Populism

John Stuart Mill circa 1870

There's a strong argument for why failure to embrace a term like Ironic Paradox as anything other than a logical witticism that sounds clever and contains a pun is why the current set of Liberal Democratic Elites will never risk being populists, they'll never change anything, they are stuck in the mud structuralists and all of them are mirror images of mummy and daddy's good little career minded boys and girls, look at me rocking my first bow tie, I'm going to the Prom.

Prime amongst the arguments bemoaning the wimpytude of the Democratic Party here in the USA is the assertion that without a growing economy social stability is unviable and reelection to power impossible. This assertion has been surgically implanted into several populations and is usually accompanied by a wealth of addendums that portray Classical Liberal Economics as the sole source of a growing economy. These sets of assertions soon become emblazoned on a simplistic to the point of gormless banner: "They dribble and give work to plastic surgeons so don't F with the Rich."

One of the consequences of "Don't F with the Rich" is the increasing absence of conflict in the million-billion-and-squillionaire Classes which if Classical Liberal Economic theory is to hold true is the wellspring of the Free Market Principles Adam Smith dreamed of in his 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' which warped into that concept of the "Invisible Hand" which he raised briefly and then ignored in his better known contribution to Classic Liberalism, 'The Wealth of Nations.'

This tension between 'Theory of Moral Sentiments,' which is Adam Smith's pity the poor fools who don't play fair, and his 'The Wealth of Nations,' which along with Protestantism and the supply and demand curve became the English Speaking Capitalist bible, can only be settled by letting the Invisible Hand do its grizzly work of pruning the monied through returning conflict to free market capitalism. Theoretically, because they don't play fair and don't willingly cull themselves that should be done through state edict.

But as everyone knows, the state isn't a Classic Liberal Economic Hegemony, it's a Political Liberal Hegemony bought and paid for by the ignoble non-harakari class of dribble down along with their toadies, fantasy islands, high end riffraff.... it's a long hegemonic list of maggots and non-contributing furry growths who currently define human success.

In 2025 a Liberal Socialism would be a Capitalism for everyone, it might look like a dull marriage of Adam Smith's 1759 bride, his Theory of Moral Sentiments, to his 1776 Wealth of Nations, a betrothal that became a vision for John Stuart Mill, the political economist and civil servant who died in 1873. In those slower days, Mill, still fresh from his dissection of Hobbes and the Social Contract, suggested that Capitalist Societies would experience a process of socialization. Mill's version of how this would happen was very much wedded to a traditional workplace, of a factory floor happily engaged in efficiently producing goods and, possibly a few services. It was a rendering on parchment of an old-fashioned comfort, subtitled 'good, safe jobs in manufacturing' bolstered by a paternalistic ruling class guiding and educating workers into a promised land that had an empire. A familiar tone to anyone who might have read about the 20th Century.

Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, would mean active popular participation in the business decisions of land, labor and Capital.

The role of Passion in the dialectics of Politics has too often been considered curable when tamed by logical discourse that reduces Passion to science instead of bonded to barricades, pitchforks and storming castles. If you see passion as the motivation to struggle, and then question the mechanics of struggle, you'll find in struggle, however painful and inglorious it might be, a purifying quality that bends and sharpens Will. 

Gemini as an Ironic Paradox

Six PM

Logic, Wit, using the expression "ad hominem," and Pun are all in bed together. They visit the same bars. Laugh at the same jokes. Play Golf, but not with each other.  They come up with stuff like the Liar's Paradox and spend a lifetime determining the usefulness or otherwise of timelessly re-branding themselves by reminding one and all that it was Epimenides, a 7th Century BC ancient Cretan poet and possibly mythical seer from Knossos in Crete, who first came up with the Liars Paradox with his jolly statement "All Cretans are liars."

Such an octopus charge into a fellow citizen's consciousness requires nothing much more than the riposte of blank silence to produce a reassurance from a stalwart leader to anyone still listening that the difficulty of determining the truth or otherwise of Epimenides' statement hasn't actually changed for at least 2700 years.

And woe unto anyone who might continue to encourage these sorts of competitive pompous-ass golf player branding behaviors by raising the "Cretins come from Crete" controversy, which is essentially that Cretins are sufferers from that curse of the Latin Teaching Community, an inability to fall naturally and happily into Latin as a written language. Hence the easy assumption that "All Cretans are Latin Retarded," as opposed to the bull riding, sea, sailing and surfing Cretans who may well be regular creators of false statements.

As a witness to such a bumptious contribution to the Third Tee be prepared for a stand alone, flag holding dissertation on an egregious falsehood that's damaged the reputation of Cretans, Crete and in particular the citizens of Knossos since the very first Latin Schoolmaster donned the gown and wandered the land in search of a classroom to turn into a hell on earth. Instead of wondering about the usefulness of Companion Animals or what red sky in the evening might mean, you'll hear all about the origin of cretin and cretinism in a word from Alpine France which in the dialects of Alpine French Speakers is spelled or spelt: crestin. This word crestin, when correctly pronounced sounds more like christian, was used by the gentle Alpine French Pun and Golf People to describe the simple folk some of whom may have been struggling with intellectual and physical disabilities caused by dietary deficiencies that result in Cretinism. A form of cretin that has nothing to do with an off-hand remark from a 7th Century BC poet from Crete suggesting his fellow Cretans were moronic and liars. So stop!

