Something about America died this summer. We should grieve its end.
What exactly has passed away? From where progressives sit, that’s easy: It’s the illusion that the nation could transition easily from conservative governance to liberal.
That idea has been going down hard for weeks as right-wing mobs (often made up of Republican activists subsidized by the insurance industry, posing as concerned members of the grass roots) have fanned out across the nation, trying to disrupt the town hall meetings of Democratic members of Congress.
It took another heavy hit with lurid accusations of government support for euthanasia and the flat-out lie about “Obama’s death panels” told by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and echoed by too many crackpots to name.
But the notion that we as a nation could make a civil change in direction finally gave up the ghost when a protester in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, showed up with a pistol strapped to his leg and a sign calling for the refreshment of the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.
That was a patriotic sentiment in revolutionary times. Now it’s just a vile form of sour grapes. That an election went against the conservative movement does not mean that it was unfair, or undemocratic, or oppressive. In this nation, we stick together—win or lose.
But that, I think, leads us to what conservatives have lost.
Year upon year, starting with Rush Limbaugh and only accelerating with Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin (among many others), conservatives have been told by their thought leaders that the liberal perspective is illegitimate; that it is wrong and dangerous and un-American and evil.
More to the point, they have been told that liberals are not needed. They have been told that the nation would be better off without anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan; that an America with a particular construct of traditional social mores, an adventurous military, and an unfettered corporate capitalism could keep them safe and happy. Liberals, the story goes, only serve to disrupt the good life people could have under a free conservative hand.
This has been a monstrous lie. These promises could never be kept.
We can say, following Buber, that the myth of eliminationism is a delusion; which does not mean that its proponents are deluded, only that “with their speech they breed ‘delusion’ in their hearers, they spin illusions for them.” It is not strictly true that liars believe one thing and say another, as Buber argues. Often enough, as with sexual peccadilloes, this is the case.
But many times, the liars believe the falsehood themselves, or at least half-believes. Phillip Leon writes, “The self-deceiver does not believe... what he says or he would not be a deceiver. He does believe what he says or he would not be deceived. He both believes and does not believe... or he would not be self-deceived.” Given the choice between uttering a falsifiable assertion and accepting a truth that does not support their moral and political commitments, they choose the lie every time.
Those are the people who spread the lies. Those who accept them—the recipients of talking points and talk-show smears—are likewise conflicted. As Dave Neiwert notes, this is an unhealthy trait in a modern democracy, and as Fred Clark adds, it’s one that takes a great deal of energy to maintain.
To be sure, conservatives are not alone in embracing the false promises of conformity, security, and prosperity. Many liberals cheered on the invasion of Iraq. Many of them invested in the stock market. And yes, liberals know a thing or two about smugness.
But conservatives are unique in having been told again and again that the promises of our society have failed not because they are inherently undeliverable, but because liberals have betrayed them. An entire generation has come to believe this. Now that generation is faced with a nation that not only tolerates progressive ideas, but embraces them.
I say that not to shove it in conservatives’ faces, but to recognize the depth of their loss. They can no longer remain unfeeling about American brokenness. From their perspective, the very people who have caused it now run the place.
Douglas Harrison attributes conservatives’ vertigo to their loss of privilege, which is a perfectly acceptable argument. But the problem is more complex; it goes deeper. What has been lost is not privilege, but the assumption and illusion of privilege and its attendant power. This provokes intense psychic conflict and pain.
This is not simply psychological. It becomes what we used to call an existential crisis. Buber tells us of liars by way of exegeting Psalm 4:
Instead of completing their fellow-man’s experience and insight with the help of their own, as is required by men’s common thinking and knowing, they introduce falsified material into his knowledge of the world and of life, and thus falsify the relations of his soul to being. Second, they speak with a double heart, literally with ‘heart and heart.’ In order that the lie may bear the stamp of truth, the liars as it were manufacture a special heart, an apparatus of naturalness, from which lies well up to the ‘smooth lips’ like spontaneous utterances of experience and insight.
Duped or dupers, these people are literally brokenhearted to begin with. Now the facade has been torn away, and they have no idea which way to turn. Their “experience and insight” means nothing. They no longer know how to be in a world that refuses to confirm falsehood. They have been lied to, and they know it. They have nowhere to go but deeper into the lie, and they know that too. No matter which path they choose, it is rough and difficult and threatening. Their leaders at least have the consolation of a fat paycheck. The ordinary people manning the tea parties and birther rallies and storming town hall meetings don’t even have that much to cling to.
