![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Politics Matter. [1]
Apr. 2nd, 2018 02:32 pmI have been struggling with understanding The Dirtbag Left (http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-rise-of-the-internets-dirtbag-left/). My struggle is because Michelle Obama saying, "When they go low, we go high," to Hillary Clinton during the election campaign was seen as unbelievably funny by the dirtbag left. I really struggled with that because part of my liberal identity is seeing my choices as better than the right: more civilized - with all the noblesse oblige baggage and reasoned debate whatnot that goes along with that.
The dirtbag left is perfectly willing to embrace the horrible right because they are unwilling to stomach the on-going appeasement of the right by the neoliberal centre of left politics (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/18/15992226/neoliberalism-chait-austerity-democratic-party-sanders-clinton).
I think the impulse that the dirtbag left is riding on is the idea that allowing the worst right politics full sway will faster bring on the renewal and rise of the left into more authentic left politics, such as the Right of All to Education, rather than handouts to the needy regarding education, which is where we are with neoliberal appeasement.
This is an enraged response in Canada to justifying evil behavior by cloaking it in "the law": (https://mtlcounter-info.org/en/fuck-you-fuck-your-court-fuck-the-crown-and-the-queen-you-serve-response-to-sentencing-of-line-9-valve-turners/) [5]
This is a more generalized call to hostile action: https://splinternews.com/time-to-make-life-hard-for-the-rich-1821384779
Myself - I don't want to burn down anyone's house or business or property. However, I wouldn't mind shunning people who emulate extremely financially greedy people. I wouldn't mind making it socially unacceptable not only to do financially greedy things, but to even talk about financially greedy things. That is using moral principles in a "when they go low, we go high" way, I think.
I think there are at least two problems with my approach. The biggest one is that the people who go low are completely unphased by my opinion of their behaviour. Sometimes I think that the only thing they care about is their bottom line - and other times I think that the only thing they care about is shafting as many other people as possible whether or not it makes them any money. Most of the time I think they are trying to maximize both rewards, so it's sort of like distance and elevation when aiming at a thrown stone.
The second problem I identify is that this whole "civil discourse" thing is inextricably bound up in class and hierarchy, and it is a way of coopting me as a low-caste person into the ideals of the high-caste group to further their maintenance of position and power. It is an invitation in - but only as long as I know my place.
So. What do I replace this with? If I believe in the ideals of the left: sharing wealth and opportunity, making sure that everyone has a place to live, food to eat, friends to play with, medical and dental care when needed, community to raise a family, safety and comfort in old age - have we reached the point where I *must* go out and damage or interfere (turning off pipeline valves) property? I'm such a coward - I don't want to. I don't want the greedy people forcing me into that being my only option for change to a more compassionate less greedy world.
I think the dirtbag left is right to be highlighting the flaws of the neo-liberal approach, and right to be fostering a rejection of those who embrace the neoliberal approach. However, I also think the dirtbag left, or at least those vocal ones at Chapo, are at risk of falling prey to the desire to shaft as many people as possible because they personally are suffering.[2] Which then, how do we know we're not just the financially greedy with a beautiful cover story?
I don't know. I'm still struggling with all this.
This is in response to Andrew Ducker's ongoing Brexit evaluation, the most recent of which is found here:
https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/3621255.html
I didn't want to highjack his thread with a tangent, but I was moved to write because I think his final line is the most crucial issue to address: "And instead the person who does [run the country] is concentrating on not splitting the Conservative Party rather than anything actually useful." Expecting politicians, especially those of the right, but not just the right, to worry about anything other than their vehicle to power is not thinking clearly.
So. I think that if liberals want to win and see any of their ideals realized, they will need to stop appeasing the right and gather collectively under the banner that best embraces collective action. In Canada I think that is currently the Green Party. It was the NDP, but we let it slip away, and I think the person now leading the NDP is an appeaser.[3]
[1] - yes, I agree that I have used the Black Lives Matter template. It appears that I am trying to dilute it. I've seen Pets Matter, Pensions Matter, Money Matters, Babies Matter, Dogs Matter, Hangnails Matter etc etc etc, which cooptation I suspect is not always meant to be *maliciously* belittling, but which is belittling whether malicious or not. But I think saying Politics Matter is as important as saying Black Lives Matter, and encompasses First Nations Lives Matter (which we in Canada *really* need to come to grips with), and other life or death matters which the phrase Black Lives Matter articulates. I don't want to replace Black Lives Matter. I want it to get bigger.
[2] - another thing I have struggled with is this quote from the article above: "As Chapo co-founder Will Menaker put it on a recent episode of the show, addressing an imagined audience pragmatist liberals and centrists: “Yes, let’s come together. But get this through your f–king head: you must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited.”" To me, it smacks mightily of disenfranchised white boy angry that there isn't a place ready and held for him. I'm not sure this utterance is that - but it quacks and waddles.
[3] - and yet I espouse the view that we can't stay with the appeasers, as Menaker says in [2]. [4]
[4] - I suspect I am frightened by the breaking down phase, which has to happen before we can build something new. I'm afraid that breaking everything just to foster change has the inherent problem of baby and bathwater.
