Some progressives think that we would have the most power in this country if people were just able to gather the facts. They think that media bias, poor education, and general apathy conspire to keep the public ill-educated, ill-informed, and improperly lacking in a sense of civic duty. Other progressives acknowledge these systemic obstacles to power and think we can overcome them by the clever use of Lakoffian Framing, or cognitive science. Still other progressives are so accustomed to being out power and so distrustful of elites (whether political, economic, religious, or academic) that they are too disdainful of power to support anyone who seeks it. For me, these are the three great errors that prevent progressives for attaining power. These are three of the four lethal cynicisms.
The first lethal cynicism is the conviction that the people are too stupid, too susceptible, and too selfish to be counted upon to do the right thing. It’s really a lack of faith in the whole concept that the Will of the People, as expressed through a majority (or plurality) vote, will give us satisfactory results.
The second lethal cynicism assumes the premises of the first, but believes that we can tap into the stupidity, susceptibility, and selfishness of the people by learning how the brain processes messages, and then apply what we’ve learned to turn people’s innate shortcomings to our political advantage.
The third lethal cynicism despairs that power can ever be exercised benevolently, and slips easily into the conviction that all power is bad, and all power is equally unworthy of support.
Now, there is a distinction between the second lethal cynicism and the first and third. The advocates of framing believe that people can be brought to do the right thing and they believe that power can be exercised benevolently. When you lose faith in the people and you lose faith in the potential for benevolent use of power, you reach the fourth lethal cynicism: apathy.
Apathy easily turns to despair. In fact, apathy is a defense system against despair. But it’s also a gradual unlearning of belief in our system of government. And the prerequisite for all effective political action is a belief in our system of government. Once you lose that belief, the only political action possible is revolutionary.
You want to know why Egypt and Saudi Arabia spawn terrorists? It’s because all avenues of legitimate political action have been cut off in those countries. Where your options are apathy or revolutionary action, you will see terrorism arise. Ironically, this is why I take issues like the FISA Bill so seriously. It is dangerous enough to take away our privacy. But to take away even our illusion or expectation of privacy is really dangerous.
Progressives are especially susceptible to slipping into apathy when confronted with backsliding in our belief in ready avenues for progress. If the Democratic Party becomes an agent in our own oppression we instinctively look to a third-party. When no viable third-party alternative presents itself we slip into despondency, and harbor thoughts of rebellion or flight. But this is not a constructive instinct. The Democratic Party is but a vehicle for change. There are other vehicles for change, but there are no other parties, nor will there be. The Civil Rights Movement changed the Democratic Party. The Abolition Movement created the Republican Party. There are ways to effect change outside of the two-party system, but ultimately that change must be reflected in the minds and decision-making of the people that actually wield power. Thus, the ultimate aim of progressive action is indeed power, and majority power within the two-party system. It doesn’t have to be concentrated in just one of the two parties. It can be a majority coalition of both. But the goal of progressive action is still power. And the whole premise of the movement is that power can be exercised benevolently.
But benevolence cannot be equated with purity. Making the perfect the enemy of the good just prolongs the day when we can proud of the power we wield. The other side does not rest when we become apathetic. The other side rolls right over us, and they do it with less resistance.
I leave you with the wisdom of Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski:
WALTER: –We’re sympathizing here, Dude–
DUDE: Fuck your sympathy! I don’t need your sympathy, man, I need my fucking Johnson!
DONNY: What do you need that for, Dude?
WALTER: You gotta buck up, man, you can’t go into the tournament with this negative attitude–
DUDE: Fuck the tournament! Fuck you, Walter!
[There is a moment of stunned silence].
WALTER: Fuck the tournament?! …Okay Dude. I can see you don’t want to be cheered up. C’mon Donny, let’s go get a lane.
[They leave the Dude sitting morosely at the bar. As he stares DOWN INTO HIS EMPTY GLASS]
You can learn everything you need to know about life from The Big Lebowski. I’m certain of it.
Good post, Booman. I’ve been guilty of several of these cynicisms myself lately. But it’s like quitting smoking, losing weight or any other behavior modification — recognizing that you’re doing it is a step, but it’s at best the first step, and acting on that recognition isn’t always easy.
But then if creating a progressive America were easy I guess anyone could do it.
Great post. Sometimes I engage in all four cynicisms at once, to the extent that that’s possible.
