I've been waiting to cover the recent shooing in Arizona because the motive is still really unclear. Whether or not the shooter was acting on his own accord, was influenced by the volatile political sphere, had ties to the hateful organization AmRen, or took direct action after viewing Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" campaign is yet to be seen. Regardless of the motive, I think what has become clear is that this country is broken. Bi-partisanship is becoming more and more implausible as extremist-politics seem to take center stage.
I just want to feel...
Like my vote meant something.
Like world peace isn't just talk.
Like the politicians are listening.
Like they can walk the walk.
Like change is happening.
Like my love is not a sin.
Like people aren't suffering.
Like...just give me something to believe in.
I just want to feel...
Sorry for the poetic break, but it was easier than forming a paragraph. But seriously, I'm tired of hearing about death, hatred, violence, fighting, filibusters, and inaction. I'm DONE! I'm also a little aggravated that every time a brown person in implicated in some sort of crime against a government they're terrorists but the shooter in this case is just an individual criminal. I'm sick of hearing politicians capitalize on tragedies in order to show us how much we need them. If they were doing their jobs with civility in the first place, we would have avoided quite a few of those tragedies in the first place. Simply put, current politics do NOT equal a functioning government.
You write: "Bi-partisanship is becoming more and more implausible as extremist-politics seem to take center stage."
ReplyDeleteIs political "extremism" really the problem here? I mean, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there are some things extremely wrong with the world we live in (endless war, systematic assaults on women's reproductive choices, a massively inhumane system of racist immigration controls, a culture of violent hatred and shame towards queer and trans people, etc. etc.), and that these extreme problems call for passionate, uncompromising, unflinching protest and resistance. Don't you think?
When I call myself a feminist, an anti-racist, a peacenik, etc., and demonstrate that those principles do commit me to seeking some radical changes in the world around me in the interests of peace, freedom, equality or justice, I'm told that I am an "extremist," since I care a lot about these issues, and since I am not content to just accept the political status quo with only a few tiny tweaks here and there around the edges. As well I should be: as I see it, some things are non-negotiable, and (e.g.) the lives and freedom and dignity of innocent people are among them.
The problem with, say, Sarah Palin is not that she's an "extremist," is it? It's that she's a creep: what she advocates is despicable and harmful. And the right response to that is not moderation, bipartisanship, or compromise, but rather to call it out for what it is, in no uncertain terms.
As Dr. King wrote, "You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of the extremist. … But as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist for love — 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice — 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ — 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' Was not Martin Luther an extremist — 'Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.' Was not John Bunyan an extremist — 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.' Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist — 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.' Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist — 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice—or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? ... So, after all, maybe the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
I totally see where you're coming from and thank you so much for your comment! I think the issue right now is that the only folks being extremist in politics right now are those who are "extremist for hate." This balance has been different in the past, and it will most definitely shift in the future, but currently I see more liberal folks conceding to extreme filabustering conservatives. Moderate politicians are suffering, and without moderate politics it makes creating change a hell of a lot harder.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I often call myself an extremist, but at the same time, I know I would NEVER be a good politician. I'm a firm believer that radical and liberal change has to occur simultaneously. There needs to be social justice activists out there demonstrating, raising awareness, mixing it up...but at the same time there needs to be people who share some of the same beliefs being elected to office and advocating for the passing of laws and such. Passing laws takes compromise and I'm not willing to compromise.
Alas, you are ultimately correct. The issue in this case specifically can not be entirely placed on one simple answer like "extreme politics." We don't know the real answer yet, and we may never know. This person was full of hate and so disturbed that he though violence was the only answer.
And as horrified as I was when I initially heard about the tragedy, for some reason (maybe those reasons include things like the last 3 years of political conversation, people screaming at Palin rallies to kill the president, or folks having protest signs with nooses)it felt almost predictable <------and that is why I'm scared.
Thanks for the reply!
ReplyDeleteYou write: 'I think the issue right now is that the only folks being extremist in politics right now are those who are "extremist for hate."'
By "politics" do you mean people in or angling for elected office? (As opposed to, e.g., political activists like you & me, who do politics but don't hold elected office?) If so, I agree with you. But I think that's a problem with the "moderate" liberal politicians: the unwillingness to go to extremes for the causes they claim to believe in. I think the political problems they are having right now just are due to people's disillusionment with their unprincipled "moderation" (i.e., uncritical acceptance of the post-Bush status quo) on the war, state secrets and executive power, immigration reform, corporate bail-outs, etc. People were promised positive "change," and have seen less than none of it, so not surprisingly a lot of people aren't as willing to turn out for the folks who made all those promises back in 2006 and 2008.
You write: "I'm a firm believer that radical and liberal change has to occur simultaneously."
Maybe so, but I don't see how this can happen when the moderates are laying the blame on "extremism" just as such, while ignoring or obscuring the question of what different "extremists" may be "extreme" about. I mean, when some incredibly privileged Democratic office-holder telling me that the problem with politics today is all the "extremism," rather than, say, the massive rhetorical and literal violence against marginalized people (which they are so willing to compromise with, in the interests of political comity), well, it's hard for me not to hear them saying that the enemy is me, that the views of "moderate" conservative creeps (say, a David Brooks or the like) are O.K. but mine aren't. And when they tell me that politics needs to be more "civil" it's hard for me not to hear them telling me quiet down about issues that I'm "uncivil" about because they are really matters of life and death for my friends -- all so that these same incredibly privileged politicians can keep their seats and roll a few more logs with the Republican caucus. But if that really is what they're after, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that it's worth our time to promote. Certainly, if moderates want to scapegoat "extremism" per se, then they are going out of their way to demonize a necessary component of any serious movement for social change, and speaking as a proud Left-wing extremist, I don't know what to do but push back on that.
Does that make sense?