Very smart, insightful essay - as usual, Patrick. Totally with you throughout, but I don't know exactly what you mean in your conclusion. I assume that "this absence" refers to the absence of leftist resistance since its benignity is profoundly obvious and you are asking that "this absence" become less obvious. But what does it mean to ask that the benignity become less obvious? Does it mean that it shouldn't be so clear that the left is benign? It should hide it's benignity? I doubt you mean this. Or do you mean it should be less benign, forget the obvious part? Does the left then accomplish that by actually attempting to pass more social legislation and to somehow dampen the consumerist mentality all about us? Or does it mean that some of the disruptive actions on the list of radical leftist things that don't happen in the US *should* happen? I doubt you are advocating radical disruptive action since it's hard to see how that would lead to politicians formulating actual effective policies for the future. At any rate, your last sentence confused me.
Second, I liked the analysis of why Republicans are into Holocaust denial or refusal to recognize the genocide against Palestinians: that fascist regimes lead to something this monstrous has to be denied and repressed. Made excellent sense. The only caveat to this line of thinking regarding today's Republicans is that they relish the cruelty of their rhetoric and their actions. I thought Adam Serwer's 2018 essay to this point was excellent: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ .
Vaclav Havel's long (30,000 words) essay "The Power of the Powerless," which I'm currently rereading for the fourth time, comes to mind. Very different historical situation ... or is it so very different? I think one of Havel's points, the challenge and opportunity that he was trying to articulate, was: How do we, individuals but more to the point small groups of citizens, engage in effective and meaningful politics, when the official/overt political system has maneuvered us into the position of having to live and act entirely apolitically? This is, I think, what Havel means by the need (and opportunity) to "live in truth" - and its eventual efficacy.
Ethan, Thanks for the Havel reference. I read it online and it is a remarkably astute depiction of the Soviet world and amazingly brave (and truthful), given the precarious time in which it was written. One thing that struck me was how he used the term "posttotalitarian" in this essay to describe a totalitarian system that had come to run itself. Nothing was contentious any more, or rarely so. It made me realize that the Eastern Bloc in which he lived was a far cry from the USA today. Much is still contested here, even things like "personal freedom" or "consumerism" which one might see as an American version of the all-pervasive ideology he describes as hanging over the Eastern Bloc at the time. Thus the risks of confronting the dehumanizing aspects of US culture are not as great as for Havel's green grocer. Still, plenty of opportunity to live one's truth. Emphasis on still.
Cheers, Patrick M! Great thoughts, much appreciated. That Havel essay definitely close reading - and rereading - which is why I've now read it four times. It's at once very specific to its time and place, and universal - a powerful feat of applied intellect.
My God, this is brilliant, Patrick. Reading each paragraph three times. Thank you!
Very smart, insightful essay - as usual, Patrick. Totally with you throughout, but I don't know exactly what you mean in your conclusion. I assume that "this absence" refers to the absence of leftist resistance since its benignity is profoundly obvious and you are asking that "this absence" become less obvious. But what does it mean to ask that the benignity become less obvious? Does it mean that it shouldn't be so clear that the left is benign? It should hide it's benignity? I doubt you mean this. Or do you mean it should be less benign, forget the obvious part? Does the left then accomplish that by actually attempting to pass more social legislation and to somehow dampen the consumerist mentality all about us? Or does it mean that some of the disruptive actions on the list of radical leftist things that don't happen in the US *should* happen? I doubt you are advocating radical disruptive action since it's hard to see how that would lead to politicians formulating actual effective policies for the future. At any rate, your last sentence confused me.
Second, I liked the analysis of why Republicans are into Holocaust denial or refusal to recognize the genocide against Palestinians: that fascist regimes lead to something this monstrous has to be denied and repressed. Made excellent sense. The only caveat to this line of thinking regarding today's Republicans is that they relish the cruelty of their rhetoric and their actions. I thought Adam Serwer's 2018 essay to this point was excellent: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ .
Vaclav Havel's long (30,000 words) essay "The Power of the Powerless," which I'm currently rereading for the fourth time, comes to mind. Very different historical situation ... or is it so very different? I think one of Havel's points, the challenge and opportunity that he was trying to articulate, was: How do we, individuals but more to the point small groups of citizens, engage in effective and meaningful politics, when the official/overt political system has maneuvered us into the position of having to live and act entirely apolitically? This is, I think, what Havel means by the need (and opportunity) to "live in truth" - and its eventual efficacy.
Ethan, Thanks for the Havel reference. I read it online and it is a remarkably astute depiction of the Soviet world and amazingly brave (and truthful), given the precarious time in which it was written. One thing that struck me was how he used the term "posttotalitarian" in this essay to describe a totalitarian system that had come to run itself. Nothing was contentious any more, or rarely so. It made me realize that the Eastern Bloc in which he lived was a far cry from the USA today. Much is still contested here, even things like "personal freedom" or "consumerism" which one might see as an American version of the all-pervasive ideology he describes as hanging over the Eastern Bloc at the time. Thus the risks of confronting the dehumanizing aspects of US culture are not as great as for Havel's green grocer. Still, plenty of opportunity to live one's truth. Emphasis on still.
Cheers, Patrick M! Great thoughts, much appreciated. That Havel essay definitely close reading - and rereading - which is why I've now read it four times. It's at once very specific to its time and place, and universal - a powerful feat of applied intellect.
Thank you as always, Patrick. In 1966, Norman Mailer wrote: "So long as there is a Cold War, there are no politics of consequence in America."