The first lethal cynicism is the conviction that the people are too stupid, too susceptible, and too selfish to be counted upon to do the right thing. It’s really a lack of faith in the whole concept that the Will of the People, as expressed through a majority (or plurality) vote, will give us satisfactory results.
So, it’s cynicism, as opposed to realism, to think that the people cannot be counted on to do the right thing?
If the people had done the right thing, they would have revolted when the SCOTUS stopped the counting of the votes in Florida in 2000. It was obvious at the time that the majority of the people of Florida had voted for Gore, and that that was precisely why the SCOTUS had stopped the counting of the votes. So why didn’t the people do the right thing when the SCOTUS suppressed them, and refuse to accept that judicial coup d’état? Or is there something that I’m missing here?
What are you smoking?
No, you haven’t missed anything. That’s exactly what happened, a judicial right-wing revolution. Hardly anyone blinked. At least those ‘activist judges’ were finally on the right side!
Let’s see if I got this right. With cynicism being defined in the modern context as:
“a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions”
#1 = People are fundamentally too stupid, etc.
#2 = Therefore they need to tricked, coerced, or “frame”, et al.
#3 = Even if you give them the power, they’ll fuck it up
Equals #4 = Therefore the situation is hopeless?
Hmm, very interesting food for thought, most definitely.
What’s interesting is that since as far as any history book or engraved tablet can record back to Hammurabi, #1-3 IS the prevailing wisdom of those who rule, whether that be kings, priests, kingly priests, nobility by bloodline, economic elites or the wealthy, etc.
So how is it that throughout the entire history of recorded humanity the people who HAVE ruled and HAVE made the decisions and HAVE had the power and wealth have had this exact belief? Is it “cynicism” or or is it a pretty realistic way of staying in power? Because it seems to work pretty damned good.
What IS ironic however is that of course I’ve just used a logical fallacy because there are TONS of examples when that wasn’t so at all – it’s just they are in specific CONTEXTS.
For example you look at a small New England town which relies on the direct vote and you see none of #1-3 or #4 either. And so on and so forth, from the Paris Commune to indigenous tribes running around Brazil at the moment. Or the kibbutzim in Israel, etc, etc.
It’s only in LARGER groups that you begin to see a division between an elite group of rulers and everyone else and it’s exactly then that whoever is in power HAS the four “lethal cynicisms”. And they have them precisely because they KEEP THOSE IN POWER IN POWER.
Any other form of thought is not just different, it’s actually revolutionary. And just so it’s clear, I’m 100% for such a revolution 😉 And I don’t mean like the Who, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” with just a different set of faces but toting the same 4 “cynicisms”, I mean something fundamentally different altogether.
If we’re advocating a revolution, then let’s do it! 😉
Pax
Bring back the city-state model?
Boo, you’ve identified what always confounds me when I try to make a comparison between my past and present experience, especially when I try to elevate the past as better than the present and then remember some of Nixon’s shenanigans or Reagan’s Central American death squads–in the past the powers that be allowed me the room to indulge in the “illusion” it was better, while Bush and company’s unashamed and public embrace of the “dark side” leave no room for illusion. Since humanity is so flawed, all forms of belief require an element of illusion–that that possibility away and the result is apathy.
I haven’t lost faith in the people, just our representatives.
I don’t think #2 is actually very effective.
I believe power can be exercised benevolently.
Yet, I have completely unlearned my faith in our system of government.
Being a person of little faith, I’d say cynicism is another word for realism. But we all must believe that life can improve or that we ourselves have the power to make things better or we would sink into apathy and depression. So, it’s one of life’s necessary fictions. Without “believers,” in this sense, we would never have had the French Revolution, Gandhi, MLK, abolition, universal suffrage, environmental conservation, labor laws, etc.
I chose flight. I think it would be a wise strategy for liberals with teen-age children to get their offspring into colleges in Canada, New Zealand or Australia, where they might land immigrant status after graduation. They can get you out of the country, in case things go really sour.
I think the mother of all lethal cynicisms is the belief that our “system” is as good as it gets. And that is the premise underlying this whole long exercise in sentimental “patriotism”.
Systems break, and the realists direct their energy toward replacing it with something else, for good or for ill. That’s revolutionary change. Progressive change almost always comes either from outright revolution or fear of revolution/chaos, as in the case of the New Deal and the Civil Rights success.
