"You cannot be a fully moral person and be elected president."
September 16, 2024 10:07 AM Subscribe
With few exceptions, it is more accurate to divide most politicians into two broad categories: Enemies, and Cowards. (Hamilton Nolan's 'How Things Work' substack)
I agree the coward label is harsh. I thought this (partial) answer from the comments was great:
This is, indeed, a well written analysis, deeply touching the frustrations we all have. Nonetheless, there is another, contrary point of view, which understands, appreciates, and maybe forgives, this kind of public policy behavior. Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical.
Harris hit it on the head when she said "my values have not changed." In order to have any influence on public policy, never mind institute programs against opposition, a person has to get elected. This involves the practical art, the political skill, and the democratic compromise to reach out to people who have contrary, even opposing values and policies. Getting elected is the first priority. Innovative and value based policy must come later.
She has to be elected before she can do anything at all.
posted by Glinn at 10:29 AM on September 16, 2024 [37 favorites]
This is, indeed, a well written analysis, deeply touching the frustrations we all have. Nonetheless, there is another, contrary point of view, which understands, appreciates, and maybe forgives, this kind of public policy behavior. Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical.
Harris hit it on the head when she said "my values have not changed." In order to have any influence on public policy, never mind institute programs against opposition, a person has to get elected. This involves the practical art, the political skill, and the democratic compromise to reach out to people who have contrary, even opposing values and policies. Getting elected is the first priority. Innovative and value based policy must come later.
She has to be elected before she can do anything at all.
posted by Glinn at 10:29 AM on September 16, 2024 [37 favorites]
I think the piece unfortunately requires a bit more faith than it's reasonable to have: "Accept that all we will get from the next election is someone who can be made to do the right thing under pressure"--can we accept that? Do we believe that? Because we have someone in office right now who does not seem to be amenable to doing the right thing under pressure, even though it might lose his side the next election.
posted by mittens at 10:31 AM on September 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
posted by mittens at 10:31 AM on September 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
The System eats the non-cowards for breakfast. See Ron Johnson vs. Russ Feingold, 2010 & 2016.
posted by torokunai at 10:32 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 10:32 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Good article that rhymes with Arthur Bentley’s 1908 book The Process Of Government (archive link) as well as recent comments from AOC about electing Democrats in spite of I/P position: need to have the conditions in place to exert influence rather than the moral purity of total impotence.
Quote from the NYer review linked above:
Quote from the NYer review linked above:
You can talk about Presidents, parties, and other major political actors, but only if you understand them chiefly as mediums through which interest groups operate. Bentley took that pretty far: he wrote that the name of Theodore Roosevelt, who was President when “The Process of Government” was published, “does not mean to us, when we hear it, so much bone and blood, but a certain number of millions of American citizens tending in certain directions.” You can’t talk about morality as a force in politics, because such talk is almost always a cover for somebody’s interest. You can’t talk about progress, only about the waxing and waning of the power of different groups. You can’t talk about ideals—especially the ideals of the Founders of the United States, who represented just another collection of interest groups—as affecting the course of events.posted by migurski at 10:36 AM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
> She has to be elected before she can do anything at all.
And the thing is, Harris may not be able to change a damned thing even if she does get elected. That is the nature of the beast. I think Obama's first term - I was in my mid-to-late 20s back then - is what dropped the scales of idealism from my eyes, and now I no longer believe that any politician no matter how good can create the change we want just by getting elected president. No matter how heroic they may personally be (and I think many of the politicians we elect to the office of president are genuine heroes on a personal level, and our current president is surely near the top of that list).
The only difference between the enemy and the "coward" is that he will actively try to make things a lot worse and he will succeed because the machine makes this easy, and she will actively try to choose to the least evil option out of the goodness of her heart but fail because the machine is stronger than she is. That difference is worth something. Her presidency will give us a pause, a respite, from active evil-doing at the topmost level, so that we may regroup and build ways to make change happen.
That is what I think these days: that the best president is one who, by not causing chaos and by maintaining some stability up top, allows us the time and space on the agenda to implement justice on our own. At the end of the day these leaders can do nothing that we do not force them to. And no, we are not able to force them to do much yet, it was only two years ago that most of us were fighting for our lives and the lives of our loved ones.
posted by MiraK at 10:38 AM on September 16, 2024 [24 favorites]
And the thing is, Harris may not be able to change a damned thing even if she does get elected. That is the nature of the beast. I think Obama's first term - I was in my mid-to-late 20s back then - is what dropped the scales of idealism from my eyes, and now I no longer believe that any politician no matter how good can create the change we want just by getting elected president. No matter how heroic they may personally be (and I think many of the politicians we elect to the office of president are genuine heroes on a personal level, and our current president is surely near the top of that list).
The only difference between the enemy and the "coward" is that he will actively try to make things a lot worse and he will succeed because the machine makes this easy, and she will actively try to choose to the least evil option out of the goodness of her heart but fail because the machine is stronger than she is. That difference is worth something. Her presidency will give us a pause, a respite, from active evil-doing at the topmost level, so that we may regroup and build ways to make change happen.
That is what I think these days: that the best president is one who, by not causing chaos and by maintaining some stability up top, allows us the time and space on the agenda to implement justice on our own. At the end of the day these leaders can do nothing that we do not force them to. And no, we are not able to force them to do much yet, it was only two years ago that most of us were fighting for our lives and the lives of our loved ones.
posted by MiraK at 10:38 AM on September 16, 2024 [24 favorites]
I suppose the one quibble I have with this line of rhetoric is that if we accept politics as a wholly cynical business then we chase out the idealists and the reformers entirely. They all go to non-profits and charities instead. Change is ridiculously, impossibly hard; but if you presume that all politicians are swindlers and crooks then you cannot lament when you are served with J.D. Vance and Ted Cruz
I am a Democratic official in a small rural county. Recruiting and outreach is already so ridiculously hard. Nobody wants to serve. Nobody wants to go into the snake pit. And so transphobes run our schools and anti-vaxxers are threatening to take over our hospital simply because the local progressives don't want to sully their purity by participating in the base world of school boards and water boards and hospital boards.
Stop thinking that you're too pure or too good for politics, that the realm of politics is for villainy. That's how the villains win. Politics is for everybody- and it's time that we stop yielding the halls of government only to the venal and the hateful.
The more I think about this article, the more I oppose it and despise it. It is propaganda for apathy and the enemy of progressive praxis.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 10:45 AM on September 16, 2024 [113 favorites]
I am a Democratic official in a small rural county. Recruiting and outreach is already so ridiculously hard. Nobody wants to serve. Nobody wants to go into the snake pit. And so transphobes run our schools and anti-vaxxers are threatening to take over our hospital simply because the local progressives don't want to sully their purity by participating in the base world of school boards and water boards and hospital boards.
Stop thinking that you're too pure or too good for politics, that the realm of politics is for villainy. That's how the villains win. Politics is for everybody- and it's time that we stop yielding the halls of government only to the venal and the hateful.
The more I think about this article, the more I oppose it and despise it. It is propaganda for apathy and the enemy of progressive praxis.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 10:45 AM on September 16, 2024 [113 favorites]
Obama's presidency essentially ended November 2010 save for the nominations sent to the Senate [offer not valid in 2016]. Biden, same thing but 2022.
It's looking like Harris would start that way. So I guess if you don't want "divided government", vote for Trump . . .
posted by torokunai at 10:47 AM on September 16, 2024
It's looking like Harris would start that way. So I guess if you don't want "divided government", vote for Trump . . .
posted by torokunai at 10:47 AM on September 16, 2024
What Glinn said.
It's difficult to know someone's "true" beliefs. And even if you did, I don't know how to distinguish someone who compromises as part of a strategy to achieve outcomes that are as close to those true beliefs as possible, and someone who compromises for personal gain. In practical terms, I'm not sure if it matters.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:50 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
It's difficult to know someone's "true" beliefs. And even if you did, I don't know how to distinguish someone who compromises as part of a strategy to achieve outcomes that are as close to those true beliefs as possible, and someone who compromises for personal gain. In practical terms, I'm not sure if it matters.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:50 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Well, I have some bad news for everybody about charities and non-profits...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:56 AM on September 16, 2024 [11 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:56 AM on September 16, 2024 [11 favorites]
So someone like, say, AOC, who could have taken her considerable intelligence and energy to the corporate world and made a lot of money and said 'fuck you, get yours' to all of us--but who instead has devoted her life to arguing with, and being viscerally despised by, an army of halfwits, to the point of even putting her personal safety at risk, on the front lines of a perhaps hopeless and obviously thankless struggle, to MAYBE make things better in some small degree... She's a coward? And not 'fully moral'? Seriously fuck this noise, and thanks for coming to my ted talk.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:03 AM on September 16, 2024 [71 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:03 AM on September 16, 2024 [71 favorites]
We can eliminate politicians. It will take time, and it will need to start locally. The solution is sortition. Change a city chapter, then a county, then a state.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:14 AM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:14 AM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
He's not talking about AOC. He's talking about politicians on a national level who have to appeal to broad swaths of voters. A politician like AOC is on a national stage but only needs the votes of people in her immediate surroundings.
If anything, I think his analysis is more starry-eyed than he thinks. Ultimately he believes in good-hearted, well-intentioned politicians who are forced to do bad things to stay electable. I think that's naivete posing as hard boiled cynicism. I think what you generally have are people who believe in nothing except the need for power. They say and do what they need to do to win and keep power. Even Biden, I think, only was willing to abdicate power when he finally understood that losing to Trump would mean a loss of all power, whereas handing the candidacy to Harris meant the power that comes with respect, a power he is, to be frank, surely unaccustomed to. "Coward" implies a fear of doing the right thing, but I think that misses the point. The right thing is what gets them into power.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:33 AM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
If anything, I think his analysis is more starry-eyed than he thinks. Ultimately he believes in good-hearted, well-intentioned politicians who are forced to do bad things to stay electable. I think that's naivete posing as hard boiled cynicism. I think what you generally have are people who believe in nothing except the need for power. They say and do what they need to do to win and keep power. Even Biden, I think, only was willing to abdicate power when he finally understood that losing to Trump would mean a loss of all power, whereas handing the candidacy to Harris meant the power that comes with respect, a power he is, to be frank, surely unaccustomed to. "Coward" implies a fear of doing the right thing, but I think that misses the point. The right thing is what gets them into power.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:33 AM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
If it truly is absolutely necessary to aid in genocide because so many Americans are bloodthirsty and evil that opposition to genocide is political suicide than our country doesn't deserve to exist.
I think coward is exactly the right term because I am incapable of believing that pure evil is so deeply ingrained in Americans that it is impossible to do good. It might be difficult. It might be risky. But if goodness is impossible in our system then it's time to start a revolution and get rid of the system.
For those of you who actually believe that no President or ruling party can ever do better than slightly slowing down the rush to evil, are you just doom and gloom forever and see no light at the end of the tunnel? If so why are you participating?
posted by sotonohito at 11:44 AM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
I think coward is exactly the right term because I am incapable of believing that pure evil is so deeply ingrained in Americans that it is impossible to do good. It might be difficult. It might be risky. But if goodness is impossible in our system then it's time to start a revolution and get rid of the system.