[5] - the whole problem with "the law" is that laws can be changed any time, and some laws are stupid from the day they are first drafted. The law is part of the "civil discourse" cooption machinery that makes some forms of collective action "unlawful" regardless of their moral quality.
The dirtbag left is perfectly willing to embrace the horrible right because they are unwilling to stomach the on-going appeasement of the right by the neoliberal centre of left politics (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/18/15992226/neoliberalism-chait-austerity-democratic-party-sanders-clinton).
I think the impulse that the dirtbag left is riding on is the idea that allowing the worst right politics full sway will faster bring on the renewal and rise of the left into more authentic left politics, such as the Right of All to Education, rather than handouts to the needy regarding education, which is where we are with neoliberal appeasement.
This is an enraged response in Canada to justifying evil behavior by cloaking it in "the law": (https://mtlcounter-info.org/en/fuck-you-fuck-your-court-fuck-the-crown-and-the-queen-you-serve-response-to-sentencing-of-line-9-valve-turners/) [5]
This is a more generalized call to hostile action: https://splinternews.com/time-to-make-life-hard-for-the-rich-1821384779
Myself - I don't want to burn down anyone's house or business or property. However, I wouldn't mind shunning people who emulate extremely financially greedy people. I wouldn't mind making it socially unacceptable not only to do financially greedy things, but to even talk about financially greedy things. That is using moral principles in a "when they go low, we go high" way, I think.
I think there are at least two problems with my approach. The biggest one is that the people who go low are completely unphased by my opinion of their behaviour. Sometimes I think that the only thing they care about is their bottom line - and other times I think that the only thing they care about is shafting as many other people as possible whether or not it makes them any money. Most of the time I think they are trying to maximize both rewards, so it's sort of like distance and elevation when aiming at a thrown stone.
The second problem I identify is that this whole "civil discourse" thing is inextricably bound up in class and hierarchy, and it is a way of coopting me as a low-caste person into the ideals of the high-caste group to further their maintenance of position and power. It is an invitation in - but only as long as I know my place.
So. What do I replace this with? If I believe in the ideals of the left: sharing wealth and opportunity, making sure that everyone has a place to live, food to eat, friends to play with, medical and dental care when needed, community to raise a family, safety and comfort in old age - have we reached the point where I *must* go out and damage or interfere (turning off pipeline valves) property? I'm such a coward - I don't want to. I don't want the greedy people forcing me into that being my only option for change to a more compassionate less greedy world.
I think the dirtbag left is right to be highlighting the flaws of the neo-liberal approach, and right to be fostering a rejection of those who embrace the neoliberal approach. However, I also think the dirtbag left, or at least those vocal ones at Chapo, are at risk of falling prey to the desire to shaft as many people as possible because they personally are suffering.[2] Which then, how do we know we're not just the financially greedy with a beautiful cover story?
I don't know. I'm still struggling with all this.
This is in response to Andrew Ducker's ongoing Brexit evaluation, the most recent of which is found here:
https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/3621255.html
I didn't want to highjack his thread with a tangent, but I was moved to write because I think his final line is the most crucial issue to address: "And instead the person who does [run the country] is concentrating on not splitting the Conservative Party rather than anything actually useful." Expecting politicians, especially those of the right, but not just the right, to worry about anything other than their vehicle to power is not thinking clearly.
So. I think that if liberals want to win and see any of their ideals realized, they will need to stop appeasing the right and gather collectively under the banner that best embraces collective action. In Canada I think that is currently the Green Party. It was the NDP, but we let it slip away, and I think the person now leading the NDP is an appeaser.[3]
[1] - yes, I agree that I have used the Black Lives Matter template. It appears that I am trying to dilute it. I've seen Pets Matter, Pensions Matter, Money Matters, Babies Matter, Dogs Matter, Hangnails Matter etc etc etc, which cooptation I suspect is not always meant to be *maliciously* belittling, but which is belittling whether malicious or not. But I think saying Politics Matter is as important as saying Black Lives Matter, and encompasses First Nations Lives Matter (which we in Canada *really* need to come to grips with), and other life or death matters which the phrase Black Lives Matter articulates. I don't want to replace Black Lives Matter. I want it to get bigger.
[2] - another thing I have struggled with is this quote from the article above: "As Chapo co-founder Will Menaker put it on a recent episode of the show, addressing an imagined audience pragmatist liberals and centrists: “Yes, let’s come together. But get this through your f–king head: you must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited.”" To me, it smacks mightily of disenfranchised white boy angry that there isn't a place ready and held for him. I'm not sure this utterance is that - but it quacks and waddles.
[3] - and yet I espouse the view that we can't stay with the appeasers, as Menaker says in [2]. [4]
[4] - I suspect I am frightened by the breaking down phase, which has to happen before we can build something new. I'm afraid that breaking everything just to foster change has the inherent problem of baby and bathwater.
[5] - the whole problem with "the law" is that laws can be changed any time, and some laws are stupid from the day they are first drafted. The law is part of the "civil discourse" cooption machinery that makes some forms of collective action "unlawful" regardless of their moral quality.
