What happened?
I was born in 1959. I grew up watching TV coverage of the Civil Rights movement. I saw the government used to launch a War on Poverty, to build a Great Society, and further the New Deal. I grew up in a country that nightly saw footage of a horrible war, fought for reasons that seemed implausible, and where tactics were scrambled by political considerations, but a growing popular movement was working to stop the war, and succeeding.
In the seventies, I saw even a crooked Republican president agree that we had to care for the environment. I saw the women's movement shift society's assumptions about the roles of men and women. I saw Roe v. Wade decided. I saw my own parents divorce, at the leading edge of a broader movement that liberalized divorce laws, and started years of reforms in custody laws and family arrangements. Later, I saw a burgeoning gay rights movement, and saw people who previously had to hide in secrecy and shame free to live openly, and felt that society was better off with more honesty and less ignorance. I grew up the child of educated, liberal Democratic parents in the Northeast.
I realize now that this history has equipped me with certain basic assumptions which now need to be re-examined.
All these years, there was a historical trend, and I unconsciously assumed it was somehow deterministic. The story of the 20th century, and particularly of the early part of my life, was one of broadening rights, diversity and acceptance, and the dramatic success of federal governmental involvement in both economics and social programs, from the New Deal through the WWII controls on production to the Great Society and the space program of the Johnson years. Yes, some mistakes were made, and Republicans and Democrats differed over the details. But it was possible to believe that we were all moving on a historical climb to a "Star Trek" future, free from hunger and want, where people of all races and even species, could work together on big, bold constructive endeavors.
Tied to this unconscious assumption was the corollary that those bigots, racists, homophobes, and zealots still out there were essentially dinosaurs. Some could be enlightened, but some would just have to be left to naturally die out. Barry Goldwater was consigned to the dustbin of history, George Wallace would eventually change his tune, and even Strom Thurmond would die, if we waited long enough. It was OK if it didn't happen as soon as I wanted, because the climate was always changing for the better, most of the country basically believed as I did, and we were moving in a trend that had lasted for decades, and seemed to be accelerating.
Yeah, I should have gotten a hint when Reagan clobbered Carter. But Carter really had been ineffective as a President, and even Democrats like someone who can get a job done. Newt Gingrich and his radical conservatism was abhorrent, and needed to be fought down, and the rise of the Christian Right was troubling, but, I thought, limited. Obviously, as society moved forward, there would be some reactionary turbulence, but it was just the teeth-gnashing and wailing of the dinosaurs dying out. After all, every one I met who was younger than me was to the left of me politically, and seemed more comfortable with "non-traditional" families and sexuality.
Guess what? I was wrong.
The message I get from this election is that the "dinosaurs" aren't dying off. They're breeding, and evolving, and spreading with the virulence of an invader species in a bioregion with perfect climate and no predators. Think rabbits in Australia. The "dinosaurs" are now a political majority in our country. History is moving the wrong way.
We ran a good campaign, with a credible candidate. And we came very close, which is the good news. But it's undeniable that the portion of our society that wants to change the story I've been assuming is large, growing, and now firmly in power. This isn't a "stolen" election, or some kind of anomaly. These folks aren't "going away eventually". And if we don't want to be living in their America, ruled by a Christian Taliban, we need to start really understanding how they see the world, what makes them tick, and what we can do to convince them, in their terms, why they should vote our way. And while we're at it, we need to clarify our vision, and mobilize a multi-decade effort to reframe the political dialog and reclaim "liberal", as they did "conservative" following Goldwater.
The scariest thought coming out of this election is "What do you mean I'm a dinosaur?" But, in some sense, it's true. The political climate I evolved in has changed, and if I continue to assume that it's coming back as soon as we get the right candidate, or finally organize a decent campaign, or get a good turnout, I'm going to die off. Perhaps literally.
Moving toward the center won't fix it. Moving toward the left won't fix it. The radical conservatives and their Christian Right allies have moved the contest into a new dimension. We need to "get it." Until we can really understand the fundamental assumptions that they proceed from, our case will fail to persuade, and their anger at our ignorance will only grow.
We can no longer tacitly assume that we are all proceeding from the same basic set of beliefs about what our country stands for, or even what constitutes a valid proof of a case. They've been telling us this for years, and we just haven't understood. I guess I've been assuming that I didn't really need to, since they'd go away soon enough. But they are not only not going away, they are in control. And we need to acknowledge the enemy, and understand how they think, so that we can fight. And not just for the next election, but for decades ahead.
