12/13/04
Dear Friends,
It is no surprise that the Republicans are sore winners. They have spent the better part of the past month beating their chests, threatening to send to Siberia any Republican who doesn't toe the line (poor Arlen Specter), and promising everything short of martial law if the Democrats don't do what they are told.
What's worse is to watch the pathetic sight of the DLC (the conservative, pro-corporate group of Democrats) apologizing for being Democrats and promising to "purge" the party of the likes of, well, all of US! [ . . . ]
In the meantime, while we reflect on what went wrong, I would like to pass on to you an essay that a friend who works with abuse victims sent to me. It was written by a woman who has spent years working as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse and she sees many parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to last month's election. Her name is Mel Giles and here is what she had to say.
*****
Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the 'new' language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, "Why did they beat me?"And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you: Every single day. [ . . . ]
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. [ . . . ]
It's really interesting to watch the New Media Avant Garde fight it out with the Old Buffalos for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. With all due props to MoveOn.org, I always felt it was as much about a method as about a set of positions [its post election narrowing of focus to safeguarding elections--with which I'm in 100% agreement--still kind of makes the point: Beyond its opposition to Bush, it's about process as much as platform]. So I'm not entirely sure who I'd want to root for here. Besides, as Slate's Chris Suellentrop points out, the argument can be made that it doesn't really matter much who chairs the DNC anyway.
(Meanwhile, I'm starting to get more involved with the Oregon Bus Project, which certainly has a method--they bought a bus and they fill it full of people to get out the vote--but also a fairly detailed list of policy positions.)
But as I say, it's interesting to watch this national-level fight going on.
As for that Democrats-as-abuse-victims essay that Moore reprints, I've had copies forwarded to me from different directions about a half dozen times in the last month. It's been quoted in a letter reprinted at USAToday.com, and simply Googling the first ten words, in quotes, produced over 300 hits today.
Having nothing but sympathy for victims of domestic violence, and putting aside the debate about "the cult of victimage" in this country--and putting aside the question of whether Giles, in her letter quoted above, regards the victimage at the hands of the GOP as a metaphor or as a a literal equivalent--the problem remains: There's no big political payoff to the Democrats and progressives labeling themselves as victims.
I grant you that the people running the GOP are generally behaving like a mean-spirited, exploitative, vindictive bunch of users--okay, abusers--but I think that for everyone else to declare themselves 'victims' lets them off the hook for too much. I believe it's motivating to feel on the hook (compare, for example, Bush quitting alcohol by becoming 'born again' rather than, say, by going through the rigors of AA, so that he's thereby freed from taking responsibility for his prior actions).
And however therapeutic might be the passage through victimhood on the way to health, I don't think it has much political use: I'm not really seeing Tom DeLay saying, 'Uh-oh, we're in trouble now--they're recognizing their status as victims. Guess we'd better ease up a little.' Rather the opposite, really.
The language of victimization does the left no good--not as a rallying image, not as a narrative basis for claiming the high moral ground, not as an expression of power.
Is there a therapeutic position that teaches people they haven't gotten sufficiently in touch with their inner ass-kicker? There's one I'd like to see adapted to political purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment