May 26, 2016 09:23 PM
How free market ideology perverts the vocabulary of democracy
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-free-market-id...-democracy
EXCERPT: [...] Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder successfully replaced the mayors and city councils of several cities with ‘emergency managers’ supposedly able to negotiate financial emergencies better than elected officials. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance. Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda....
How ‘Dr Death’ single-handedly fought for the right to die
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-dr-death-singl...ght-to-die
EXCERPT: [...] Yet many continue to minimise Kevorkian’s influence on the aid-in-dying movement, dismissing him as a simple rogue activist or an attention-seeking zealot. His antics, both public and private, contributed to that characterisation, as did his penchant for leaving his patients’ bodies at the coroner’s office or in motel rooms. But the primary reason for observers’ disregard of Kevorkian’s crucial role in the aid-in-dying movement is more subtle. It’s not that they disliked him. It’s that they couldn’t categorise him. Scholars and media pundits alike tend to celebrate (or criticise) movement leaders affiliated with formal organisations – think Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association, for example, or Betty Friedan and the National Organization for Women, or Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Kevorkian, by contrast, never belonged to any aid-in-dying organisation, and his relationship to those organisations’ leaders was oppositional, to put it mildly. Operating outside of organisational constraints, he proved an enigma to those who sought to understand him or worse, control him. Kevorkian’s role as a maverick was crucial to his success in bringing about change. Standing apart from the movement’s formal leaders enabled him to use tactics unavailable to them, since they were bound by organisational and political concerns. Kevorkian had none....
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-free-market-id...-democracy
EXCERPT: [...] Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder successfully replaced the mayors and city councils of several cities with ‘emergency managers’ supposedly able to negotiate financial emergencies better than elected officials. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance. Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda....
How ‘Dr Death’ single-handedly fought for the right to die
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-dr-death-singl...ght-to-die
EXCERPT: [...] Yet many continue to minimise Kevorkian’s influence on the aid-in-dying movement, dismissing him as a simple rogue activist or an attention-seeking zealot. His antics, both public and private, contributed to that characterisation, as did his penchant for leaving his patients’ bodies at the coroner’s office or in motel rooms. But the primary reason for observers’ disregard of Kevorkian’s crucial role in the aid-in-dying movement is more subtle. It’s not that they disliked him. It’s that they couldn’t categorise him. Scholars and media pundits alike tend to celebrate (or criticise) movement leaders affiliated with formal organisations – think Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association, for example, or Betty Friedan and the National Organization for Women, or Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Kevorkian, by contrast, never belonged to any aid-in-dying organisation, and his relationship to those organisations’ leaders was oppositional, to put it mildly. Operating outside of organisational constraints, he proved an enigma to those who sought to understand him or worse, control him. Kevorkian’s role as a maverick was crucial to his success in bringing about change. Standing apart from the movement’s formal leaders enabled him to use tactics unavailable to them, since they were bound by organisational and political concerns. Kevorkian had none....