For those of you who actually believe that no President or ruling party can ever do better than slightly slowing down the rush to evil, are you just doom and gloom forever and see no light at the end of the tunnel? If so why are you participating?
posted by sotonohito at 11:44 AM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
I know I must be getting old, because seeing the young idealists fighting it out, why the age-old problems of inequality and unfair domination still haven't been solved, and whose fault is that , anyway... it just makes me feel tired.
Somebody upthread incorrectly claimed that politics is the art of the practical. No, traditionally politics is the art of the possible, and also traditionally it is called "the slow boring of hard boards." Really slow, because some of the boards seem to be impenetrably hard.
All the schemes that have been dreamed up to speed the process have proven impractical or even counterproductive. There can be no Johnny Unbeatable who will surely win against the iniquitous and lead the people to righteousness. You can't do better than the lesser of evils. We can't fix the world.
But we can make it less bad, and the people to oppose are the ones who deny even the possibility of doing that.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:55 AM on September 16, 2024 [17 favorites]
Somebody upthread incorrectly claimed that politics is the art of the practical. No, traditionally politics is the art of the possible, and also traditionally it is called "the slow boring of hard boards." Really slow, because some of the boards seem to be impenetrably hard.
All the schemes that have been dreamed up to speed the process have proven impractical or even counterproductive. There can be no Johnny Unbeatable who will surely win against the iniquitous and lead the people to righteousness. You can't do better than the lesser of evils. We can't fix the world.
But we can make it less bad, and the people to oppose are the ones who deny even the possibility of doing that.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:55 AM on September 16, 2024 [17 favorites]
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:55 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:55 AM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
The solution is sortition.
Because if you thought that NIMBYism was bad now, just wait until they're the ones fully in the driver's seat. Sortition is the sort of "answer" that sounds great until you actually look at how those sorts of systems work in practice - namely how they serve to empower the already powerful because it turns out that they're the ones who can put their lives on pause.
As for the "coward" framing, it's a hostile one that seriously discounts the utter wringer that running for office these days entails, and not just for the candidate but their family and friends. It's toxic, and comes from a mentality where, for all the high rhetoric that Nolan uses about trying to change people's minds betrays a sort of surrender towards doing just that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:24 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
Because if you thought that NIMBYism was bad now, just wait until they're the ones fully in the driver's seat. Sortition is the sort of "answer" that sounds great until you actually look at how those sorts of systems work in practice - namely how they serve to empower the already powerful because it turns out that they're the ones who can put their lives on pause.
As for the "coward" framing, it's a hostile one that seriously discounts the utter wringer that running for office these days entails, and not just for the candidate but their family and friends. It's toxic, and comes from a mentality where, for all the high rhetoric that Nolan uses about trying to change people's minds betrays a sort of surrender towards doing just that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:24 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
If it truly is absolutely necessary to aid in genocide because so many Americans are bloodthirsty and evil that opposition to genocide is political suicide than our country doesn't deserve to exist.
I think coward is exactly the right term because I am incapable of believing that pure evil is so deeply ingrained in Americans that it is impossible to do good. It might be difficult. It might be risky. But if goodness is impossible in our system then it's time to start a revolution and get rid of the system.
Ok, but so then what? Is everyone who then props up the current country an enemy? Irredeemable? I guess plenty of things exist that don't deserve to, so what happens next? I don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just more trying to work through my understanding. We burn it all down and kill tens if not hundreds of millions to start over?
posted by Carillon at 12:34 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
I think coward is exactly the right term because I am incapable of believing that pure evil is so deeply ingrained in Americans that it is impossible to do good. It might be difficult. It might be risky. But if goodness is impossible in our system then it's time to start a revolution and get rid of the system.
Ok, but so then what? Is everyone who then props up the current country an enemy? Irredeemable? I guess plenty of things exist that don't deserve to, so what happens next? I don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just more trying to work through my understanding. We burn it all down and kill tens if not hundreds of millions to start over?
posted by Carillon at 12:34 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
I think there is at least one more very important category: the politicians whose only real goal is personal self-aggrandizement, whether financial, sexual, or egomaniacal.
And Donald Trump is a perfect example of the Type
Trump is all worked up about the 'dead' water of California for one reason only: they won’t let him water his golf course the way he wants to. Everything else is just an attempt to sell it to the rubes.
All of his policies are like this. They have a core of self interest or they wouldn’t exist.
I think history offers us numerous examples of leaders like him, although not, perhaps, the US Presidency until now.
posted by jamjam at 12:42 PM on September 16, 2024 [15 favorites]
And Donald Trump is a perfect example of the Type
Donald Trump held a, uh, press conference, I guess slash rally near his Los Angeles golf course this past Friday. And almost immediately, the entire thing went off the rails because Donald Trump's mental problems are becoming far too great for anyone to ignore at this point.The telling detail in all this is that this press conference was held near one of his golf courses.
[…]
The main course of this, whatever the hell you want to call it, was when Donald Trump decided to say that if he is elected president, uh, he's basically gonna cut off all aid for California wildfires because he hates Gavin New scum for one 'cause that's what he called him. And two, because California's just not opening up all the water. They have what he called dead water that they're just not letting people use. So here is Donald Trump going off for three minutes. I'm not gonna show you the full three minutes, but for three minutes he ranted about something he knows nothing about, which is water usage in California. Here he is.
"It's where the forests are so brittle. 'cause no, no place is like California. I go to Austria, the head of Austria tells me, you know, we have trees that are much more flammable than what you have in California. We never have forest forests 'cause they maintain their forests. And you have all that water that could be used to as water, what they call water flow, where the wa wa you know, where the land would be damp. And you'd stop many of these horrible fires that are costing billions and billions of dollars by the federal government, et cetera. So one thing I'm gonna do for California, vote for me, California. I'm gonna give you safety. I'm gonna give you a great border and I'm gonna give you more water than almost anybody has. And the farmers up north are gonna be able to use a hundred percent of their land, not 1% of their land.
And the water's gonna come all the way down to Los Angeles and you're gonna have more water than you ever saw. And the smelt is not making it anyway. In fact, they make and grow smelt because it dies all the way up and down the line. And they put stuff that was artificially made. You know, that. So you're gonna have water in California at a level that you've never seen before. The farmers are gonna do great. Those fields are gonna be all green instead of 1% green. And maybe even more important, you're not gonna have illegal immigrants pouring into your country and killing your family.
Trump is all worked up about the 'dead' water of California for one reason only: they won’t let him water his golf course the way he wants to. Everything else is just an attempt to sell it to the rubes.
All of his policies are like this. They have a core of self interest or they wouldn’t exist.
I think history offers us numerous examples of leaders like him, although not, perhaps, the US Presidency until now.
posted by jamjam at 12:42 PM on September 16, 2024 [15 favorites]
"You cannot be a fully moral person and be elected president."
No fully moral human exists. I would say easily the most moral president of my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. He did have flaws. If he had other, different flaws he might have been a better president.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:53 PM on September 16, 2024 [30 favorites]
No fully moral human exists. I would say easily the most moral president of my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. He did have flaws. If he had other, different flaws he might have been a better president.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:53 PM on September 16, 2024 [30 favorites]
Interesting article, but where the writer sees “cowards,” I see “imperfect human beings grappling with difficult choices in worse situations.”
But that makes the headline too long…
posted by rpfields at 1:05 PM on September 16, 2024 [22 favorites]
But that makes the headline too long…
posted by rpfields at 1:05 PM on September 16, 2024 [22 favorites]
> where the writer sees “cowards,” I see “imperfect human beings grappling with difficult choices in worse situations.”
Hear, hear! I think this is similar to how there are no perfect anti-capitalist activists - everyone participates in capitalism whether we like it or not. And there are no perfect feminists - everyone participates in patriarchy whether we like it or not. And we're not cowards for doing that, because nobody can live the way perfect people would need to live, fighting every step of every thing every day and choosing death rather than participate in an oppressive choice at every turn. Literally impossible to live like that.
Same applies to elected politicians and, indeed, bankers and lawyers and so on. Most of the people who sit up there making unfathomably harmful choices are doing it either because of self interest (i.e. evil) or because they literally have no better choices within this system.
It's only the billionaires and the conservative supreme court justices who are immune from this rule, and alas for us that they are almost uniformly a moustache twirling evil class of folks.
posted by MiraK at 1:19 PM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
Hear, hear! I think this is similar to how there are no perfect anti-capitalist activists - everyone participates in capitalism whether we like it or not. And there are no perfect feminists - everyone participates in patriarchy whether we like it or not. And we're not cowards for doing that, because nobody can live the way perfect people would need to live, fighting every step of every thing every day and choosing death rather than participate in an oppressive choice at every turn. Literally impossible to live like that.
Same applies to elected politicians and, indeed, bankers and lawyers and so on. Most of the people who sit up there making unfathomably harmful choices are doing it either because of self interest (i.e. evil) or because they literally have no better choices within this system.
It's only the billionaires and the conservative supreme court justices who are immune from this rule, and alas for us that they are almost uniformly a moustache twirling evil class of folks.
posted by MiraK at 1:19 PM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
Because we have someone in office right now who does not seem to be amenable to doing the right thing under pressure, even though it might lose his side the next election.
What's the "right thing" here? Stand on principle—a principle that a supermajority of his constituents don't think is all that comparatively important and half of those who do think it important think the "right thing" is precisely the opposite—and lose the election to someone firmly against the "right thing"? It's easy to moralize when you have no actual influence on a situation; a little harder when the stakes are higher.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:21 PM on September 16, 2024 [11 favorites]
What's the "right thing" here? Stand on principle—a principle that a supermajority of his constituents don't think is all that comparatively important and half of those who do think it important think the "right thing" is precisely the opposite—and lose the election to someone firmly against the "right thing"? It's easy to moralize when you have no actual influence on a situation; a little harder when the stakes are higher.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:21 PM on September 16, 2024 [11 favorites]
> What's the "right thing" here?
Well, a start would be choosing *not* to tell lies for self aggrandizement/personal profit. Just as an example.
On the enemy side of the scale right now it's not at all difficult to tell the difference between right and wrong. Woe to us that evil is so blatant these days.
Edited to add: oh dang I thought we were talking about Trump. Disregard this comment.
posted by MiraK at 1:24 PM on September 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
Well, a start would be choosing *not* to tell lies for self aggrandizement/personal profit. Just as an example.
On the enemy side of the scale right now it's not at all difficult to tell the difference between right and wrong. Woe to us that evil is so blatant these days.
Edited to add: oh dang I thought we were talking about Trump. Disregard this comment.
posted by MiraK at 1:24 PM on September 16, 2024 [2 favorites]
^^ LOL we're always already talking about That Fuckin' Guy.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:25 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:25 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
What's the "right thing" here? Stand on principle—a principle that a supermajority of his constituents don't think is all that comparatively important and half of those who do think it important think the "right thing" is precisely the opposite—and lose the election to someone firmly against the "right thing"? It's easy to moralize when you have no actual influence on a situation; a little harder when the stakes are higher.