Some, not all, of them have reacted with fear, anger, and even violence. But the loss of privilege is shared, as is the loss of the belief that they could go it alone. So they reach for the familiar liturgy of outrage; sometimes weaponized. They lash out in their pain and confusion.
As satisfying as it is to see the conservative movement come apart at the wheels, liberals should not pride themselves on puncturing right-wing certainty. We embrace negativity too. We, too, may succumb to the temptations of separatism. As brilliant as it is to watch Barney Frank shut down extremist hecklers, in the long run, avoiding the risk of connection to broken people is not helpful.
This perilous moment in the life of our collective enterprise is not a time to meet division and hostility with more of the same. It is a time to surround one another with compassion; to recognize the real pain and discomfort of others; and to welcome them with open arms into the shared project of finding freedom, justice, and power together.
That, as I always say, does not mean surrendering core principles or compromising them away. The truth, after all, is the truth.
But I would love to see a sign at the next health care town hall meeting declaring WE SHARE YOUR PAIN AND WE NEED YOUR HELP. I would love to see Barney Frank or any other Congressperson say to a protester, “I will not allow you to disrupt this meeting out of consideration for the other citizens who have come here to engage in the democratic process. But I grieve with you the simpler days that we seem to have lost. What are you afraid of, and how can we address your fears?” That, it seems to me, is the only way we are going to change the dreadful national script we have written for ourselves this summer.
Buber has a final word for the puppet masters suborning violence this summer, however:
All this is the work of the mighty, in order to render tractable by their deceits those whom they have oppressed. Their tongues maintain them in their superiority. They ‘speak great things’ and by the speaking bind their bondslaves still more to them. And if they guess that rebellion is stirring in the minds of the oppressed and the hope awakening that ‘the Lord is with us!’, then they answer themselves ‘Our lips are with us, who is lord over us?’
Free speech and AR-15s are one thing, but the debates of this August begin to take on the character of ultimate things. The lie is not real. Its power, no matter how thuggishly supported, cannot last forever. That message needs to be heard by those who speak the lies and those who hear them alike.
Tags: conservatives, health care, liberals
A short time ago, there was a fall of a political belief system, Communist USSR. The epic struggle was capitalism vs. communism. From the point of view of someone in America, what did this ultimate victory feel like? It felt like a victory over nothing because the day after the fall, there were no longer any communists. There was no remorse, only people who were not responsible, and were now searching for what direction to turn. We wanted to milk it for all it was worth, so we had to search out the losers to validate the victory. This might be what it will be like in the fall of the political belief system, Conservative US.
There is a potentially much more important struggle trying to hide behind the scenes, Conservative Christianity. They sold their soul to the Conservative Republicans. They are now working to establish their non-involvement, they weren't the only ones voting Republican, but once the Conservative Republicans fall they will be exposed. They don't want to repent because their entire self-image is based on believing unquestioningly that their divine connections make them superior to others, so they might have no choice but to fade out as the world changes and they come to understand the end times will not be their salvation.
This is the most enlightening commentary on the present unhappy moment that I've read anywhere. I will continue to ponder.
"What has been lost is not privilege, but the assumption and illusion of privilege and its attendant power. This provokes intense psychic conflict and pain."
America IS changing, as well it should. But I worry that the intense feelings will continue and well up into a movement, a backlash, that will plunge us into civil war. It could happen. I think we naively believe since freedom and openness is just and right that it will prevail, but there is no guarantee. just sayin'....
What Barney Frank did, and much more, is a necessary prelude to authentic engagement. Playing to the ignorance and lies when it comes to health care is socially retardative; these must be confronted and exposed. He was decidely more temperate and respectful than he has reason to be. Playing to similar ignorance and lies when it comes to climate will be unconscionable.
Don't disagree. But you can't stay there always. "Sit down and shut up" only goes so far.
"People are causing the climate to change? Then go ahead and raise taxes and utilities; the economy isn't nearly bad enough yet. Neither is unemployment as high as it needs to be. Won't this be fun to watch?" - This comment sounds like just the bitter stuck phenomenon that the above article is expounding about. So, - tell me - What solution do you have for the 47 million people who have no access to affordable health-care; or should they all just Die and decrease the surplus population? I am partial to the possibility of Healthcare cooperatives similar to that found in Switzerland, that center of international capitalism. It seems like a good mixture of both public and private involvement. we would, hovever,need to build in some workable checks and balances to that neither public or private get the clear upper hand. If you don't like what is happening, Offer a plausible SOLUTION...
