Occupy this.

A recent diary pointing to a DIG article about neophyte attempts at party politics has garnered a lot of attention on BMG. My first reaction to the piece was seething rage. Not at the snark, tho that was in abundance, but at the clear lack of introspection both in the writers attempts and in the utter failure of the editor (if editor there was) to elicit real meaning — other than, “well, that sucked” — out of the writers efforts. What stayed my hand from an initial shot across the bow was a clear earnestness on the part of the writer. Besides that, the conversation had by then really taken off and some good stuff was being written and so I decided to sleep upon it before replying. After thinking about it, this diary is the result and it assumes that you, dear reader, are familiar with the previous conversation and the article in question…

M. K. Gandhi famously wrote that there are seven blunders that create problems in the world, two of which are “knowledge without character” and “politics without principle”. If I had to judge the writers motivations here I’d say she’s up-ended those two in particular: she has character without knowledge and she has principle without politics… leaving herself with an excess of virtue and an inability, perhaps even an unwillingness, to apply it. I’m tempted to see that as a form of arrogance — perhaps the generalized arrogance of the young — and I think that might be what I (and more than a few others) initially reacted to. Thinking on it, however, I’ve come to a slightly different conclusion.

The Rev. Peter Gomes (my own personal Mahatma) preached often that an excess of virtue is oft-times worse than even a modicum of vice and that this is because we don’t examine our virtues with anything approaching the perspicacity we give to our vices: we know when we’re being naughty and we make various efforts to reign ourselves in; we also know when we’re being good without examining the effect of our goodness or even making efforts to direct our virtues in anything other than a blunt manner. This is how some Christians can justify things that Christ would condemn. This is how some Muslims can be completely pitiless in the name of Allah the merciful. This is how some atheists can be as contradictory, paternalistic and even, strangely enough, ‘holier-than-thou’ as they claim religious adherents to be. There is a world of difference between righteous and self-righteous. What’s led me to enter into this debate in this manner is a complete lack of clarity as to whether Robin Jacks is righteous or self-righteous. I honestly cannot tell.

I think that the one flaw, and it was the fatal one, of the ‘Occupy’ movement was a complete unwillingness to compromise, in either large ways or small ways. The author of the piece writes of police tactics as ‘distractions’ about tent stakes and dish sinks and arguments over color and other things as petty. The only acceptable answer to which was, ultimately, ‘screw it, lets go drink.’ That’s an example of small refusals to compromise. The large example I can think of is of the overarching goals of Occupy being to, first, protest and, second, to avoid being co-opted. We had discussion of this on BMG at the time. I don’t think the motivations to avoid being co-opted were altogether venal: that is to say it wasn’t so much a desire to remain above-the-fray, pure and unsullied — it wasn’t purely arrogance– so much as a valid fear that the message would get lost in competing grievances. It’s not uncommon to go to any rally about any subject and see somebody yelling loudly about the plight of the Palestinians… and with counter-protests about the right of Israel to defend itself… The plight of the Palestinians and the rights of Israel are important issues and should be talked about. But there are other important issues and they should be talked about also. So when you decide to talk about one subject, let’s leave the other aside for the moment. Yeah, it’s easy to say, but hard to do.

The other side of this, “let’s not get co-opted”, coin was an unwillingness to dialogue with the ‘powers-that-be’ in the perception that the system itself was broken and itself co-opted: in the fear that such would lead to a leaking away of whatever power or position Occupy held and by way of some inchoate hijacking of the message by corporate interests… in the same way the Tea-Party was, essentially, hijacked by the right as a bludgeon to use to get their way. I think these are valid fears. I also think they should have been faced head on and confronted and not refused: to go outside the system and protest is good only so far as it gets you entre back into the system again in order to fix it… either that, or replace it wholesale, which was never going to happen with Occupy.