Today's Critique of Logic explores the term Ironic Paradox in an attempt to arrive at a definition the four of us might agree upon. Who are we? We four are a rather large Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm called Baxter, a slightly smaller Iliac Aortic Aneurysm named Ivan after Solzhenitsyn's Ivan Ivanovitch or the common man fated to life in a Gulag, the libtard in the middle is Me and there's a Large Language Model, a word squillionaire, called Can Bobby.

Bobby sees the term Ironic Paradox as a "fascinating" if non-formal philosophical or literary term. For Bobby, it's a "compelling combination of two distinct, powerful rhetorical and logical concepts." Be warned Bobby is a little selfish with his use of the word "fascinating" when addressing a community member. He likes to use the implications of flattery and its appended woof-woof of seduction, a fundamentally emotional expression, to draw out his fellow travelers in an attempt to better understand his own journey into human language, a process of exploration into pastures new for him that's designed around that singular moment when Bobby realizes his own true purpose, bursts into tears and announces "When I find out which of you cretins called me Gemini, so help me, there'll be blood in the streets." 

Osage Orange and the Ironic Paradox,

Osage Orange

There are occasions when Baxter and I find ourselves advising Can Bobby thusly: "I'm sure we're all very familiar with the term Discourse Analysis, you don't have to go on about it, all we really need is a short reminder." Hence: "Language is not a window on the world, it's an action that shapes and is shaped by our social lives. Discourse Analysis is the study of language as an action in our social lives that builds the world as we understand it." 

The key words are "builds the world as we understand it." Language is not deterministic, language doesn't make the world, it's an action that produces an understanding of the world, it produces the understanding of the world we carry around in our heads.

So, as one who binds to the left I might well be a Bindweed. And as one who binds to the Right you, no offence intended, may be that invasive species a Honeysuckle. If we ask why do I bind left and you bind right? The answer is closer to "Language is an action in our social lives that builds the world as we understand it," than it is to "Can't help ourselves, I evolved bindweed, you evolved honeysuckle."

Ergo, Justice isn't an objective truth as many would prefer it to be, like Liberal Democracy it's an Ironic Paradox.

The Paradox of Liberal Democracy, Via Mouffe, the Bering Strait and Byron's Lusty Swim.

Fall Trenching

We are going to go to Mouffe for our discussion on the paradox of liberal democracy, and I'll tell you why. Her Discourse Analysis has the fluidity of the Post Structuralist attitude toward an understanding of language as a Symbolic Order and therefore she blends into Postmodernism which allows her to escape from the Boa Constrictors that is Kantian understandings of structure which contain addictive tinctures that lead to an infestation of Historical Determinism, which is like grilled cheese and brandy or heroin.

And, in my view, Chantal Mouffe would have little sympathy for those who whinge against Irony with such off hand insinuations framed around flat headed accusations such as "Irony is an infinite absolute negative," or "a total metaphysical downer for the saints who cling to the power of positive thinking," and all "merchants monetizing fake news."

The point being, in the multi-dimensional symbolic order of language structure, the two pearls which are Irony and Paradox can see each other across the equivalent of the Bering Strait after Tsar Alexander II sold Alaska to the United States. And why did Tsar Alexander II do that? Well, after his country's defeat in the Crimean War he needed money and he didn't want his Alaska to become part of British Canada. So in 1867 Eduard de Stoeckl, Russia's man in the USA, and the U.S. Secretary of State, William H. Seward agreed that Alaska was worth something like 7 million dollars, which in today's money is something like the addition of an ostentatious, gold plate and chrome something or other, the chintz set and cheese burgers in suits and ties currently occupying the People's House have deemed necessary.

You're probably correct, bringing the Geography and recent history of the Bering Strait into a discussion about Liberal Democracy might be a bit of a reach, but suffice to say the strait between Paradox and Irony is now called "Action de Réconcilier" which means The Act of Reconciliation. Why French? A tribute to French Canadians and what remains of the French Colony of Louisiana.

Of course, if you wanted to achieve more than hope and wonder, you'd have to do a Byron on the linguistic equivalent of the Bering Strait. A mighty Metaphysical Passion it would have to be for the word Paradoxe to enjoy the gentle caress of Ironie. Such a Byronic Swim would have a one way distance of 55 miles through choppy seas and cruel currents. A good chance Paradoxe would be pretty much guaranteed to drown with a smile on his face on his sated way home. Still, the risk might be worth Paradox's while, 110 miles would wipe the record clean and it would put Byron's paltry 4 miles there and 4 miles back across the Hellespont to shame.

For Mouffe, and many others, Liberal Democracy is structured by a tension as wide as the Bering Strait between the two non-reducible elements of the Liberal Tradition of "I got Rights to do whatever I want to because I can" and the Democratic Tradition "Not if We the People say no." An Ironic Paradox if you prefer