Outrage

[jducoeur]

Thanks to dglenn for his link to this delicious meta-rant about the principle of outrage from a few months ago. It's not long, and well worth reading; personally, I find it a refreshing tonic.  Just a taste, from the end:

"Smart, informed outrage engages you and fires your heart, your mind. It is fuel. It is the reason you claim you enjoy being an American, to question malevolent government actions and take a stand and demand accountability where there has, for the past seven years, been none. Bottom line: We simply cannot let them convince us, by way of an all-out assault on science, sex, love, et al, that the good fight just ain't worth fighting."

Comments

[serakit.livejournal.com]

He does seem rather biased towards the left-wing...

As for the commentary on the fighting, well, fighting and outrage is probably not going to in today's world going to get anyone anywhere; everyone's sick of it and grassroots coalitions no matter how large are nothing compared to conglomerate interests that submerge them. Be the change you want to see in the world, lead by example, rather than being incredibly outraged by the world. Because outrage is at heart an angry emotion and at some point that has to burn you out. You can only run on anger for so long and realistically speaking no mater how many of us get outraged it won't do anything in the era of corporatism. And maybe I'm being fatalistic but I'm just going to live my life and let others live theirs, and if enough people live that way then maybe that will change the world rather than being outraged about outrage, of all things.

[jducoeur]

I disagree pretty strongly, on both points. Taking them one at a time.

He does seem rather biased towards the left-wing

He is, but that's beside the point. This isn't about left vs. right wing -- this is about what this country *is*, and what it stands for. The complaints he's leveling aren't "left-wing" complaints: they're points that any good right-winger would have made, even a decade ago.

You're a little too young to see it, I suspect, but the notion that this country is condoning torture is *horrifying* to many of us, left or right, precisely because it is very new. The whole *point* of the modern US, and the basis of its stature worldwide, was supposed to be that we were above that kind of thing. Its not about left and right -- it's about basic morality, and the notion that the country has gotten so stupid and amoral as to explicitly cross those lines (and play semantic games to try and justify it) is repulsive.

Ditto on the civil liberties thing. There are lots of people on both sides of the aisle who see the current administration as fundamentally undermining -- *deliberately* undermining -- the Constitution. Do some deeper reading, and you'll find that the *serious* conservative thinkers don't like this trend any more than the liberals do. It's just the talk-show-host crowd -- the stupid, unthinking populists who call themselves "conservatives" but are actually just herding sheep -- who don't give a damn about civil liberties.

The notion that only the "left" cares about rights and morality is one of the great lies of the neo-conservative movement. It's perhaps the single greatest reason why I consider it crucial that they be crushed politically, so that more sensible conservatives can take the Republican party back.

As for outrage, I believe you've missed the point. In particular, I think you missed this paragraph, or misunderstood it:

It is, for me, all about modulation. It is about remembering that outrage does not necessarily equal misery. Outrage does not mean you must wallow in fear and fatalism and yank out your hair and wake up every morning hating the world and hating yourself and hating humanity for being so stupid/numb/blind and wondering how the hell you can escape it all.

Proper outrage *isn't*, at heart, fundamentally about anger. That sort of outrage burns itself out, and leads to the "outrage fatigue" that he's talking about. Serious, principled outrage is intellectual, disciplined, patient but persistent. It's not giving in just because you aren't winning right now, but instead changing tack while continuing to press for that which is Right. It's recognizing that the "I can't accomplish anything in this day and age" argument isn't realism, it's laziness.

I agree with him 100%, on pretty much all points. Anger and outrage are *not* the same thing -- they may be related, but as you say, anger will burn you out. But proper outrage is simply saying This Is Wrong, and doing what you can to make it right. Because without people standing up to convenient Wrongs, those Wrongs win. (As probably wasn't said by Burke, but is nonetheless largely true, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".)

It's easy to be lazy. It's easy to say "I'll just live well, and They can do what they will". But that fundamentally misses the point of America, which is collective responsibility for our government. *We* are responsible for what the government does, and if the government commits evil and we do nothing to oppose it, we are fully culpable in that evil. That sense of outrage -- that fundamental sense that there *is* such a thing as Right and Wrong, and that the Right must be sustained -- is what keeps the government in check. It was the force that motivated the founding of this country, and it's the force that keeps it a place worth being proud of...

[serakit.livejournal.com]

The government commits evil and plenty of people are doing plenty to oppose it. That hasn't stopped it, or even given it pause. And in this day and age, not being able to accomplish anything is realism. The government no longer cares about the opinions of the people; merely the opinions of the wealthy sponsors who put them into office.

[jducoeur]

That hasn't stopped it, or even given it pause.

What makes you think that's true? I think you're very, very incorrect here. Indeed, the situation has changed considerably in the past three years. Public outrage has set the government back on its heels. Yes, it's trying to continue its evil policies, but it's not being nearly as successful at it.

Three years ago, their CIA operatives in Iraq were openly abusing prisoners, almost at random, and gloating about it. Today, they are under the spotlight: they haven't *entirely* stopped, but they've probably backed off by 80%, and even that last 20% is under serious challenge. Three years ago, they had a compliant and complacent Congress. Today, even despite the incompetence of the Democrats, they have largely been stopped in most of their desired activities, and are having greater and greater difficulty getting their way. Three years ago, they had an Attorney General determined to subvert the justice system through political appointments. Today, that man has been fired (and may yet be indicted for his malfeasance), and they were forced to appoint a relatively politically neutral replacement. Three years ago, the Republican Party was riding high on the back of its "tough" policies. Today, they are facing possible electoral wipeout, and their only chance of retaining the Presidency is the fact that their candidate is one of their harshest internal critics. The list goes on -- in pretty much every respect the government *has* been forced to back down. Not all the way yet, but they're losing ground steadily.

Sorry, but it looks to me like you expect the opposition to be able to wave a magic wand and make The Bad Things go away. That isn't how it works, and this is *exactly* what the article was talking about. It takes *years* of sustained effort to change things for the better, and the fuel for that effort is well-measured, patient outrage. But things are a *hell* of a lot better than they were in 2004, and they are moving steadily in the right direction. *Keeping* them in the right direction requires constant heavy pressure from the public.

merely the opinions of the wealthy sponsors who put them into office.

And you think those wealthy sponsors don't pay attention to the public? If you believe that, you haven't studied enough American history. Those sponsors want to be on the side of the *winners*. They scarcely give a damn about policy details, so long as they get the specific narrow slice that they want. If they smell a change in the wind, they'll go with it so long as they can get what they need.

That's part of why Bush is increasingly ineffective: many of his backers have backed away from him. Hell, a fair number of them are quietly trying to get out of the political sphere entirely, because it's damaged them. This is why the religious right is in serious trouble: their involvement in politics has increasingly damaged their internal support, and their followers are beginning to shift towards more moderate religious voices instead.

Yes, it's a delicate game. But you sound very much like a typical cynic: someone whose expectations were way too high, and now disclaims all ideals because reality is imperfect. But that simply misunderstands reality in exactly the same way. The problem with both extremes -- the idealistic and the cynical -- is that they believe the political world is *simple*. That's the logical flaw. The reality is that it's a complex dynamic system, with a lot of moving parts. But the biggest of those parts is still the vox populi. Get the people moving in the right direction, and the "leaders" will meekly follow along behind, claiming that it was all their idea in the first place...

[serakit.livejournal.com]

Not exactly a typical cynic. More someone who was given very little education about politics and doesn't have anyone to ask in the struggle to educate myself. (I was raised to believe that Republicans are evil beasts and if I question that I get yelled at.) Now that you've given the long explanation, it makes sense and I can agree with you.