Also it's not like there's ONE SINGLE "right thing" that isn't being done, or even any right thing that isn't ALSO a demonstrably quite wrong thing! Even if Biden was like, fuck it, let's burn the US democracy down to make a point about Gaza, well then he is the man who burned the US democracy down. And in the meantime he didn't solve healthcare bankruptcy or improve housing costs or shore up our mental healthcare for veterans or develop more compassionate immigration policies or or or.
People want a magic wand but what we have is a Rube Goldberg breakfast machine the size of half a damn continent. Everything takes forever and has six million moving parts and in the end all it does is shoot you.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:47 PM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
Also it's not like there's ONE SINGLE "right thing" that isn't being done, or even any right thing that isn't ALSO a demonstrably quite wrong thing! Even if Biden was like, fuck it, let's burn the US democracy down to make a point about Gaza, well then he is the man who burned the US democracy down. And in the meantime he didn't solve healthcare bankruptcy or improve housing costs or shore up our mental healthcare for veterans or develop more compassionate immigration policies or or or.
People want a magic wand but what we have is a Rube Goldberg breakfast machine the size of half a damn continent. Everything takes forever and has six million moving parts and in the end all it does is shoot you.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:47 PM on September 16, 2024 [10 favorites]
I think this framing is fine as long as it recognizes that basically all of us are cowards. Almost nobody is really willing to follow their principles to the point of personal self-destruction, and I’d go so far as to suggest that many who do are actually caught in their own form of cowardice, which is taking refuge in rigid orthodoxy for fear of grappling with morally complex choices.
The best argument for tight regulation I’ve heard came from someone in the subject industry, to wit: “It lets me easily defend making the right choice.” I get how that sort of statement is anathema to a typical politician, but I think I echo TFA in suggesting this kind of denial of human nature is close to the root problem with our politics.
posted by bjrubble at 1:47 PM on September 16, 2024 [14 favorites]
The best argument for tight regulation I’ve heard came from someone in the subject industry, to wit: “It lets me easily defend making the right choice.” I get how that sort of statement is anathema to a typical politician, but I think I echo TFA in suggesting this kind of denial of human nature is close to the root problem with our politics.
posted by bjrubble at 1:47 PM on September 16, 2024 [14 favorites]
It's not a torture moral struggle, actually. It's a very easy decision to make, one that nearly half the country makes every 2 years. I will not vote for either nazi party. I will not respect people who argue for voting for the nazi party.
It's basically true that there are no heros in US politics, but perhaps we should ask why, and what would actually exert pressure on the Cowards (who, to be clear, are also your enemy, albeit for cynical reasons). Shaking your fist at them but cajoling people to vote anyway is not going to do anything. These people are created by the system before they create it. If they are fundamentally creatures of expediency and self-interest, then the system and its progeny must be beaten bloody until they change. What kind of "organizing" do you expect to happen within gotv campaigns for the people you're supposedly organizing against?
posted by jy4m at 2:04 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
It's basically true that there are no heros in US politics, but perhaps we should ask why, and what would actually exert pressure on the Cowards (who, to be clear, are also your enemy, albeit for cynical reasons). Shaking your fist at them but cajoling people to vote anyway is not going to do anything. These people are created by the system before they create it. If they are fundamentally creatures of expediency and self-interest, then the system and its progeny must be beaten bloody until they change. What kind of "organizing" do you expect to happen within gotv campaigns for the people you're supposedly organizing against?
posted by jy4m at 2:04 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
Not all polemics need to be pep talks!
posted by lalochezia at 2:45 PM on September 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by lalochezia at 2:45 PM on September 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
What's the "right thing" here? Stand on principle—a principle that a supermajority of his constituents don't think is all that comparatively important and half of those who do think it important think the "right thing" is precisely the opposite—and lose the election to someone firmly against the "right thing"?
I don't think I want to argue anymore about which approach to genocide is the "right thing," but instead I'll point out that Biden pushed through student loan forgiveness which among Democrats polled around 78%; recent polls show 83% Democrat support for a permanent ceasefire. If 83% of your constituents are in favor of something, and that doesn't move you, then Nolan's point really does crumble.
posted by mittens at 4:14 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
I don't think I want to argue anymore about which approach to genocide is the "right thing," but instead I'll point out that Biden pushed through student loan forgiveness which among Democrats polled around 78%; recent polls show 83% Democrat support for a permanent ceasefire. If 83% of your constituents are in favor of something, and that doesn't move you, then Nolan's point really does crumble.
posted by mittens at 4:14 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
One of my favorites :
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-John F. Kennedy
posted by OneCrateGuy at 4:21 PM on September 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-John F. Kennedy
posted by OneCrateGuy at 4:21 PM on September 16, 2024 [8 favorites]
From Mindhunters:
Holden Ford : How do you get to be president of the United States if you're a sociopath?
Wendy Carr : The question is, how do you get to be president of the United States if you're *not*?
posted by JohnFromGR at 4:45 PM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Holden Ford : How do you get to be president of the United States if you're a sociopath?
Wendy Carr : The question is, how do you get to be president of the United States if you're *not*?
posted by JohnFromGR at 4:45 PM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
Is someone who's committed to arming and funding a genocide because they think not doing it will cost them more votes and donors than stopping it an enemy, or a coward? And is someone who disdains the left utterly while chasing after the endorsements and votes of right-wingers like Dick Cheney an enemy, or a coward? Because, you know, if you're going to tell me repeatedly "I don't actually want your vote", then don't get offended when I say "fine, you're not getting it, then".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:13 PM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:13 PM on September 16, 2024 [5 favorites]
"I don't actually want your vote", then don't get offended when I say "fine, you're not getting it, then".
The fact that Harris is telling this kind of person to STFU instead of spending energy chasing down the votes of people who are going to vote for Nader or Stein anyway is one of the more refreshing things about her. She's not going to be "offended" because she isn't going to even hear the response. People determined to have no say in their government are going to get exactly that. Seems like a win-win to me, honestly.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 6:15 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
The fact that Harris is telling this kind of person to STFU instead of spending energy chasing down the votes of people who are going to vote for Nader or Stein anyway is one of the more refreshing things about her. She's not going to be "offended" because she isn't going to even hear the response. People determined to have no say in their government are going to get exactly that. Seems like a win-win to me, honestly.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 6:15 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
totally cool how this thread has degenerated into the IDENTICAL 'discussion' re: gaza/genocide/harris/trump that we've seen on this site again and again and again.
posted by lalochezia at 6:55 PM on September 16, 2024 [9 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 6:55 PM on September 16, 2024 [9 favorites]
I will not vote for either nazi party.
Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory.
posted by paper scissors sock at 6:58 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory.
posted by paper scissors sock at 6:58 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
totally cool how this thread has degenerated into the IDENTICAL 'discussion'
The Nolan piece is, in a sense, about persuadability. The politicians may not want to do the right thing, but can be persuaded, over time, with enough organizing. It's an idea that calls out for a test, and, well, this is the most obvious recent test of the theory. "Elections can be seen as just another organizing task, one in an endless procession of efforts necessary to arrange the chess pieces of power in a way that will, eventually, produce the righteous outcome." But it's hard to tell "eventually" from "never," and if you end up thinking "never," then you fall into apathy and quit voting. I guess we could have picked another issue--climate change, maybe--where we know "eventually" won't come soon enough. But the fact that it takes no time at all to come up with examples where the world is crumbling now, and the fix needs to be now, rather than eventually, is really depressing, when the only answers are: Organize more! Vote more! Wait more!
posted by mittens at 7:37 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
The Nolan piece is, in a sense, about persuadability. The politicians may not want to do the right thing, but can be persuaded, over time, with enough organizing. It's an idea that calls out for a test, and, well, this is the most obvious recent test of the theory. "Elections can be seen as just another organizing task, one in an endless procession of efforts necessary to arrange the chess pieces of power in a way that will, eventually, produce the righteous outcome." But it's hard to tell "eventually" from "never," and if you end up thinking "never," then you fall into apathy and quit voting. I guess we could have picked another issue--climate change, maybe--where we know "eventually" won't come soon enough. But the fact that it takes no time at all to come up with examples where the world is crumbling now, and the fix needs to be now, rather than eventually, is really depressing, when the only answers are: Organize more! Vote more! Wait more!
posted by mittens at 7:37 PM on September 16, 2024 [7 favorites]
Carillon Ok, but so then what? [...] We burn it all down and kill tens if not hundreds of millions to start over?
Probably not. But I'm going to quote Chris Rock for a moment because I think what he said here is relevant and important:
Sexism isn't some outside force that requires resources to overcome. It's men deciding to be oppressive.
Transphobia isn't a physical thing that must be torn down and will take time. It's cis people deciding to be oppressive.
And on that note, we don't have hunger because we have a lack of food. We have hunger because in the informal democracy of people going along with the system as it is we have decided to have hunger rather than inconvenience or annoy the very rich.
All of this, every single social evil, is there not because it's some THING but because some people have chosen to be oppressive.
Change happens when enough of the theoretical "allies" of the oppressed people finally decide that the suffering of the oppressed is more important than the comfort of the oppressor. And we could decide that on every single issue tomorrow.
So why haven't we?
I think part of it has to do with the way we frame the issue. Change is framed as violence, but when the oppressor harms their victims that isn't framed as violence, or at least not the same sort of violence. Not the kind of violence that is unacceptable and must be rejected with great force.
When John Brown set out to liberate slaves by killing the slave owners this was presented as an enormously violent act and in his time, and today, many people condemned him for his violence, for the killing he was willing to undertake in pursuit of justice. You may note that the violence inherent to enslaving people and brutalizing those people so they will obey is not seen as or presented as violence. Or at least not the same sort of violence. Certainly not the sort of violence that is entirely unacceptable.
The violence from the oppressor is taken as a given, an inevitability, a fact of the universe. It is normal and therefore unremarkable. But any violence in pursuit of liberation is new, strange, and therefore seen as violence in a way that mere lynching and torture and murder by the oppressor is not.
When people say it takes time, or we have to bore through a plank, or take half a loaf, what they're really saying is that they have not yet reached the mental state where they value the lives of the oppressed more than the lifestyle and comfort of the oppressor.
Ian Danskin pointed out in his Cost of Doing Business video, that there's an attitude among many ostensible allies that somehow it wouldn't be fair, or proper, to end oppression without the cooperation of the oppressors.
Which brings up one of those uncomfortable questions: what do you say to the last trans kid who is bullied into suicide before you finally decide the time has come to stop the oppression? "Sorry kid, we had to reach a certain quota of death before we thought it was OK to change things"?
The best time to end all the problems was thousands of years ago. The second best time is now. So why aren't we?
I'm not advocating for bloody revolution. But why is it that concern of death and destruction is reason not to revolt, but the ongoing death and destruction wrought by the oppressors is not reason to change things?
I do not subscribe to the idea that some people are just plain evil and we can achieve utopia by killing all the bad people. Down that road lies madness and genocide and I agree wholeheartedly that we must not go that way. People who are oppressing now can be induced to change their minds in ways that don't involve violence. Or at lest fake changing their minds.
That said, is there truly sin and immorality in John Brown executing slave owners? I'd argue that something akin to the principle of self defense might be invoked to justify Brown's actions. If you saw a person being dragged away to be enslaved, surely deadly force is morally permissible if it's the only way to stop it?