As long as we have no leaders with credibility ever questioning “the system” itself, there is no motivation for any kind of progressive change, ever. That’s why the two-party system, which was seen as an abomination by most of the Constitution signers, has to go. That’s not cynicism, it’s realism propelled by the last available hope.
In a country that prides itself on the (supposed) foundation that, “all [men] are created equal,” when did we begin to identify some as “elites?”
Very interesting post, BooMan. I’ve been feeling a bit of that apathy lately.
Yes!
Consider the mindset of a trueblue Conservative in 1964. Completely wiped out in the election; Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court in the hands of the enemy, and not just the enemy but the most far out, radical form of the enemy ever to hold power. And yet, they didn’t lie down and die. Instead, they (1) mobilized whatever resources they could get their hands on and (2) they got a little lucky.
Progressives who wish to reshape the government and society into a more just and more equal form should take a lesson: Fight every fight as hard as you can. Take your winnings cheerfully, and grab for more; take your losses just as cheerfully, and find an avenue to reverse them. Resist despair, and resist the impulse to see less than complete victory as utter defeat.
JC
Man,
This is my favorite of all the pieces that you’ve ever written. Not because you haven’t written better stuff. You frequently write some pretty astute things in my view. But you were just plucking things out of my head with this one. So I appreciated it (even if I didn’t necessarily agree with it 100%).
First, I just re-watched the Big Lebowski. Great film. And yes — a teaching for our times. Sometimes you eat the ba’ar, and sometimes the ba’ar eats you.
I am a living example of all your cynicisms. I do not like being reduced to a two-dimensional being, to become a character in your non-fiction writing. I find being a two-dimensional character constraining. But I find a grain of truth in each of your cynicisms, and a grain of that truth living inside me, as far as my own political thoughts.
Driving home from Court today, before reading your piece, I heard an Obama-FISA bit on the radio, and thought back to recent comments I’ve read and made here. Thought, “Who will I support now?” Wrestled with the notion that I am a man without a party. This is a notion that this site, and progressive blogging in general, have always left me with. I, at once, feel connected with far more people who share my views. And at the same time, I feel, all-too-frequently, utterly powerless to effect any change whatsoever while living in the present system of government.
Am I a supporter of the Democratic Party? Do I even believe in democracy? Or the representative democracy that has been put on display here for the last 200+ years under our present Constitution? Does politics even matter? I thought all of this today. Just driving along and drifting like a tumbling tumbleweed.
In the end, I’m left with no answers. I know little. I grow tired.
I am moved, again, at this point in life, to drop out. To stop. Stop trying to believe in this imperfect system. Stop trying to believe that any system could really replace this imperfect system and make it much better. I am moved to be a spectator at this particular train wreck. I am moved to believe that it is folly to ever imagine that human beings can govern themselves well, without a great deal of injustice being a by-product.
All these things. They are just feelings passing me by while I think on the highway, like the mileposts. Just kind of on the periphery.
As I’ve come to understand our planet — our species — just in my own imperfect understanding, I’m led to believe these things. We evolved some 250,000 to 100,000 years ago. We’ve been around, as we are now as biological beings, a long time. Between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago, we evolved socially, to something different. We became societal beings in social groups beyond the size of the biological groups that we had evolved to live in. Simultaneously, we started to temporarily step outside of the ecology for these 12,000 to 6,000 years. And politics as we now know it, and as it has evolved during this period, is just one facet of the technology and knowledge that we have developed to try to live in this post-ecological phase. It is imperfect. It cannot be perfect. Because it is a fiction designed to allow us to live in this unsustainable post-ecological existence.
It seems to me that this 12,000 to 6,000 year period is drawing to a close, in some ways. That we are reaching the limits of a post-ecological existence. That scarcities of energy and resources will force a reduction in our vast population. I don’t mean this as an apocalyptic statement, necessarily. I haven’t the ability to predict when, with any accuracy, will mark the end of the ability of our planet to support this post-ecological era. My own sense is that it is near. But, call it next year. Or call it in 1,000 years. Population growth and resource use cannot continue. And whether the post-ecological period is viewed, historically as the last 12,000 to 6,000 years, or the last 13,000 to 7,000 years seems academic to me. And these ideas about our species current placement (just my worldview) has a pretty dramatic impact on my view of politics at this point. Am I a cynic? I suppose you could characterize me that way, and I wouldn’t argue a lot. But that’d just be your opinion, man. And thinking all this, rather than just labeling myself a cynic, makes me feel a little more three-dimensional. So I like thinking it.