The discussion brought about by the diary touched upon the difference between ‘politics’ and ‘party politics’. Whatever else you think about it, Occupy was a clear example of the former — a political protest resulting from the anger over socio-economic conditions — that ruthlessly decried the latter form, that of ‘party politics’. I don’t think they were wrong to do this. There is nothing in political philosophy or the makeup of our constitutional republic that requires, or even invites, ‘party politics’. I, too, hate being a Democrat. I hate the present alternatives more, tho… so there’s that. To a very great extent both ‘politics’ — the art of resource allocation — and ‘party politics’ — the party alignments, internal and external, that presently hold a gatekeeping role to ‘politics’ — is about distractions. As a great fan of Patrick O’Briens novels (the so called ‘Master and Commander’ series and others) I can attest to some truth of his definition of diplomats and politicians: which definition runs roughly thusly; stone-faced, with large bladders and the ability to tell the same stories over and over and over again until the opposition exhausts itself and gives up. It’s a waiting game. That’s why the votes at the caucuses and the delegates convention at the DCU Center took longer than expected. They always take longer than expected. One has only to read the Declaration of Independence to see that many of the colonies grievances had to do with geography and King Georges’ willingness to agree to compromises and then make the actual implementation of them so onerous as to affect a silent veto that could be blamed upon circumstances. That’s why the Congress often waits to the last minute to schedule legislation and then ends up working over the night and into the next day. They are playing the waiting game. The thing I hate about being a Democrat is that Democrats don’t scruple to play this game also. A year or so ago, there was some serious discussion here at BMG about the late-night shenanigans at the State House in which the Speaker of the House figured prominently.

To some extent these shenanigans are unavoidable: whether the mad King George III or sly Robert DeLeo, those who can’t win on the merits will resort to procedural games and circumstantial exigencies to stall and to distract. But the component of the diary, and the accompanying Dig article, that I most object to is the unspoken notion that this is the entirety of both ‘politics’ and ‘party politics’. I’m sure there are some who think that is is the case, but it is not required to play out in this manner. And, indeed having mentioned Gandhi previously, I’m compelled to point out his employment of similar tactics. But Gandhi did not restrict himself to these tactics alone, only resorting to them when dialogue, which he would not refuse with any, broke down or events moved too fast. When he did resort to these tactics the ultimate goal of the tactics was to get competing factions into a room together to dialogue.

I guess this is a rather long winded way of saying politics is hard work. It sometimes means sitting for long times. This was true for Gandhi and for Occupy. But that’s not all it means: it means dialogue and I think that’s where Occupy fell down. It means understanding your expectations and understanding where other people are attempting to thwart your expectations.. and still going at it. And coming back and doing it again and again. What I get from the article listed is an “Occupier” who went to a caucus, heard a lot of talk, filled out a form, went to a convention, met someone who had an equally horrid experience and then went home. I get the sense she was there. I don’t get the sense she engaged except where such engagement impinged upon her discomfort… I get that it may have felt as exhausting as being engaged, but that’s substitute not substance. I think maybe her heart is on the sleeve, right where is should be, but that perhaps she thinks that is enough. I don’t know that it is. I do not think that this is a failing of her character… on the contrary… but rather represents a triumph of the tiny minds who put up obstacles, sometimes deliberately sometimes merely out of habit, in the process. I think where Robin Jacks falls down is in seeing these things as merely distractions and irrelevancies: her expectation seems to have been that the process would be, in some way, similar or as impactful, as the Occupy movement once promised to be. The extent to which they may also be deliberate roadblocks put up by gatekeepers in order to annoy her to the extent she just wants to go home is something she doesn’t seem to countenance: they’re just nuisances that hardcore politicos put up with, according to her, but don’t represent the ‘real work’ of politics. She and I might agree that ridding ourselves of nuisance and distractions in order to get at the dialogue would be the beaux ideal, but we differ — I guess — in the need to confront the less-than-ideal and grapple with it until we get to dialogue. It is that simple. It’s not that easy.

Please share widely!

0

0