It should never be the first thing anyone tries, of course.
We should begin with strikes, work blockages, road blockages, stopping the movement of critical goods, blockading courts where injustice is being perpetuated, standing between police and the victims.
And make no mistake, all of that will be described as violence by the oppressors and their media. Abigail Thorn, in her video Violence & Protest not only shows us how that works philosophically but also cites real world examples of non-violent protest being characterized as violent by those in power.
The idea that genocide is the price we must pay for the evils of Republicanism being, not halted or reversed but slowed down a bit is the same idea that violence from the oppressors against the oppressed isn't really violence. The idea that we can, should, and must, wait for the pile of corpses to get high enough before it is justified to do anything.
How many Palestinians must die before change is acceptable? Forty thousand clearly isn't enough. Will a hundred thousand be enough? Half a million? A million? Or will the "allies" of Palestinians decide that the death of every single Palestinian on the planet is insufficient to justify action?
Every social evil from transphobia to genocide is the result of people deciding to do it. They could decide not to do it tomorrow. We could decide to stand up and say enough to all of it tomorrow. So why aren't we?
posted by sotonohito at 7:48 PM on September 16, 2024 [19 favorites]
Probably not. But I'm going to quote Chris Rock for a moment because I think what he said here is relevant and important:
“Here’s the thing. When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.”Racism isn't this weird alien thing that we have to progress against or bore through. It's white people deciding to be oppressive.
Sexism isn't some outside force that requires resources to overcome. It's men deciding to be oppressive.
Transphobia isn't a physical thing that must be torn down and will take time. It's cis people deciding to be oppressive.
And on that note, we don't have hunger because we have a lack of food. We have hunger because in the informal democracy of people going along with the system as it is we have decided to have hunger rather than inconvenience or annoy the very rich.
All of this, every single social evil, is there not because it's some THING but because some people have chosen to be oppressive.
Change happens when enough of the theoretical "allies" of the oppressed people finally decide that the suffering of the oppressed is more important than the comfort of the oppressor. And we could decide that on every single issue tomorrow.
So why haven't we?
I think part of it has to do with the way we frame the issue. Change is framed as violence, but when the oppressor harms their victims that isn't framed as violence, or at least not the same sort of violence. Not the kind of violence that is unacceptable and must be rejected with great force.
When John Brown set out to liberate slaves by killing the slave owners this was presented as an enormously violent act and in his time, and today, many people condemned him for his violence, for the killing he was willing to undertake in pursuit of justice. You may note that the violence inherent to enslaving people and brutalizing those people so they will obey is not seen as or presented as violence. Or at least not the same sort of violence. Certainly not the sort of violence that is entirely unacceptable.
The violence from the oppressor is taken as a given, an inevitability, a fact of the universe. It is normal and therefore unremarkable. But any violence in pursuit of liberation is new, strange, and therefore seen as violence in a way that mere lynching and torture and murder by the oppressor is not.
When people say it takes time, or we have to bore through a plank, or take half a loaf, what they're really saying is that they have not yet reached the mental state where they value the lives of the oppressed more than the lifestyle and comfort of the oppressor.
Ian Danskin pointed out in his Cost of Doing Business video, that there's an attitude among many ostensible allies that somehow it wouldn't be fair, or proper, to end oppression without the cooperation of the oppressors.
Which brings up one of those uncomfortable questions: what do you say to the last trans kid who is bullied into suicide before you finally decide the time has come to stop the oppression? "Sorry kid, we had to reach a certain quota of death before we thought it was OK to change things"?
The best time to end all the problems was thousands of years ago. The second best time is now. So why aren't we?
I'm not advocating for bloody revolution. But why is it that concern of death and destruction is reason not to revolt, but the ongoing death and destruction wrought by the oppressors is not reason to change things?
I do not subscribe to the idea that some people are just plain evil and we can achieve utopia by killing all the bad people. Down that road lies madness and genocide and I agree wholeheartedly that we must not go that way. People who are oppressing now can be induced to change their minds in ways that don't involve violence. Or at lest fake changing their minds.
That said, is there truly sin and immorality in John Brown executing slave owners? I'd argue that something akin to the principle of self defense might be invoked to justify Brown's actions. If you saw a person being dragged away to be enslaved, surely deadly force is morally permissible if it's the only way to stop it?
It should never be the first thing anyone tries, of course.
We should begin with strikes, work blockages, road blockages, stopping the movement of critical goods, blockading courts where injustice is being perpetuated, standing between police and the victims.
And make no mistake, all of that will be described as violence by the oppressors and their media. Abigail Thorn, in her video Violence & Protest not only shows us how that works philosophically but also cites real world examples of non-violent protest being characterized as violent by those in power.
The idea that genocide is the price we must pay for the evils of Republicanism being, not halted or reversed but slowed down a bit is the same idea that violence from the oppressors against the oppressed isn't really violence. The idea that we can, should, and must, wait for the pile of corpses to get high enough before it is justified to do anything.
How many Palestinians must die before change is acceptable? Forty thousand clearly isn't enough. Will a hundred thousand be enough? Half a million? A million? Or will the "allies" of Palestinians decide that the death of every single Palestinian on the planet is insufficient to justify action?
Every social evil from transphobia to genocide is the result of people deciding to do it. They could decide not to do it tomorrow. We could decide to stand up and say enough to all of it tomorrow. So why aren't we?
posted by sotonohito at 7:48 PM on September 16, 2024 [19 favorites]
Which of these would surprise you more to find on your doorstep — fully moral human or walrus?
posted by orange ball at 8:28 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by orange ball at 8:28 PM on September 16, 2024 [6 favorites]
The fact that Harris is telling this kind of person to STFU instead of spending energy chasing down the votes of people who are going to vote for Nader or Stein anyway
I've voted Democratic in every election since I could vote, in 1996. But do go on and make stupid assumptions.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:07 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
I've voted Democratic in every election since I could vote, in 1996. But do go on and make stupid assumptions.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:07 PM on September 16, 2024 [3 favorites]
> What comes to mind for me when I think about politics is John Steinbeck in the Grapes of Wrath describing the nature of a bank:
"Nations are monsters, boy, with guts of iron and nerves of brass. Waste not your pity on them."[1,2] --Fritz Leiber, The Big Time
> The Nolan piece is, in a sense, about persuadability.
fwiw...
Trump's 2020 Stolen Election Claims Are Wrong on the Merits - "When I wrote about the Grimmer/Ramaswamy paper here, I addressed the argument that papers like these are pointless because those friendly toward Trump's claims will not find or read them, while those opposed don't need them. As I see it, persuasion matters and will always matter so long as questions of politics are resolved by something short of force."
> So why aren't we?
The Dream of a Ridiculous Man - "If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once."[3]
posted by kliuless at 10:33 PM on September 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
"Nations are monsters, boy, with guts of iron and nerves of brass. Waste not your pity on them."[1,2] --Fritz Leiber, The Big Time
> The Nolan piece is, in a sense, about persuadability.
fwiw...
Trump's 2020 Stolen Election Claims Are Wrong on the Merits - "When I wrote about the Grimmer/Ramaswamy paper here, I addressed the argument that papers like these are pointless because those friendly toward Trump's claims will not find or read them, while those opposed don't need them. As I see it, persuasion matters and will always matter so long as questions of politics are resolved by something short of force."
> So why aren't we?
The Dream of a Ridiculous Man - "If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once."[3]
posted by kliuless at 10:33 PM on September 16, 2024 [4 favorites]
If so why are you participating?
posted by sotonohito
Because not participating is giving up, and then we are the cowards; our not participating is an electotal goal of fascists. Mike Johnson was elected with 16% of the voters in his district. The current Governor of Louisiana was elected with 18% of the voters.
This is why Mike Johnson goes on about his being "chosen by god"--his election is unlikely, and dependent on voter suppression
'Not participating' does not do what people think it does.
Getting people who care about human rights to stop voting at all is a very explicit goal of fascists, and they have been very successful at it.
They continue to be very successful at convincing ethical people they hate to avoid voting in this extremely puritan, overly religious country., where people don't math so good, but somehow are very good at blaming themselves for the war machine
I'm just supposed to let them win?
posted by eustatic at 11:15 PM on September 16, 2024 [21 favorites]
posted by sotonohito
Because not participating is giving up, and then we are the cowards; our not participating is an electotal goal of fascists. Mike Johnson was elected with 16% of the voters in his district. The current Governor of Louisiana was elected with 18% of the voters.
This is why Mike Johnson goes on about his being "chosen by god"--his election is unlikely, and dependent on voter suppression
'Not participating' does not do what people think it does.
Getting people who care about human rights to stop voting at all is a very explicit goal of fascists, and they have been very successful at it.
They continue to be very successful at convincing ethical people they hate to avoid voting in this extremely puritan, overly religious country., where people don't math so good, but somehow are very good at blaming themselves for the war machine
I'm just supposed to let them win?
posted by eustatic at 11:15 PM on September 16, 2024 [21 favorites]
Yeah, this is just more "hold your nose and vote Dem!" bs, dressed up to be a little more knowing, but maintaining the victim blaming and expectations that random people give more than all the people with the money and the power. Some people's red line is they only vote for people who want to give babies guns or let women bleed out in parking lots for the mistake of getting knocked up. My red line is you have to have a spine.
Not to be all George W. Bush about it, but this is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Anyways if Getting people who care about human rights to stop voting at all is a very explicit goal of fascists, then it seems like actual anti-fascists, instead of patting themselves on the back for embracing cowardice, should probably be spending more time giving people who care about human rights an actual reason to vote for them. Because this line of thought is clearly not working, otherwise, with alll the effort people have poured into it at this point, the numbers would be moving.
Honestly, being a coward is worse than being evil, because without all the cowards helping, the evil would not get nearly as far as it has. And you can miss me with all the "this is the world we live in" stuff. If your mornal sense needs to push the responsibility for the compromises you make onto "the world," then I think your moral sense is actually trying to tell you something else.
And I suppose, if one did want to be tactical, one would take inspiration from the Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s. Did they say, "Sure I love segregation but the world we live in just has moved past it"? No! They went out and started their think tanks and foundations and Federalist socieites. And when Robert Bork was stopped becuase he was toooooo honest, did they fold? No! They told their lies in public but used memberships and networks to support their values in private, biding their time.
People who think of politics as their life's work, inside and outside the voting booth, rather than coming up with 1000 ways to talk themselves into moral compromises would be better served by building institutions to support people with spines over the long term, instead of just throwing up their hands and shouting, "Spineslessness is inevitable!"
posted by dame at 1:44 AM on September 17, 2024 [13 favorites]
Not to be all George W. Bush about it, but this is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Anyways if Getting people who care about human rights to stop voting at all is a very explicit goal of fascists, then it seems like actual anti-fascists, instead of patting themselves on the back for embracing cowardice, should probably be spending more time giving people who care about human rights an actual reason to vote for them. Because this line of thought is clearly not working, otherwise, with alll the effort people have poured into it at this point, the numbers would be moving.
Honestly, being a coward is worse than being evil, because without all the cowards helping, the evil would not get nearly as far as it has. And you can miss me with all the "this is the world we live in" stuff. If your mornal sense needs to push the responsibility for the compromises you make onto "the world," then I think your moral sense is actually trying to tell you something else.
