. Example: working on one’s community issues, only involving institutional forces minimally.

Apologies for my vagueness. People get very specific in the ‘this group does this’ / ‘that group does that’ but being a cursed individualist, that kind of way of thinking always seemed hard to absorb completely. Always feels like sports teams to me.

Hm. None of these choices seem palatable. Both are heavy handed and political, the difference between “with which people” they make their networks with.

—-

Any talk of “coming straight to the people” is BS the moment they have viable connections – the difference to me is level of transparency in each case.

—-

The Bannon types that seem to throw bombs keep their business dealings and networks close to their chest: The secrecy is their conduit, power and currency alike.

The McConnell types also have their secret connections and such but in a more “above board” way, utilizing a much higher transparency at the expense of criticisms having the power to affect future dealings.

[a single scandal can take down a McConnell type, but a Bannon type whose connections are secret and must remain so for them to maintain any strength, is less easily shaken by scandal because they don’t act unless they’re covered in some way]

In short, the bomb throwers need their connections to remain a mystery, otherwise their house of cards falls as the powerful in the shadows don’t want exposure.

====

Look at public relations: The bomb throwers have to appear “as if” they are lone wolves, appealing directly to the people, free of outside influence. That’s their power: appearing vulnerable and strong but in constant need of public support. We don’t see their networks because they have to behave as if they have none.

They’re still just as much politicians as standard politicians except politicians have higher rules they have to at least pretend to follow. Nobody would consider a McConnell to be a lone wolf: we can see a good portion of their connections. In some areas with even more transparency to govt dealings (my state of Florida has excellent transparency), I could sit at my computer and track each of them if I wanted to. They’re not allowed to have secret meetings.

===

A good way to visualize the difference is: business politics vs regular politics. It’s all politics but they operate with different transparencies and different networks.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− one = 1

Leave a Reply