Apr 212018
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

We’ve talked here, and probably all of us have read elsewhere, about why “conservatives” think the way they do, if you can call it thinking – since it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense most of the time. I keep coming back to the concept that they don’t have a moral code, not in the sense that we do, but instead substitute a hierarchy which tells them what to do. Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and author whose description of conservative thinking presents the concept of this hierarchy in the context of a story, which she calls “The Ancestral Story,” and if I may put it this way, she adds a lot of meaty story to the bare bones hierarchy, so that it looks like something resembling human. She used to be, but no longer is, an Evangelical herself, so she has some pretty intimate knowledge.

In a short paragraph which (intentionally or not) responds to the question we so often ask of “Why do Republicans so consistently vote against their own interests?”:

Liberal social policies benefit many conservative voters, especially those who are struggling to get by, but they almost all, to some degree, threaten the conservative cultural narrative. To people who have internalized that narrative and played by its rules, expecting specific perks from society in return, that threat can feel personal and visceral. 

But Ms. Tarico goes beyond analyzing the conservative story to looking at the liberal story – and has discovered that there isn’t one. Most simply put, there are two, and those two stories go a long way toward explaining why we couldn’t get it together in 2016 – and why getting it together in 2018 is NOT going to be simple or easy. But we need to do it, and I think we should give her a look.

I truly hope to inspire everyone who reads this to read both articles in full, doing whatever the online equivalent is of highlighting passages which induce that “click” of recognition of truth. For that reason, and for the reason of fair use, my quotes will be short.

The liberal stories, as I said, are two in number; the one which is perhaps a little more obvious is “The Social Liberal Story.” It is primarily through doing their best to live this story that activists of the 60’s. 70’s, 80’s came to be (or maybe I should say “become”) liberal.

Dig deep enough into a liberal activist, down to what one might dare to call the spiritual level, and I often heard something along these lines: We’re all in it together. There’s no such thing as a self-made man. I actually am my sister’s keeper. Everybody needs a hand up sometimes. One local leader, Eric Liu, contrasted a rightwing icon, the cowboy, with the image of a barn-raising — rugged individualism in a world of gunslingers vs. collaborative construction in organized community. Many of those interviewed thought of their activism as giving back or paying forward what had been given to them….

In contrast to the common rightwing metaphor of government as an authority figure, thought leaders on the left depicted government as a tool—one we use to create inclusive wellbeing and build shared assets that get handed down to future generations.

Of course we (and I say we, being in and of that generation) didn’t invent any of this. It goes back to ancient Athens, to the words of Jesus (such as the words in Matthew 25), to the Magna Carta, to the Enlightenment, even to the French Revolution (before that Revolution ran up against the other story.) And throughout history, it was not always taken literally! The words of the Declaration of Independence, for example, did not exactly mean to our founders what they mean to us. But we embraced it, continued to strive for it, and still continue to strive for it. I see that striving in myself, and I also see it in the actions, past and present, and the words of many others here.

The other story Ms. Tarico calls “The Structural Oppression Story,” and it goes like this::

All prosperous capitalist societies—including, especially, the European democracies and the U.S.—were built by oppressors on the backs of the oppressed. Modern America was built by stealing the land of American Indians, commandeering the sweat and blood of black slaves, keeping women in the kitchen, oppressing brown-skinned immigrants, and exploiting Europe’s former colonies. Virtually all societal ills derive from this one fact—structural oppression—and redressing this wrong will fix most others. “Everything flows from racism,” a young white activist commented on Facebook. Many of her peers agree.

Well, I believe this story has a lot of validity too. But I didn’t always see it. I had to become “woke” – and, believe me, if my striving to live the first story is a work in progress, this story is a work which for me has barely begun.

It’s no [redacted] wonder, as Ms. Tarico doesn’t exactly say, that activists who are coming from this story sound exasperated, and raw. This is a story of people who are “done making nice, done waiting politely,” and of others “who are horrified at their own history.” Well, color me horrified. Just don’t color me white. I am lavenderish-pinkish-beige, thank you, and my race is “HUMAN.”

With the Social story as a basis, we did accomplish things. But we didn’t accomplish enough. And what we did accomplish was so fragile that all it took was one Trump to blow it away. I feel strongly that we still need it. But we need the Oppression story too. For one thing, we desperately need the light of truth – and the Oppression story is filled with truth. We need it now more than ever.  I think most of us have both stories in us to some degree, but nuanced.  And we really need to get our act together – not to agree on everything necessarily, but to work together.