And I suppose, if one did want to be tactical, one would take inspiration from the Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s. Did they say, "Sure I love segregation but the world we live in just has moved past it"? No! They went out and started their think tanks and foundations and Federalist socieites. And when Robert Bork was stopped becuase he was toooooo honest, did they fold? No! They told their lies in public but used memberships and networks to support their values in private, biding their time.
People who think of politics as their life's work, inside and outside the voting booth, rather than coming up with 1000 ways to talk themselves into moral compromises would be better served by building institutions to support people with spines over the long term, instead of just throwing up their hands and shouting, "Spineslessness is inevitable!"
posted by dame at 1:44 AM on September 17, 2024 [13 favorites]
I will not vote for either nazi party.
Historically that's how actual Nazis gained power but you do you I guess
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on September 17, 2024 [9 favorites]
Historically that's how actual Nazis gained power but you do you I guess
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on September 17, 2024 [9 favorites]
The more I think about this article, the more I oppose it and despise it. It is propaganda for apathy and the enemy of progressive praxis.
Thanks for this comment. I see the problem you described in my area (central/eastern Europe), including in the recent regional elections in the former East Germany.
Many people call themselves sceptical, in the sense of all politicians are evil, all are corrupt.
And that's well and nice — congratulations on that insight — but it's also the worst possible way to motivate anyone to vote, or run for office, or fight for positive change, etc etc.
And then we put right-wing wannabe dictators in power and have to exert immense effort to dislodge them. Sometimes with success, sometimes without.
Why would I vote for a coward? How is she/he supposed to defeat my "enemy"? I feel defeated at the thought of it.
posted by UN at 4:09 AM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
Thanks for this comment. I see the problem you described in my area (central/eastern Europe), including in the recent regional elections in the former East Germany.
Many people call themselves sceptical, in the sense of all politicians are evil, all are corrupt.
And that's well and nice — congratulations on that insight — but it's also the worst possible way to motivate anyone to vote, or run for office, or fight for positive change, etc etc.
And then we put right-wing wannabe dictators in power and have to exert immense effort to dislodge them. Sometimes with success, sometimes without.
Why would I vote for a coward? How is she/he supposed to defeat my "enemy"? I feel defeated at the thought of it.
posted by UN at 4:09 AM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
They have taken power. They have been in power for decades. We are well past that stage. I am not having a discussion with you.
Many people here do not seem to give much moral weight to the commission of genocide, either because they're profoundly racist or because they chose to numb their souls and minds a long time ago. No way to tell which. To Hamilton Nolan's credit, it appears that he does, and he can fulfill what that understanding demands of us, which is simple hatred of the people committing it.
posted by jy4m at 4:12 AM on September 17, 2024 [3 favorites]
Many people here do not seem to give much moral weight to the commission of genocide, either because they're profoundly racist or because they chose to numb their souls and minds a long time ago. No way to tell which. To Hamilton Nolan's credit, it appears that he does, and he can fulfill what that understanding demands of us, which is simple hatred of the people committing it.
posted by jy4m at 4:12 AM on September 17, 2024 [3 favorites]
> Racism [is] white people deciding to be oppressive.
> Sexism isn't some outside force that requires resources to overcome. It's men deciding to be oppressive.
> [&c for transphobia]
Whoa whoa whoa. This take is completely erasing the systemic forces at play! Sexism and racism and transphobia are far more than mere individuals "deciding" to be bigoted. If it was merely people "deciding" to be bigoted it would be very easy to solve but we've gone and set up our whole entire society with all its institutions and processes and systems and assumptions and linguistics and religions and all of entire human culture in a way that not only encourages but requires and mandates these biases' continuing existence. Nobody can just opt out of this by "deciding" to opt out. We all participate and we have no choice in the matter. The best we each can hope to do is question*some* bigotries that happen to become visible to us, and fight *some* battles which we are capable of fighting, making slow slow slow progress each generation.
We covered this in the 1970s and then again in the 2010s, I can link you to resources if you like!
posted by MiraK at 4:19 AM on September 17, 2024 [13 favorites]
> Sexism isn't some outside force that requires resources to overcome. It's men deciding to be oppressive.
> [&c for transphobia]
Whoa whoa whoa. This take is completely erasing the systemic forces at play! Sexism and racism and transphobia are far more than mere individuals "deciding" to be bigoted. If it was merely people "deciding" to be bigoted it would be very easy to solve but we've gone and set up our whole entire society with all its institutions and processes and systems and assumptions and linguistics and religions and all of entire human culture in a way that not only encourages but requires and mandates these biases' continuing existence. Nobody can just opt out of this by "deciding" to opt out. We all participate and we have no choice in the matter. The best we each can hope to do is question*some* bigotries that happen to become visible to us, and fight *some* battles which we are capable of fighting, making slow slow slow progress each generation.
We covered this in the 1970s and then again in the 2010s, I can link you to resources if you like!
posted by MiraK at 4:19 AM on September 17, 2024 [13 favorites]
For those talking about not voting because of genocide, I have a simple question: how do I, someone with just enough means to live in an adopted country (who is saving because the UK government is trying to make life hard for all immigrants), who does get to vote in the Maryland state election, work to stop this? I can take acts to mitigate it, but how do I stop it? I suppose I could go over and get shot, which would result in some tutting for a few days about how Israel really needs to control its forces. I can write to my senators, but they are worried about Hogan winning the election and handing McConnel's successor the power to break the government even more, so they will not be sponsoring legislation that could in any way be accused of being anti-Semitic (read: anti-Israeli military).
I could march in the UK, but that would get me arrested and deported (seriously, they are giving people similar sentences for slow marching as they are for rioting). I'm here on a visa, so I do not have any representative to protest to about the UK's support, and Starmer is terrified of being lumped in with the anti-semitism charges against Corbin from the election cycle previous to this one. (He does the typical center-left thing of being sensitive to criticism from the right but ignoring criticism from the left.)
So what can I do? I can vote for the party that will not actively encourage genocide and encourage the destruction of the democratic norms in Israel. Or I can not vote. Or I can vote for the party expressing many points from the commonly accepted definition of fascism. I do not have the millions or billions necessary to directly influence policy or bribe appropriate people. I can give a small amount to the not quite as much genocide party. But what else can someone like me do?
I guarantee you that no one is looking at the percentage of people who did not vote, except Republican operatives, who use it as a measure of success. What good does not voting do? It won't change anyone's mind. It won't convince any Democrat who isn't already working against Israeli military actions to change their view.
When you boycott a company, you take away money you would otherwise be spending on them. It's why John Deere backpedaled it's anti-bigotry rhetoric (bigots were threatening to boycott and unfortunately enough of their customers listen to bigots), but Taylor Swift can ignore the criticism from bigots (they don't hurt her sales). But boycotting a vote, unless there is a necessary quorum, changes nothing.
posted by Hactar at 6:00 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
I could march in the UK, but that would get me arrested and deported (seriously, they are giving people similar sentences for slow marching as they are for rioting). I'm here on a visa, so I do not have any representative to protest to about the UK's support, and Starmer is terrified of being lumped in with the anti-semitism charges against Corbin from the election cycle previous to this one. (He does the typical center-left thing of being sensitive to criticism from the right but ignoring criticism from the left.)
So what can I do? I can vote for the party that will not actively encourage genocide and encourage the destruction of the democratic norms in Israel. Or I can not vote. Or I can vote for the party expressing many points from the commonly accepted definition of fascism. I do not have the millions or billions necessary to directly influence policy or bribe appropriate people. I can give a small amount to the not quite as much genocide party. But what else can someone like me do?
I guarantee you that no one is looking at the percentage of people who did not vote, except Republican operatives, who use it as a measure of success. What good does not voting do? It won't change anyone's mind. It won't convince any Democrat who isn't already working against Israeli military actions to change their view.
When you boycott a company, you take away money you would otherwise be spending on them. It's why John Deere backpedaled it's anti-bigotry rhetoric (bigots were threatening to boycott and unfortunately enough of their customers listen to bigots), but Taylor Swift can ignore the criticism from bigots (they don't hurt her sales). But boycotting a vote, unless there is a necessary quorum, changes nothing.
posted by Hactar at 6:00 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
It is wild to me to see people deliberately misreading this essay. Hamilton Nolan is one of America’s most respected labor journalists and would be the first to tell you that his type is an endangered species precisely because of the slow motion collapse of labor. Nolan has made the case over and over that Republicans cannot get anywhere near the White House, otherwise it would be a disaster. This is not someone “both sides”-ing the situation, and implying this is the case is really obnoxious.
To wit, here is the key quote: “The cowards, unlike the enemies, can be moved into the right place. That is why we vote for them, when faced with the choice of the two.”
Anyone who has ever spent more than 5 minutes involved with labor will have plenty of stories about people who say one thing in public and do another thing behind closed doors when it comes down to brass tacks of negotiating a contract. It’s helpful to consider why for a labor journalist, they might have this world view.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:38 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
To wit, here is the key quote: “The cowards, unlike the enemies, can be moved into the right place. That is why we vote for them, when faced with the choice of the two.”
Anyone who has ever spent more than 5 minutes involved with labor will have plenty of stories about people who say one thing in public and do another thing behind closed doors when it comes down to brass tacks of negotiating a contract. It’s helpful to consider why for a labor journalist, they might have this world view.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:38 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments removed. Please avoid making general negative comments about the MeFi population you disagree with, as it just ups the temperature on an already heated subject.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:33 AM on September 17, 2024
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:33 AM on September 17, 2024
eustatic You misunderstand, which means I said it poorly.
I'm voting for Harris because I think, despite her love of genocide, she might actually make improvements in some other areas. It's a horrible calculus, exchanging the lives of Palestinians for the hope of gains elsewhere.
I was asking the people who say that they're voting for Harris and fully expect that she will not improve anything at all, that in fact they expect everything to continue to get worse (if at a somewhat slower pace than it would under Trump) why they're bothering?
Once you decide that the lesser of two evils is actually just as bad you've left democracy behind and started thinking like a revolutionary. I'm not saying that revolutionary action must follow revolutionary thought, but I am baffled by people who say they confidently expect everything will keep getting worse all around no matter what why they're voting at all.
MiraK I thought it would be clear I'mn ot arguing people actually sit down, think it out, and make a conscious decision to be racist, transphobic, or whatever. I shouldn't have assumed that.
Yes, you are quite correct and no one chooses to be a transphobe in the same sense that I choose to have a peanutbutter sandwich for lunch instead of leftover fried rice. But it isn't as if people are mindless automatons who are preordained to be bigots and helpless against the social forces involved. They can change, if they become convinced that change is good or necessary, or that their current position is wrong.
It's not EASY, sure. But it happens.
Which is why I say that yes, we could end it all tomorrow. We won't. Becuase people aren't easy, but there's nothing physical stopping us from changing it all tomorrow. Racism isn't a pyramid of giant iron blocks that must be dismantled at great effort and expense, it's "just" how some white people behave.
If we had to build a ten thousand story tall statue to end racism, then sure, I could see the argument that we must be patient and bore through the plank and all that stuff. Building a ten thouand story tall statue is hard!