This election didn't turn on the facts. We had those. It didn't turn on the issues. We had those. Despite the exit polls, I don't even think it turned on "values", in the conventional sense. I believe Bush won because he convinced a bunch of people that he was one of them, that he not only "got", but actually shared their worldview, that to-me-nonsensical "dinosaur" sensibility. They could trust him with power, because he thinks like they do. And John Kerry doesn't, and didn't even really understand how they think, or what's really important to them.
Two mental exercises have helped me get a handle on this. First about the question of why do all these folks vote against their own economic self-interest, and re-elect someone who gives their money to his rich friends? Well, when I think about it, I realize I've voted against my own economic self-interest multiple times, to support tax levies of various kinds, for example. Why? Because I believe there is something more important, that there is a greater good for which I am willing to sacrifice some money. Those folks in Kansas aren't necessarily ignorant, stupid or delusional; maybe they are choosing a greater good they believe in. The fact that I don't really know what that thing is, or understand their belief in it, doesn't make it less true for them. And, if I believe in a democratic system, I have to learn to respect it, now that they are the majority.
Second, I read a comment about the way these Christians think, about their individual relationship with God. Imagine the hub of a wheel, with many spokes radiating outward. Label the hub Jesus, or God. Imagine the individual Christians as the spokes. The connection between these individuals is God. And if you aren't connected to that God-hub, you're not a part of it. They aren't connected to you. You are other. I don't know if they really think that way, but it made me think about my assumptions about the primacy of religious belief versus public society, the way we think we are connected to each other, and the obligations we owe each other.
It isn't simple. There are at least two "species" in the Bush coalition. One is the neo-cons, or radical conservatives, or whatever. As far as I really understand them, they are about political power, and a view of government that involves rejecting the assumptions of the New Deal and anything that smells like it. (I'm pretty sure Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld don't have personal relationships with Jesus Christ.) The others are the Christian Right. In my ignorance, their version of Christianity seems strange to me, simplistic, myopic and distorted, as much like "real" Christianity as Wahabi-ism is to Islam. But I can't just write if off anymore. It has become dominant socially and politically, despite what I see in my comfortably blue district in Seattle. There may be more. I don't know.
It's time for me to fight a new kind of fight. I've been wrong about the nature of the enemy, and the rules of engagement. It's time for better intelligence, new weapons, and a widespread mobilization, before it's too late. America has changed; now I am one of the dinosaurs. And it's starting to get cold.
In the seventies, I saw even a crooked Republican president agree that we had to care for the environment. I saw the women's movement shift society's assumptions about the roles of men and women. I saw Roe v. Wade decided. I saw my own parents divorce, at the leading edge of a broader movement that liberalized divorce laws, and started years of reforms in custody laws and family arrangements. Later, I saw a burgeoning gay rights movement, and saw people who previously had to hide in secrecy and shame free to live openly, and felt that society was better off with more honesty and less ignorance. I grew up the child of educated, liberal Democratic parents in the Northeast.
I realize now that this history has equipped me with certain basic assumptions which now need to be re-examined.
All these years, there was a historical trend, and I unconsciously assumed it was somehow deterministic. The story of the 20th century, and particularly of the early part of my life, was one of broadening rights, diversity and acceptance, and the dramatic success of federal governmental involvement in both economics and social programs, from the New Deal through the WWII controls on production to the Great Society and the space program of the Johnson years. Yes, some mistakes were made, and Republicans and Democrats differed over the details. But it was possible to believe that we were all moving on a historical climb to a "Star Trek" future, free from hunger and want, where people of all races and even species, could work together on big, bold constructive endeavors.
Tied to this unconscious assumption was the corollary that those bigots, racists, homophobes, and zealots still out there were essentially dinosaurs. Some could be enlightened, but some would just have to be left to naturally die out. Barry Goldwater was consigned to the dustbin of history, George Wallace would eventually change his tune, and even Strom Thurmond would die, if we waited long enough. It was OK if it didn't happen as soon as I wanted, because the climate was always changing for the better, most of the country basically believed as I did, and we were moving in a trend that had lasted for decades, and seemed to be accelerating.
Yeah, I should have gotten a hint when Reagan clobbered Carter. But Carter really had been ineffective as a President, and even Democrats like someone who can get a job done. Newt Gingrich and his radical conservatism was abhorrent, and needed to be fought down, and the rise of the Christian Right was troubling, but, I thought, limited. Obviously, as society moved forward, there would be some reactionary turbulence, but it was just the teeth-gnashing and wailing of the dinosaurs dying out. After all, every one I met who was younger than me was to the left of me politically, and seemed more comfortable with "non-traditional" families and sexuality.