Thank you for this post. But you left unsaid why it happens to be on this site, which is the role of religion in the conservative mindset. The rotten deal between corporate leaders and the easily led got the conservative movement to this pass, where money suddenly once again seems more the root of evil than manna from heaven.
The mantra of every man for himself and hands off the corporate cookie jar led us to the ultimate in corruption which we are still witnessing in full flower on Wall Street as well as on K street, even if a few K-street shills lost their shirts with the conservative meltdown. Religion played a central role in validating this corruption by "good men", as Bush liked to call them all, and in distracting the people from the corruption's darker sides. Whenever religion enters politics, its irrationality will enter as well, on the side of those who by their religious faith show themselves susceptible to outrageous political belief and manipulative leadership.
Burk ~ I'd argue that the mindset which allows the "average Jane and Joe" to be easily led economically or politically is that same breeding ground for religious corruption. In other words, those who fail to think for themselves in other arenas of life will probably be the same in religion; those who examine and contemplate and seek within religion will likely be those who do the same economically and politically. Hence we have the "mental" conservatives and the "mental" liberals, and the social, religious, economic and political doctrines with which they've aligned themselves. It's not necessarily religion's fault (no true religion teaches "every man for himself," as well you know); it's the fault of those within the religion who would not question authority (religious or political or otherwise).
Of course, it could just be that's the way I see it, being a liberal myself. :-)
Pastor Dan ~ nicely put. I greatly enjoyed your post (despite being disheartened by it).
Dan, I'm usually on your side, but I'm not quite on the same page with you here. I'm suspicious of claims that "we're all in this together." Certainly, we should love and compassionately understand those frightening morons who've been disrupting public meetings. But alas, Dan, as you say, "the turh, after all, remains the truth." This country is riven by any number of pernicious divisions, the most under-acknowledged of which is, I think, class. So the truth is that we're NOT all in this together. Bill Gates, Warrern Buffett, and others who own this country most definitely do not think that they're in this with the rest of us. As Buffett openly stated last fall as the financial crisis began, "Of course there's a class war. My side has been winning."
As a Christian socialist and a pacifist -- two political commitments that don't seem to show up much on the radar screen here -- I certainly take seriously Christ's injunction to love our enemies. But that doesn't mean that the enemies you love are somehow no longer enemies, or that agape erases the real divisions that prevent our "being all in this together." Christian love doesn't preclude radical, decisive action, the type of action that would certainly visit "pain" on the rich and powerful. In a just society, Gates and Buffett and the Fortune 500 would certainly lose their wealth, and I'm quite sure that they'd feel quite a bit of "pain" at the loss of their trillions. But that's a "pain" for which neither I nor anyone else should feel compassion. The pain of losing power -- over the poor, over non-whites, over women, over gays and lesbians -- is not a discomfort that Christian love is required to salve.
That's why our response to the far-right protesters must be more complicated than "compassion." I agree these people are feeling pain -- they're often poor, or confused, or frightened of change. But what change frightens many of them? The demise of white hegemony, or the collapse of the Reaganite-evangelical-corporate delusion that they'll all be zillionaires with hard work and frugality. As Chris Hedges puts it, this is the stuff of an empire of illusion. And the dispelment of illusions is always painful -- as well as absolutely necessary and inexorably turbulent.
So you're right, Dan, to point out that many of the promises of this society are indeed "inherently undeliverable." But it isn't just "conservatives" who've embraced these delusions. "Liberals" have as well. Why do you think the hegemonic economic philosophy of the last generation has been called "neo-liberalism"? "Liberals" have abandoned labor; gutted the welfare state; accepted the fundamental premises of the corporate economy and relatively unfettered competition. The Democratic Party is the Other Business Party. As then-candidate Obama told Fortune magazine last June, "I still believe that the business of America is business." Why should anyone be surprised that he's been such a corporate shill, even on health care reform? Brand Obama (Hedges' coinage) has not compromised his principles; compromise is his only principle. He's a glitzy product of the convergence of advertising, identity politics, and the longing for a "civility" in public discourse which is really just a way of agreeing to not bring up some harsh truths about America. He's there to put off facing the prospect of inevitable imperial decline; and empires have never relinquished their illuions without enormous turbulence.
So good riddance to "conservatism": but we should also long for a good riddance to "liberalism" as well. They're much more siblings under the skin than we're led to believe. If enough of us realized this, then the "brokenness" of Ameican might become the prelude to a mending. There's promise as well as peril in this twilight of idols.
Who said anything about a theocracy? This last comment reminds me of Betsy McCaughey, the "policy wonk" who manages to read "death panel" into the health care legislation.