But we don't have to do that. People "just" have to change. Which, it seems, is more difficult than merely building a ten thousand story tall statue....
posted by sotonohito at 7:39 AM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
I'm voting for Harris because I think, despite her love of genocide, she might actually make improvements in some other areas. It's a horrible calculus, exchanging the lives of Palestinians for the hope of gains elsewhere.
I was asking the people who say that they're voting for Harris and fully expect that she will not improve anything at all, that in fact they expect everything to continue to get worse (if at a somewhat slower pace than it would under Trump) why they're bothering?
Once you decide that the lesser of two evils is actually just as bad you've left democracy behind and started thinking like a revolutionary. I'm not saying that revolutionary action must follow revolutionary thought, but I am baffled by people who say they confidently expect everything will keep getting worse all around no matter what why they're voting at all.
MiraK I thought it would be clear I'mn ot arguing people actually sit down, think it out, and make a conscious decision to be racist, transphobic, or whatever. I shouldn't have assumed that.
Yes, you are quite correct and no one chooses to be a transphobe in the same sense that I choose to have a peanutbutter sandwich for lunch instead of leftover fried rice. But it isn't as if people are mindless automatons who are preordained to be bigots and helpless against the social forces involved. They can change, if they become convinced that change is good or necessary, or that their current position is wrong.
It's not EASY, sure. But it happens.
Which is why I say that yes, we could end it all tomorrow. We won't. Becuase people aren't easy, but there's nothing physical stopping us from changing it all tomorrow. Racism isn't a pyramid of giant iron blocks that must be dismantled at great effort and expense, it's "just" how some white people behave.
If we had to build a ten thousand story tall statue to end racism, then sure, I could see the argument that we must be patient and bore through the plank and all that stuff. Building a ten thouand story tall statue is hard!
But we don't have to do that. People "just" have to change. Which, it seems, is more difficult than merely building a ten thousand story tall statue....
posted by sotonohito at 7:39 AM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
> But it isn't as if people are mindless automatons who are preordained to be bigots and helpless against the social forces involved. They can change, if they become convinced that change is good or necessary, or that their current position is wrong.
.... ehhh, this unbelievably idealistic but I'll go along with your argument by taking it in the sense of "this is what we should work towards" and "this is the attitude we need to have towards people who aren't yet 'woke'".
> It's not EASY, sure. But it happens.
> Which is why I say that yes, we could end it all tomorrow.
Aand whelp,my suspension of disbelief just crumbled! This is a wild statement. We could NOT end it all tomorrow... not even if we were all perfectly spherical people living in a frictionless world with no history and no semblance of a context. There is no universe where ending all bigotry tomorrow is a possibility. No. Just no.
> here's nothing physical stopping us from changing it all tomorrow.
You're speaking as if only physical barriers to change are real barriers, and intangible or non-physical barriers are not as serious or as barrier-y as physical ones. The opposire is true. I WISH racism was just a dumb old bunch of iron blocks or whatever, then we'd at least know that the way to get over it is to knock those blocks down and chuck them into space. It is precisely the fact that it's non-physical that makes overcoming racism by tomorrow literally impossible under any conditions that exist anywhere in this universe. Because it is non-physical we don't even have the first clue how to overcome it. We know how to fix SOME manifestations of racism that make themselves painfully obvious to us, but that is just the tip of the racism iceberg, most of it is invisible to us. If only we were dealing with iron blocks! If only!
I'm finding it hard to understand your comments or take them seriously because of how untethered from reality these statements seem! I don't think I've ever had this thought about your comments before, it's kind of discombobulating, but I trust you and respect you and hope you will explain what you mean a little better?
posted by MiraK at 8:59 AM on September 17, 2024 [6 favorites]
.... ehhh, this unbelievably idealistic but I'll go along with your argument by taking it in the sense of "this is what we should work towards" and "this is the attitude we need to have towards people who aren't yet 'woke'".
> It's not EASY, sure. But it happens.
> Which is why I say that yes, we could end it all tomorrow.
Aand whelp,my suspension of disbelief just crumbled! This is a wild statement. We could NOT end it all tomorrow... not even if we were all perfectly spherical people living in a frictionless world with no history and no semblance of a context. There is no universe where ending all bigotry tomorrow is a possibility. No. Just no.
> here's nothing physical stopping us from changing it all tomorrow.
You're speaking as if only physical barriers to change are real barriers, and intangible or non-physical barriers are not as serious or as barrier-y as physical ones. The opposire is true. I WISH racism was just a dumb old bunch of iron blocks or whatever, then we'd at least know that the way to get over it is to knock those blocks down and chuck them into space. It is precisely the fact that it's non-physical that makes overcoming racism by tomorrow literally impossible under any conditions that exist anywhere in this universe. Because it is non-physical we don't even have the first clue how to overcome it. We know how to fix SOME manifestations of racism that make themselves painfully obvious to us, but that is just the tip of the racism iceberg, most of it is invisible to us. If only we were dealing with iron blocks! If only!
I'm finding it hard to understand your comments or take them seriously because of how untethered from reality these statements seem! I don't think I've ever had this thought about your comments before, it's kind of discombobulating, but I trust you and respect you and hope you will explain what you mean a little better?
posted by MiraK at 8:59 AM on September 17, 2024 [6 favorites]
I'll give you real world examples which make the issue with your argument clearer, sotonohito:
when the problem is similar to "pyramid of iron blocks", the world does quite successfully deal with the issue. We have been building dams and bridges and oil rigs and transcontinental railroads and tunnels under mountains for a couple of hundred years! Just 30 years ago, we fixed the hole in the ozone layer - because it was very straightforward like moving a knocking a big pile of iron blocks down. Take away CFCs - a class of chemicals which have easy replacements - boom, done. Even though it went right against the profit motive, we freakin did it. Quickly and efficiently.
When it comes to more dispersed problems like tackling climate change, however, we are faltering. We can do SOME aspects of it reasonably well, like investing in renewable energy sources. Those, again, are straightforward and concrete problems, easy to conceptualize, easy to solve, and we are fucking doing those things. But stuff like "get rid of platics" is IMPOSSIBLE for us to do, because plastics have permeated every aspect of our existence. We can't just get rid of plastics without straight up murdering everybody who is getting any kind of treatment in any hospital in the world, just for starters. Goodbye vaccines and goodbye safe childbirth! You can't get rid of plastic when these are the immediate consequences. We keep the system going because we literally don't know how to do any better given the tools we have.
When you add in another layer of abstraction like changing people, or even just changing their minds, the problem is expoentially harder TO EVEN DEFINE, let alone to correct. There is no way to change people or change their minds en masse quickly, and even if there were, nobody ought to be trusted with that capacity or power. It is in fact morally abhorrent to fix bigotry by tomorrow even if we knew how. That kind of brainwashing is more terrifying than the bigotry itself - and I say it soberly, knowing exactly what horrors those bigotries have wrought.
If you want to take these problems seriously, you have to start by recognizing and respecting the fact that this is much, much, much more complicated than moving a pile of iron blocks.
posted by MiraK at 9:18 AM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
when the problem is similar to "pyramid of iron blocks", the world does quite successfully deal with the issue. We have been building dams and bridges and oil rigs and transcontinental railroads and tunnels under mountains for a couple of hundred years! Just 30 years ago, we fixed the hole in the ozone layer - because it was very straightforward like moving a knocking a big pile of iron blocks down. Take away CFCs - a class of chemicals which have easy replacements - boom, done. Even though it went right against the profit motive, we freakin did it. Quickly and efficiently.
When it comes to more dispersed problems like tackling climate change, however, we are faltering. We can do SOME aspects of it reasonably well, like investing in renewable energy sources. Those, again, are straightforward and concrete problems, easy to conceptualize, easy to solve, and we are fucking doing those things. But stuff like "get rid of platics" is IMPOSSIBLE for us to do, because plastics have permeated every aspect of our existence. We can't just get rid of plastics without straight up murdering everybody who is getting any kind of treatment in any hospital in the world, just for starters. Goodbye vaccines and goodbye safe childbirth! You can't get rid of plastic when these are the immediate consequences. We keep the system going because we literally don't know how to do any better given the tools we have.
When you add in another layer of abstraction like changing people, or even just changing their minds, the problem is expoentially harder TO EVEN DEFINE, let alone to correct. There is no way to change people or change their minds en masse quickly, and even if there were, nobody ought to be trusted with that capacity or power. It is in fact morally abhorrent to fix bigotry by tomorrow even if we knew how. That kind of brainwashing is more terrifying than the bigotry itself - and I say it soberly, knowing exactly what horrors those bigotries have wrought.
If you want to take these problems seriously, you have to start by recognizing and respecting the fact that this is much, much, much more complicated than moving a pile of iron blocks.
posted by MiraK at 9:18 AM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
I'm voting for Harris because I think, despite her love of genocide...
Aaaand that's where I stop listening to you entirely. Same planet, different worlds. I could go into a long explanation about how doing anything before the election other than paying lip service to Israel is political suicide, or how she's likely going to start the long, slow process of disinvesting from Israel and/or fomenting regime change there after she's inaugurated, but why bother?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:17 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
Aaaand that's where I stop listening to you entirely. Same planet, different worlds. I could go into a long explanation about how doing anything before the election other than paying lip service to Israel is political suicide, or how she's likely going to start the long, slow process of disinvesting from Israel and/or fomenting regime change there after she's inaugurated, but why bother?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:17 AM on September 17, 2024 [10 favorites]
Yeah I wish we could talk without the overblown rhetoric.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:22 AM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:22 AM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
What an exciting time to be alive.
posted by Captaintripps at 11:39 AM on September 17, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Captaintripps at 11:39 AM on September 17, 2024 [1 favorite]
Kadia Goba, quoting from Harris' NABJ interview: “Black men are like any other voting group. You got to earn their vote. So I'm working to earn the vote, not assuming I'm going to have it because I am black, but because the policies and the perspectives I have…”
I think it's interesting to contrast that idea--you see people turning to your opponent, so you work harder to earn their vote--with the mechanism we've been talking about here (trying to vote in persuadable politicians, meaning "you must vote for the Democrat"). These threads have tended to ruthlessly criticize the idea of withholding your vote, or voting for someone else, as ineffective and possibly evil. Clearly Harris is saying--at least for a large enough demographic group--that it is very effective. Should we take Harris at her word here?
posted by mittens at 12:10 PM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
I think it's interesting to contrast that idea--you see people turning to your opponent, so you work harder to earn their vote--with the mechanism we've been talking about here (trying to vote in persuadable politicians, meaning "you must vote for the Democrat"). These threads have tended to ruthlessly criticize the idea of withholding your vote, or voting for someone else, as ineffective and possibly evil. Clearly Harris is saying--at least for a large enough demographic group--that it is very effective. Should we take Harris at her word here?
posted by mittens at 12:10 PM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
I don't take away the same thing from that statement of hers. Assuming you don't have a vote is great, but she's not talking about people purposefully withholding a vote, unless there's more to the quote.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:31 PM on September 17, 2024
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:31 PM on September 17, 2024
I won't pretend to have some secret decoder ring that tells me her true inner thoughts so I can't agree with the, IMO incredibly naive and overly hopeful, assessment that Harris has unspoken but real intentions to suddenly break with decades of American policy.