Guess what? I was wrong.
The message I get from this election is that the "dinosaurs" aren't dying off. They're breeding, and evolving, and spreading with the virulence of an invader species in a bioregion with perfect climate and no predators. Think rabbits in Australia. The "dinosaurs" are now a political majority in our country. History is moving the wrong way.
We ran a good campaign, with a credible candidate. And we came very close, which is the good news. But it's undeniable that the portion of our society that wants to change the story I've been assuming is large, growing, and now firmly in power. This isn't a "stolen" election, or some kind of anomaly. These folks aren't "going away eventually". And if we don't want to be living in their America, ruled by a Christian Taliban, we need to start really understanding how they see the world, what makes them tick, and what we can do to convince them, in their terms, why they should vote our way. And while we're at it, we need to clarify our vision, and mobilize a multi-decade effort to reframe the political dialog and reclaim "liberal", as they did "conservative" following Goldwater.
The scariest thought coming out of this election is "What do you mean I'm a dinosaur?" But, in some sense, it's true. The political climate I evolved in has changed, and if I continue to assume that it's coming back as soon as we get the right candidate, or finally organize a decent campaign, or get a good turnout, I'm going to die off. Perhaps literally.
Moving toward the center won't fix it. Moving toward the left won't fix it. The radical conservatives and their Christian Right allies have moved the contest into a new dimension. We need to "get it." Until we can really understand the fundamental assumptions that they proceed from, our case will fail to persuade, and their anger at our ignorance will only grow.
We can no longer tacitly assume that we are all proceeding from the same basic set of beliefs about what our country stands for, or even what constitutes a valid proof of a case. They've been telling us this for years, and we just haven't understood. I guess I've been assuming that I didn't really need to, since they'd go away soon enough. But they are not only not going away, they are in control. And we need to acknowledge the enemy, and understand how they think, so that we can fight. And not just for the next election, but for decades ahead.
This election didn't turn on the facts. We had those. It didn't turn on the issues. We had those. Despite the exit polls, I don't even think it turned on "values", in the conventional sense. I believe Bush won because he convinced a bunch of people that he was one of them, that he not only "got", but actually shared their worldview, that to-me-nonsensical "dinosaur" sensibility. They could trust him with power, because he thinks like they do. And John Kerry doesn't, and didn't even really understand how they think, or what's really important to them.
Two mental exercises have helped me get a handle on this. First about the question of why do all these folks vote against their own economic self-interest, and re-elect someone who gives their money to his rich friends? Well, when I think about it, I realize I've voted against my own economic self-interest multiple times, to support tax levies of various kinds, for example. Why? Because I believe there is something more important, that there is a greater good for which I am willing to sacrifice some money. Those folks in Kansas aren't necessarily ignorant, stupid or delusional; maybe they are choosing a greater good they believe in. The fact that I don't really know what that thing is, or understand their belief in it, doesn't make it less true for them. And, if I believe in a democratic system, I have to learn to respect it, now that they are the majority.
Second, I read a comment about the way these Christians think, about their individual relationship with God. Imagine the hub of a wheel, with many spokes radiating outward. Label the hub Jesus, or God. Imagine the individual Christians as the spokes. The connection between these individuals is God. And if you aren't connected to that God-hub, you're not a part of it. They aren't connected to you. You are other. I don't know if they really think that way, but it made me think about my assumptions about the primacy of religious belief versus public society, the way we think we are connected to each other, and the obligations we owe each other.
It isn't simple. There are at least two "species" in the Bush coalition. One is the neo-cons, or radical conservatives, or whatever. As far as I really understand them, they are about political power, and a view of government that involves rejecting the assumptions of the New Deal and anything that smells like it. (I'm pretty sure Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld don't have personal relationships with Jesus Christ.) The others are the Christian Right. In my ignorance, their version of Christianity seems strange to me, simplistic, myopic and distorted, as much like "real" Christianity as Wahabi-ism is to Islam. But I can't just write if off anymore. It has become dominant socially and politically, despite what I see in my comfortably blue district in Seattle. There may be more. I don't know.
It's time for me to fight a new kind of fight. I've been wrong about the nature of the enemy, and the rules of engagement. It's time for better intelligence, new weapons, and a widespread mobilization, before it's too late. America has changed; now I am one of the dinosaurs. And it's starting to get cold.
posted by Paul at 10:30 AM |
|
email this