If you have any doubt that this is a serious divide which has the potention to trip us up, read what Democrats are saying about Conor Lamb’s special election victory in Pennsylvania. Lamb, you may remember, is the candidate who was the target of quite possibly the worst political ad in all of recorded history. (If you decide to watch, do turn the volume down. I can only describe it as “shrill.”)


He also is close to the definition of a Blue Dog – and Blue Dog Democrats think that every Dem candidate should be exactly like him – regardless of the state or the district’s particular makeup and views. No, no, no. But he is better than a Republican!

Alecto, Megaera, Tisiphone, this week I think you should come after us (please be gentle.) Prod us to the soul searching that we need to do so that we can both make peace, and encourage the best candidates for every district and state, in every district and state. Because, if we ever needed to win nationally by a landslide, now is the time.

The Furies and I will be back.

Cross posted to Care2 HERE.

Share

  13 Responses to “Not Your Everyday Erinyes”

  1. That ad is not just awful and mean-spirited, it is downright stupid. Heck, it is out-and-out STOOPID! The kid singing the dumb-butt song comes across as a nasty little brat that screams her head off when she doesn’t get her way. I have seen political ads that were so nasty they inspired me to vote AGAINST the a-hole they touted.

  2. You outdid yourself, Joanne *(and Furies)….Excellent post. 

    Lots to read, re-read, and mull over. and not the cider. lol I’m still reading, and will bookmark for further readings, and pass this one on too. 

    Thanks again. 04

  3. Excellent article JD. 35

    One irony is that when Republican politicians fail to deliver, as they always do, the perks conservatives expect, they blame the Democrats, instead of the ones responsible.

    I tend to identify with the first liberal story, but only partially with the second.

    Amen on Lamb!

  4. This is truly an excellent post!  They’re always good, but this one was particularly informative!

    And what is it w/ sheep being the major feature in God-awful republican ads?

    Who can forget Carly Fiorina’s “Demon Sheep” ad?  (And if you WERE successful in forgetting – I apologize for reminding you of it.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWlOxhSIKk

    • Oh, hey, you’re forgiven. Incidentally, I accidentally discovered that Feliway, the product Lona mentioned which might (or, of course, might not) help Nike IS available in the US.  there are no retailers in KCMO that carry it, but four on line vendors.  If yu add slash us to the feliway dot com url you can get all the information.  There seems to be more than one formula BTW.

      • I’ve had it for a couple of years.  Friend from high school days is a vet, and when I was in IL he recommended it.

        Not been overly impressed with it.  I sometimes spray it on his towel in the carrying cage, but can’t say I’ve really noticed it made any difference.  

        Once he’s in the cage – sprayed or not – he quickly settles down and is fine for the 400 mile trip.  Never had a problem with him WRT the actual traveling.  Packing him up is a chore – but definitely better.

  5. Excellent article, Joanne.

    Though, as a foreigner, it is well understood on a rational level, but not so much on an emotional one. I have a strong Social Democratic background myself, stemming from a grandfather who joined the union when that was still illegal, and two self-made parents who never begrudged paying ever increasing taxes so that others could share in the better lives they worked, and studied, so hard for. Only my mother has seen the beginnings of our swing towards conservatism, though it would, and hopefully will never again be based on Evangelicalism, or extreme Islam for that matter.

    I’m not sure if the Democratic policies can be explained fully by the two stories as Ms. Tarico suggests. We have a political saying here (“Wie jong is en niet links heeft geen hart, wie oud is en niet rechts heeft geen verstand”) which translates into “Whoever is young and isn’t left-wing doesn’t have a heart, whoever is old and isn’t right-wing doesn’t have intelligence.” With a continuing increase of life expectancy, demographics have changed drastically in Europe and the US and with the ageing of our populations, the young with a heart, and the young at heart, have become a minority. Add to this the known tendency for young to be less politically engaged under normal circumstances and we end up with an outcome of American elections (2014 and 2016), European elections and a Brexit referenda which would have looked completely different if more young people had voted. Having such old candidates in general didn’t do much good for most elections either. I firmly believe even Bernie would have gotten much more support had he been 20-30 years younger.

    If Democrats are to get their act together in a most literal sense, they need to do that with an act that appeals to the young, i.e. a progressive act. With the young so active on gun control, that battle is already half won.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.