But I will concede that "love of genocide" is perhaps an exaggeration.
But there are only two positions: pro-genocide and anti-genocide, there is no neutrality. I will, grudgingly, agree that it is possible for a person to be "reluctantly pro-genocide" but I don't think the dead care if the people who enabled thier slaughter were enthusiastic or reluctant. They're still just as dead.
MiraK I'll agree that I'm somewhat oversimplifying. i didn't mention the issues of systemic bigotry and how, even with the full and enthusiastic cooperation of every person involved, there would be a great deal of work involved in changing the systems so they no longer have the purpose of enforcing white cis het male supremacy.
Nor was it my intention to deny that changing minds is incredibly difficult.
My point was that yes, we can talk upbringing and social conditioning and a lifetime of ingrained bigotry and of course the part where (most of) them aren't cartoonishly evil cackling and talking about how much they hate minorities.
But at the end of the day, ultimately, they are responsible for their own actions and beliefs. And they are capable of change. We know this because some people DO change.
We are, I think, far too easy on the individual, far too willing to blame their actions on groups, movements, society, and anything except themselves.
Sure, Derek Chauvin was part of a deeply racist and white supremacist system, had been indoctornated in racism and white supremacy by his police department, probably had family who had taught him to be a white supremacist from birth. And to a certain degree I have some sympathy, it's not easy to break free of that kind of background.
But at the end of the day, he's the one who decided to kill George Floyd while smirking at the horrified crowd. He is, he must be, responsible for his own actions.
Or maybe my brain is churning out bullshit instead of anything worthwhile. I'm open to the possibility so if you still think that's the case I suspect I need to do some reassessment or just STFU for a few months.
posted by sotonohito at 1:02 PM on September 17, 2024 [1 favorite]
But I will concede that "love of genocide" is perhaps an exaggeration.
But there are only two positions: pro-genocide and anti-genocide, there is no neutrality. I will, grudgingly, agree that it is possible for a person to be "reluctantly pro-genocide" but I don't think the dead care if the people who enabled thier slaughter were enthusiastic or reluctant. They're still just as dead.
MiraK I'll agree that I'm somewhat oversimplifying. i didn't mention the issues of systemic bigotry and how, even with the full and enthusiastic cooperation of every person involved, there would be a great deal of work involved in changing the systems so they no longer have the purpose of enforcing white cis het male supremacy.
Nor was it my intention to deny that changing minds is incredibly difficult.
My point was that yes, we can talk upbringing and social conditioning and a lifetime of ingrained bigotry and of course the part where (most of) them aren't cartoonishly evil cackling and talking about how much they hate minorities.
But at the end of the day, ultimately, they are responsible for their own actions and beliefs. And they are capable of change. We know this because some people DO change.
We are, I think, far too easy on the individual, far too willing to blame their actions on groups, movements, society, and anything except themselves.
Sure, Derek Chauvin was part of a deeply racist and white supremacist system, had been indoctornated in racism and white supremacy by his police department, probably had family who had taught him to be a white supremacist from birth. And to a certain degree I have some sympathy, it's not easy to break free of that kind of background.
But at the end of the day, he's the one who decided to kill George Floyd while smirking at the horrified crowd. He is, he must be, responsible for his own actions.
Or maybe my brain is churning out bullshit instead of anything worthwhile. I'm open to the possibility so if you still think that's the case I suspect I need to do some reassessment or just STFU for a few months.
posted by sotonohito at 1:02 PM on September 17, 2024 [1 favorite]
Well, something to think about is: the objection to your original position is that it is an oversimplification, and that oversimplication is precisely what invalidates it and puts it in the realm of "wtf". But here you are saying, "Yes, I admit it may be an oversimplification, nevertheless this is what I believe." There's a disconnect, no? Do you not agree that the oversimplification invalidates your position and makes it wtf? (If so can you provide your reasoning as to why/how it is still valid, rather than restate your position?)
I think the Chauvin example is a misunderstanding, because all Chauvin had to do was choose not to kill. That's a far cry from not being a racist anymore... and in addition, it is very very easy and simple to *not* commit one-on-one hands on murder. It is decidedly NOT easy or simply for any one person elected to high office to stop a genocide being committed by an entire other country. This is the problem. You're oversimplifying again, even in your analogies.
posted by MiraK at 1:10 PM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
I think the Chauvin example is a misunderstanding, because all Chauvin had to do was choose not to kill. That's a far cry from not being a racist anymore... and in addition, it is very very easy and simple to *not* commit one-on-one hands on murder. It is decidedly NOT easy or simply for any one person elected to high office to stop a genocide being committed by an entire other country. This is the problem. You're oversimplifying again, even in your analogies.
posted by MiraK at 1:10 PM on September 17, 2024 [2 favorites]
I liked this, then I thought more about it. That quote doesn't have to be the full picture.
“The cowards, unlike the enemies, can be moved into the right place. That is why we vote for them, when faced with the choice of the two.”
Sure, that's a helpful lens today, assume those who won't destroy you for being different are people who need a stick to motivate them to represent you and act in your interests. Is it all-stick? Where's the carrot?
Is everyone a victim of bullying or themselves a bully?
I think bullied people become bullies, whether a subsequent set of marks or the next generation. What's going to fix that for the future?
posted by k3ninho at 2:23 PM on September 17, 2024
“The cowards, unlike the enemies, can be moved into the right place. That is why we vote for them, when faced with the choice of the two.”
Sure, that's a helpful lens today, assume those who won't destroy you for being different are people who need a stick to motivate them to represent you and act in your interests. Is it all-stick? Where's the carrot?
Is everyone a victim of bullying or themselves a bully?
I think bullied people become bullies, whether a subsequent set of marks or the next generation. What's going to fix that for the future?
posted by k3ninho at 2:23 PM on September 17, 2024
This article almost gets around to good points but bails in favor of the catchy "all politicians are villains or cowards" schtick. Some people are reading it as "Hey! it's ok to vote Harris - she's just a coward!" but I reject the entire premise. Outside of a few hot-button issues (Gaza, surprise ...) I'm not seeing any evidence by the author to support his characterization. It reads like a classic disaffected outsider white male take (which I get, because I'm a white male). Something like this:
* I'm a good person and a smart person and have figured out the correct answers to all the issues.
* There's no reason for anyone to disagree with me on those issues.
* Getting the US (or other complex entity) into full alignment with my views and solutions on every issue should be a snap unless the President or other politician is a villain/coward.
Otherwise all foreign policy, economic, human rights, social, environmental and other issues would be fixed.
I'm not a fan of the two-party system, and I'm not a fanboy of some particular party or person, but I think he's doing a huge disservice to American politicians and government employees. This is the Republican "they're all corrupt!" bullshit, but coming from the left.
I'm extra raw lately because a very smart lefty friend sent me a YouTube video by a guy named Shahid Bolsen who he said was a "respected Egyptian intellectual". It was a long rant about how the election was a fool's game and the sheeple need to wake up because both sides are the same, blah blah blah. It was giving me a "Malcolm X cosplay" vibe so I looked into him and he's from Colorado, converted to Islam, left the country, killed a guy, then went to Egypt and started supporting and encouraging Islamic fundamentalists. Like this is the bullshit I, as a voting American who's trying to raise moral and engaged teenagers as part of the future of democracy, am up against. There's a grain of truth but the logic and worldview are super fucked up.
posted by caviar2d2 at 2:35 PM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
* I'm a good person and a smart person and have figured out the correct answers to all the issues.
* There's no reason for anyone to disagree with me on those issues.
* Getting the US (or other complex entity) into full alignment with my views and solutions on every issue should be a snap unless the President or other politician is a villain/coward.
Otherwise all foreign policy, economic, human rights, social, environmental and other issues would be fixed.
I'm not a fan of the two-party system, and I'm not a fanboy of some particular party or person, but I think he's doing a huge disservice to American politicians and government employees. This is the Republican "they're all corrupt!" bullshit, but coming from the left.
I'm extra raw lately because a very smart lefty friend sent me a YouTube video by a guy named Shahid Bolsen who he said was a "respected Egyptian intellectual". It was a long rant about how the election was a fool's game and the sheeple need to wake up because both sides are the same, blah blah blah. It was giving me a "Malcolm X cosplay" vibe so I looked into him and he's from Colorado, converted to Islam, left the country, killed a guy, then went to Egypt and started supporting and encouraging Islamic fundamentalists. Like this is the bullshit I, as a voting American who's trying to raise moral and engaged teenagers as part of the future of democracy, am up against. There's a grain of truth but the logic and worldview are super fucked up.
posted by caviar2d2 at 2:35 PM on September 17, 2024 [5 favorites]
But there are only two positions: pro-genocide and anti-genocide, there is no neutrality.
The problem I have with this position is not with the principle, but the process.
Majority of the politicians accused of being neutral and therefore pro-genocide would never categorize themselves as such.
But some commentators decide for themselves that a politician is neutral on the matter and therefore pro-genocide and therefore off with their heads.
And if I don't agree with that categorization of a politician? Off with my head too.
It's brutal, the Internet commentary.
posted by UN at 1:52 AM on September 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
The problem I have with this position is not with the principle, but the process.
Majority of the politicians accused of being neutral and therefore pro-genocide would never categorize themselves as such.
But some commentators decide for themselves that a politician is neutral on the matter and therefore pro-genocide and therefore off with their heads.
And if I don't agree with that categorization of a politician? Off with my head too.
It's brutal, the Internet commentary.
posted by UN at 1:52 AM on September 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Not as brutal as voting to drop bombs on refugee camps and then lying that they're all terrorists, but I acknowledge your immense suffering.
posted by jy4m at 5:11 AM on September 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 5:11 AM on September 18, 2024 [3 favorites]
Absolutely. In none of the three years living in a refugee camp did I have to worry about a bomb dropping on the place. So no question, It's incomprehensible to me and I hope I made it clear my rhetoric was metaphorical. Apologies if not.
Nonetheless the violence within the camp(s) was brutal and there are experiences I'll never clear from my memory. Blood, knives, violence, kidnapping, screaming...
But I know the type of politicians who propagate policies to make life in refugee camps as intolerable as possible. They existed then and they do today. Policies have real consequences and people suffer. People who commit genocidal crimes belong in prison.
I don't understand rhetorical zingers using genocide as an instrument. It's a heavy topic but it's sometimes used like a joke against people.
posted by UN at 7:54 AM on September 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Nonetheless the violence within the camp(s) was brutal and there are experiences I'll never clear from my memory. Blood, knives, violence, kidnapping, screaming...
But I know the type of politicians who propagate policies to make life in refugee camps as intolerable as possible. They existed then and they do today. Policies have real consequences and people suffer. People who commit genocidal crimes belong in prison.
I don't understand rhetorical zingers using genocide as an instrument. It's a heavy topic but it's sometimes used like a joke against people.
posted by UN at 7:54 AM on September 18, 2024 [2 favorites]
Majority of the politicians accused of being neutral and therefore pro-genocide would never categorize themselves as such.
The majority of people who can be credibly accused of racism doubtless don't categorize themselves as such either.