Whodat?'s response is typical boilerplate: any mention of religion in politics supposedly signals "theocracy." Let me channel Barney Frank here: "on what planet do you spend most of your time?" Would you have rebuked Martin Luther King, Jr., or the 1930s priests who supported the CIO, or Dorothy Day, A. J. Muste, and other pacifist opponents of the Vietnam War -- all of whom invoked religion? What a boring and ill-informed position to take.
We are asked on this website to comment on what we think about a variety of important topics. It is rare to find a comment about the submission that cites a credible source for the conclusion(s) drawn by those that comment. If we make a statement like: "Why do you think the hegemonic economic philosophy of the last generation has been called "neo-liberalism"? Liberals have abandoned labor; gutted the welfare state; accepted the fundamental premises of the corporate economy and relatively unfettered competition."
Now, this statement may be true, and actually sounds true enough, but it wouldn't it be far more of a service to the readers if the commenter referenced where he/she got this information,that led us to his/her conclusion, such as: socioeconomic research, the U.S. Census, professional journals, statistical Health and Labor Reports, or other specific and credible documents. These references could assist us in weighing the credibility of the statement(s) made. Citing references on a blog is certainly not something we see in blogs, but maybe we might start a wave of credibility on the Internet!
Most certainly, in the past eight years, we have heard statements from our government and other synchronous and asynchronous media that are very far from the truth, and we were/are expected to believe what is said because someone on the media or in power said it. Right-wing commentators and politicians are forever saying what they think, never citing credible sources, and are believed, anyway, by far too many!
What do you think? Should comments on a blog also contain documentation, assisting us in forming more rationale conclusions, and, additionally, increasing and our store of credibly-based knowledge, based on credibly-referenced information? I'm just sayin'.
Maggie,
These are comments on a blog and not an argument in a professional journal.
Some of us have studied academically the topics we read here and some of us are informed lay people. We have read the sources or seen them quoted but we do not have access to them or remember the references. It would be helpful indeed if those who had references could quote them but it would be wrong to make it a condition of posting.
Sapphire.
You are certainly right about being fettered by research when writing on or commenting on a blog. I am, however, sadly discouraged about the fate of our democracy when I see unbelievable statements by people who consider Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck as the resources used to form public opinion!
THE DEATH PANELS ARE FUCKING REAL!!!
AS MUCH AS THE LIBTARD MEDIA TRY TO DENY THE COMING DEATH PANELS AS EXPOUNDED BY SARAH PALIN UNDER THE POWER OF THE DEBORAH ANOINTING, WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL UNDER THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE CRUEL REIGN OF PIAPS, FOLLOWING THE COMING RAPTURE!!!!!!!
ALL WILL BE REQUIRED TO TAKE PIAPS’ SOCIALIST MEDICINE MARK!!!!!!
THOSE WHO REFUSE WILL BE DENIED HEALTH CARE!!!!!!!!
THOSE WHO DON’T DIE FROM THIS LACK OF HEALTH CARE WILL BE BEHEADED!!!!!
THIS MINISTRY HAS ALREADY EXPOSED THE RASH OF DECAPITATION IN THAT SOCIALIST BASKET CASE TO THE NORTH OF US!!!!!!!
DON’T BE LEFT BEHIND TO SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE…AND ALL OF ETERNITY…WITH PIAPS!!!!!!
AND IF YOU ARE LEFT BEHIND, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T TAKE THE MARK!!!!!
Hysterical much? Whew ...
I wish I knew if that were satire or not...
Don't take it so seriously. It is just a story.
AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES
I hope that there is only one of you in Americaphile Ministries and that you are presently seeking therapy for your problems. I have a feeling, though, that you sent this message as a ruse (I can only hope so).
I joined the Republican Party as a conservative but have seen many taking it into the reactionary camp. Since World War II only Clinton has had a creditable showing on deficit spending. The Republicans have a far worse economic record than the Democrats. And recently the right wing media has abandoned the ideas of truth and justice. Well, I still have Colin Powell to look up to.
I admit it's no consolation ProfBob, but I'm seeing less than hopeful signs from the Democrat side as well. Not even close as far as the ills you mention, but in aiding and abetting the rightward push by Overton and other means. Let's face it; being a champion for labor, small business and social safety nets, just doesn't pay nearly as well as corporate shill.
As long as we have our present system to finance candidates for office, we can't yell as loud nor whisper in their ears as fistfuls of cash/promises of lucrative employment/reciprocal back-scratching can.
HOW DO I SIGN UP, er, I mean, how do I sign up for your newsletter? Important info s/b for evabuddy!
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.