The problem, as I’ve come to view it, is not whether a Republican or a Democratic or a Libertarian candidate gets elected this year. The problem is that we do not have a system that even approaches us being able to make group decisions that would allow us to try to rationally return to an way of living within the ecology. Can a one-child policy quickly reduce population? And if it were adopted, would I not abhor a governmental decision that forced an essentially biological/individual decision on human beings? Should we favor voluntary suicide to quickly limit our populations? Or must we embrace life-affirming philosophies that preserve as many of us as is possible to a coming global instability based on resource depletion? I cannot begin to answer these questions as an individual, and I give them some amount of thought. Who will invent a system that allows us to answer these questions as a mega-tribe? No one. Obviously. We are so incapable of addressing these things. It is not bad. We are not stupid. I love my fellows. But we are great apes. We might function well in small tribal groups, with decisions about how to sustain the group. We evolved for it. Not to say there weren’t resource questions then. Or inter-group conflict about resources. But there wasn’t planetary wide resource exhaustion — a crisis that is despoiling of the very things we require to live, and may well not only result in a fall back to an old level of supportable population, but to something much less. Or to zero.
Will our current political system result in some amazing advancement in technology. Star children, are we? Maybe that’s the most positive, hopeful view. Am I not a cynic, if I subscribe to a hope based on Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Where we become a parasite to infect other solar systems? Is that positive? Based on our evolutionary track record? (If you can step outside your species, your planet, try to imagine being a sentient being, viewing our harshly treated planet, and viewing us escaping it in your direction — and imagine what you would think about us — yikes).
So is all this lack of faith in the people, or belief that people can only do right if manipulated, or systemic view that our body politic as now constituted is corrupt and corrupting and therefore unworthy of support — is all that cynicism. I dunno.
But give me a White Russian. Take me bowling. And just let me abide while you save us somehow — through writing some of us into action. I’ll try to enjoy. I may even vote. Well, I dunno.
There is the view that our “reality” is a social construct to which we are acculturated during childhood. For the vast majority of the time over which we have exited there was no reason to question that reality. Only contact with alternate constructions of reality makes the perception of social construction possible. But the existing construction gains its power through the adherence of the majority. In truth, “Nothing is but that thinking makes it so.”
But this view has its radical and transformative potentials. The world can change “in the twinkling of an eye,” as perception changes. Many can attest to such experiences. The challenge is to recruit more and more adherents to an understanding of reality that at least appears to have a path to the future.
We are governed, certainly at the present, by people who are self-centered, short term profit driven and contemptuous of everyone beneath them in the socio-political power spectrum. They are so myopic that they cannot or will not see that they are precluding even their own children and grandchildren from a viable future. The problem is one of their level of ego development or personal development. That compassion of which they are capable is limited to those immediately around them. This has been the case since the rise of organized civilization, with a few notable exceptions. This fact has now become a serious obstacle to our very survival.
The dominance of the existing power elite is buttressed by pernicious political and economic ideologies: Neo-Conservative Politics and Neo-Liberal Economics. The beneficiaries of the current system have used their wealth to dominate the public discourse through the creation of “think-tanks,” which are too often “PR-tanks,” and by demonizing and marginalizing their critics through crude populist appeals to religion and patriotism. Looked at closely, their economic theories, as a whole, are neither verifiable nor functional. In practice both their political and economic theories are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Scriptures on which so many of their supporters believe they base their lives. This discrepancy is possibly the best opportunity to undermine the power of these pernicious paradigms.
But in order for any real change to occur, given the possibility of a change in leadership, Neo-Con and Neo-Liberal ideology must be brought into question and discredited. Given that these policies have led directly to the current catastrophe for our polity, our economy and our position in the world, this should be a good time to bring about such changes. People will only question the assumptions with which they have grown up when those assumptions have led them into serious trouble. That condition now obtains in Spades, if not No Trumps.
When hope is gone, the seeds of revolution have already been sown.
Disagree with you on two points.
1)The civil rights movement didn’t change the Democratic party at all. It still only acts when forced.
2)The example of the civil rights movement proves that there are more alternatives to obviously corrupt parties than terror. You can also engage in civil disobedience.
The civil rights movement worked because it recognized that traditional partisan politics was a nonstarter for a deliberately disenfranchised people such as the blacks. The progressives should recognize this too and use the strategies of mlk. It is not cynicism to point this out.