But with pro-genocide vs. anti-genocide the distinction is quite simple: has the person in question been using the power at their disposal to stop genocide?
The answer for both Biden and Harris is no.
People generally do either what they think is good, or what they think is necessary. Sometimes what a person thinks is necessary is also something they think is bad but that necessity overrides the badness.
So of course Biden and Harris don't like genocide and babies being killed. Who does? But they clearly see it as a necessary evil. Collatoral damage in a war against Hamas. Or the short term badness that must be tolerated for the long term benefit of [insert goal here]. Or whatever.
They're not cackling evildoers who sing Disney villain songs about how much they love helping kill Palestinian children.
But they're still helping kill Palestinian children.
And, in a very indirect way, so am I by voting for them. I voted Biden, I will be voting Harris. I too have looked at the situaton and decided that necessity means I should take the immoral action of voting for Harris.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on September 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
The majority of people who can be credibly accused of racism doubtless don't categorize themselves as such either.
But with pro-genocide vs. anti-genocide the distinction is quite simple: has the person in question been using the power at their disposal to stop genocide?
The answer for both Biden and Harris is no.
People generally do either what they think is good, or what they think is necessary. Sometimes what a person thinks is necessary is also something they think is bad but that necessity overrides the badness.
So of course Biden and Harris don't like genocide and babies being killed. Who does? But they clearly see it as a necessary evil. Collatoral damage in a war against Hamas. Or the short term badness that must be tolerated for the long term benefit of [insert goal here]. Or whatever.
They're not cackling evildoers who sing Disney villain songs about how much they love helping kill Palestinian children.
But they're still helping kill Palestinian children.
And, in a very indirect way, so am I by voting for them. I voted Biden, I will be voting Harris. I too have looked at the situaton and decided that necessity means I should take the immoral action of voting for Harris.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on September 18, 2024 [4 favorites]
The majority of people who can be credibly accused of racism doubtless don't categorize themselves as such either.
What I meant was more about the politicians in question having a right to defend themselves if they felt the accusation was false. In some countries they could take someone to court over it, and even win that case. Slander, basically, depending on the context.
Taking your argument,
And, in a very indirect way, so am I by voting for them.
And applying the same binary that you're using to judge politicians' behavior: that makes you pro-genocide too, right? I am not arguing that you are by any means, I'm just saying, it seems to be the logical conclusion of the rhetoric you or jy4m are using.
Taking the argument further, why should I listen to someone's argument against genocide when they themselves, when applying their own argument to their behavior, are pro-genocide?
Again, not an accusation. My point is that if we're going to follow a logic to its conclusion, why not follow through. And the answer is that I think the core is wrong. The candidates in question aren't a little bit pro-genocide who see it as a necessary evil. And neither are any of us here.
posted by UN at 9:28 AM on September 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
What I meant was more about the politicians in question having a right to defend themselves if they felt the accusation was false. In some countries they could take someone to court over it, and even win that case. Slander, basically, depending on the context.
Taking your argument,
And, in a very indirect way, so am I by voting for them.
And applying the same binary that you're using to judge politicians' behavior: that makes you pro-genocide too, right? I am not arguing that you are by any means, I'm just saying, it seems to be the logical conclusion of the rhetoric you or jy4m are using.
Taking the argument further, why should I listen to someone's argument against genocide when they themselves, when applying their own argument to their behavior, are pro-genocide?
Again, not an accusation. My point is that if we're going to follow a logic to its conclusion, why not follow through. And the answer is that I think the core is wrong. The candidates in question aren't a little bit pro-genocide who see it as a necessary evil. And neither are any of us here.
posted by UN at 9:28 AM on September 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
UN I think it's a fair queston.
And I think the answer depends on the power available to a person. In my case I have no power to stop this, or any other, genocide.
With regards to voting my power is limited to a single ballot and the options there are Harris (who will continue the genocide) and Trump (who will continue the genocide).
There is no anti-genocide candidate (who has a chance of winning) I can support or vote for.
My power, in the limited sense of casting a ballot, does not include an anti-genocide option.
Given that the genocide will continue regardless of who wins, I don't think it's pro-genocide to evaluate the candidates by additional metrics.
If there WAS an anti-genocide candidate who could win and I decided to vote against them because of their other policies I think it would be entirely correct to argue taht I was pro-genocide.
But?
Maybe I am. The boundaries are not policed from the inside. I don't think I was weaseling above, but I can see how someone might reasonably think I was.
Which brings us back to democratic vs revolutionary thinking. Once you decide the system is not salvagable at all, that voting is pointless because the winner will always be a bad person, then you're thinking in revolutionary terms even if you don't ever take revolutionary action.
I am still, somehow, so far, in the place where I have (possibly naively) some hope that there are nonrevolutionary means of achieving change.
Maybe the only anti-genocide action is revoltionary. I don't THINK so, but to repeat it, I don't get to decide if I'm anti-genocide or pro-genocide. Just as I'm not the one who gets to decide if I'm racist, or sexist, or transphobic, or whatever.
I don't think I'm weaseling. But maybe i am.
posted by sotonohito at 9:57 AM on September 18, 2024 [7 favorites]
And I think the answer depends on the power available to a person. In my case I have no power to stop this, or any other, genocide.
With regards to voting my power is limited to a single ballot and the options there are Harris (who will continue the genocide) and Trump (who will continue the genocide).
There is no anti-genocide candidate (who has a chance of winning) I can support or vote for.
My power, in the limited sense of casting a ballot, does not include an anti-genocide option.
Given that the genocide will continue regardless of who wins, I don't think it's pro-genocide to evaluate the candidates by additional metrics.
If there WAS an anti-genocide candidate who could win and I decided to vote against them because of their other policies I think it would be entirely correct to argue taht I was pro-genocide.
But?
Maybe I am. The boundaries are not policed from the inside. I don't think I was weaseling above, but I can see how someone might reasonably think I was.
Which brings us back to democratic vs revolutionary thinking. Once you decide the system is not salvagable at all, that voting is pointless because the winner will always be a bad person, then you're thinking in revolutionary terms even if you don't ever take revolutionary action.
I am still, somehow, so far, in the place where I have (possibly naively) some hope that there are nonrevolutionary means of achieving change.
Maybe the only anti-genocide action is revoltionary. I don't THINK so, but to repeat it, I don't get to decide if I'm anti-genocide or pro-genocide. Just as I'm not the one who gets to decide if I'm racist, or sexist, or transphobic, or whatever.
I don't think I'm weaseling. But maybe i am.
posted by sotonohito at 9:57 AM on September 18, 2024 [7 favorites]
has the person in question been using the power at their disposal to stop genocide?
Kamala Harris does not have this power and won't unless she gets elected. Joe Biden is president until January 20, 2025, and the president, her boss, makes foreign policy.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:43 PM on September 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
Kamala Harris does not have this power and won't unless she gets elected. Joe Biden is president until January 20, 2025, and the president, her boss, makes foreign policy.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:43 PM on September 18, 2024 [1 favorite]
Maybe the only anti-genocide action is revoltionary. I don't THINK so, but to repeat it, I don't get to decide if I'm anti-genocide or pro-genocide. Just as I'm not the one who gets to decide if I'm racist, or sexist, or transphobic, or whatever.
To borrow a term from the main article here, let's say a political 'enemy' calls you genocidal. Let's say it's a right-wing fanatic calling you that. Do you then respond: sure you decide, if that's what you think then that's what I am.
It seems unrealistic to me.
I suppose my point is, and I mentioned above my issue is not with the principle but with the process. Who gets to call whom genocidal/racist/etc.
Much of this kind of debate is by third parties who aren't directly affected. Maybe someone here is but since it's the open internet, none of us really know. We all have our biases and our stories. But in general I'm just assuming it's an unaffected person calling someone else a name. I'm not guilt free when it comes to that, on certain topics. Add various state actors and their bots that amplify the behavior... it's not making things easier.
posted by UN at 1:11 AM on September 19, 2024
To borrow a term from the main article here, let's say a political 'enemy' calls you genocidal. Let's say it's a right-wing fanatic calling you that. Do you then respond: sure you decide, if that's what you think then that's what I am.
It seems unrealistic to me.
I suppose my point is, and I mentioned above my issue is not with the principle but with the process. Who gets to call whom genocidal/racist/etc.
Much of this kind of debate is by third parties who aren't directly affected. Maybe someone here is but since it's the open internet, none of us really know. We all have our biases and our stories. But in general I'm just assuming it's an unaffected person calling someone else a name. I'm not guilt free when it comes to that, on certain topics. Add various state actors and their bots that amplify the behavior... it's not making things easier.
posted by UN at 1:11 AM on September 19, 2024
UN I was meaning more that the victims of an ongoing genocide were the ones who got to decide if a person was pro- or anti- Though of course they doubtless have more important things to be concerned about. And afterwards it would be the survivors who are the ones who are able to make any sort of judgement about past actions by people.
Though obviously no one can stop anyone from using the term to describe anyone else. When I say Harris, or Trump, or whoever, is pro-genocide I'm not really saying that from an authoratative position.
posted by sotonohito at 11:58 AM on September 19, 2024 [2 favorites]
Though obviously no one can stop anyone from using the term to describe anyone else. When I say Harris, or Trump, or whoever, is pro-genocide I'm not really saying that from an authoratative position.
posted by sotonohito at 11:58 AM on September 19, 2024 [2 favorites]
« Older always having to tell her story | Chat, is this Prime Minister serious? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
What comes to mind for me when I think about politics is John Steinbeck in the Grapes of Wrath describing the nature of a bank:
"Sure," cried the tenant men, "but it’s our land…We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it’s no good, it’s still ours….That’s what makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it."
"We’re sorry. It’s not us. It’s the monster. The bank isn’t like a man."
"Yes, but the bank is only made of men."
"No, you’re wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it.”
We - we, the people or, okay, our ancestors - created the monster that is capitalism, and politics. We built this thing and none of us can control it. The people whom WE thrust into positions of power are faced with impossible "choices" every day because of the monsters we created. The leaders are only human, they are limited in their capacity to change or even to do good. The machine is too complex for any one person to effectively influence. To call them "cowards" for not fighting every single thing from they day they get into office is quite unreasonable. It isn't cowardice that makes them keep hitting, say, the genocide button or the evictions button or the bankruptcy-from-healthcare-bills button every day. It is the obligation they are under to keep the system running, an obligation we have foisted on their heads.
But yes to more of this type of thinking, where we disinvest entirely from the hagiography and glorification and exaltation of those in power. More of recognizing their humanity. Calling them cowards instead of heroes is a step in the right direction but there is a long way to go before we see them as human, not so that we may give them grace but so that we may be more clear-eyed about what exactly needs to be done for the system to change.
On the enemy side of things, however, I'm afraid I completely lack nuance. There are some actual bad actors in power, in the moustache-twirling villain sense of the term. Corrupt supreme court justices and racist hucksters and male supremacist lawmakers and malevolent clowns intent on murder that ought to live in sewers but are instead playing golf in the open sunlight. They have malicious intent, there is no escaping them no matter how hard we fix the system itself. To them I can ascribe no better word than "enemy".
posted by MiraK at 10:24 AM on September 16, 2024 [61 favorites]