Home » Ideas, Politics
28 April 2011, 1:00 pm 2 Comments

Politics: Left, Behind

This post was submitted by Andrew Fogle

Criticism of the Left, from the Left, was for a long time the kind of thing my generation did for graduate degrees and coffee dates. Then History – the kind that takes a capital “H,” the kind that the American political class can’t spin as a Red-Blue identitarian flare-up, the kind we can’t help but see direction in – started happening again. The hard, patient slog of organized labor from Cairo to Madison laid the groundwork for something genuinely new in the second decade of the 21st century: people realizing that neoliberalism was only working out for the people in charge of it, and that it made sense to get together and do something about it.

Maybe it can only seem bathetic to say that this History was what conducted me to a stretch of 8th Street sidewalk last Thursday, straining to make out the names of speakers and reporters over the Aretha Franklin Greatest Hits being piped to a loudspeaker from an SEIU intern’s Ipod. But these are strange and wonderful times, the kind when a single burning man can topple an autocracy, and political metonymy on the order of “Big Business vs. Little People” sparks Midwestern prairie fires. I went downtown last week, like everyone else in the crowd, to deliver letters demanding that Wal-Mart sign a binding Community Benefits Agreement before they move into DC. Like everyone else in the crowd, I’ve seen enough in the past few months  to know that working Americans deserve, and are capable of, a lot more.

The people at Respect DC and the dozens who showed up in support of the campaign, comrades to the last man and woman, did a fine job by the standards of the Left. The problem is those standards themselves – they’re the marriage vows of a battered wife, after all, bleary and diminished expectations we had to content ourselves with in the few decades between the end of the Cold War and the present moment, when class struggle was a matter of damage control and no one could afford to question the the free market fundamentalism that elite economics departments were paid very well to evangelize. Brushfire, strong winds, the clearing of dead wood: those of us the capricious hand of Capital equipped with structural underemployment and time to read and write have our work cut out for us.

The criticism of the Left, at even its most poetic, doesn’t have room for tragedy these days. We aren’t writing elegies for a bound political titan anymore; ours are war hymns for a waking giant.

***

We are the frumpenproletariat: young people overgrown and half-feral, figures and minds spindly and tough like unpruned rosebush on the brick scree of the grouphouses we go home to at night. A neonate underclass just starting to recognize we’ll be worse off than our parents, midwifed by the labor organizers who’ve showed up this day outside Wal-Mart DC’s corporate headquarters, now passing out buttons, now collecting signatures, now adjusting sound equipment, now exchanging political war stories with young people hungry for a sense of momentum. The musk of vintage clothes and body odor mix with the saline tang of a Chinatown spring. “This is what democracy smells like” – a more precise slogan than any I’ll hear in the next hour, much more likely to horrify the people we’ve come here to make angry.

In the windows, equal parts curiosity and contempt, the faces of Wal-Mart corporate types. Reasonable solid button-ups in light colors, jacketless, loose in air conditioning turned on too soon this season. One gropes a baseball, menacing vaguely. They all look like ex-frat business school types, jaws indistinct from beer and red meat. Unremarkable, probably, the kinds of guys whose greatest regret in a given week is getting drunk enough for karaoke in Foggy Bottom.  Guys are probably convinced they’re doing the right thing, getting people jobs and cheap orange juice, putting up with the idle whining of some layabout hipsters with nothing better to do.

Of course this is their first and biggest mistake, the kind as likely to be made in less imaginative circles on the Left: we’re not here because we have nothing better to do, but because there is nothing better to do. Because 21st century American capitalism hasn’t been able to distract or employ enough angry young people to keep us from coming. Because we are poor and this is our fight. Because Wal-Mart can only bring down the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Because, things as they are, any one of us could have to take a part-time job stocking pork sausage and instant mashed potatoes, and we want to make sure that  the wages we get will be enough to pay rent and eat. There was a time when kids fresh out of college came to these kinds of things for the sake of something called “social justice.” At our weaker moments we are nostalgic for such luxury.

There are clergymen, too many clergymen: another problem with the Left. A black one in a green suit whose words are exciting if you don’t pay attention to them, a white one, maybe Catholic, who shows up late and is content to scowl beatifically. Makes it seem like the big mistake of the corporate types looking down on us is that they didn’t pay close enough attention in sunday school, like it’s just a matter of finding the right New Testament moral allergen, goading some teary pity reflex, and having the yuppies rush downstairs into open arms and a chorus of gospel music. “Wal-Mart: You have a moral obligation …” says Reverend Greensuit, in tones that sound like either seduction or blackmail. More dignity, all told, in touching hearts with hot lead than with saccharine buckshot of conscience-baiting, if and when it comes to that. We are not errant Children of God, toiling in ignorance against a greater harmony we’re too proud to recognize, that will someday be set aright. We are soldiers on a cratered, barbwired, landmined social field that is broken, was always broken, that we all fight on whether or not we know it and that most of us lose on (so far, at least) whether or not we care.

The ways we choose to live and think about our lives have consequences – something thoughtful conservatives have always been better at talking about than we have – and we demand be treated like this is the case. “I don’t mean it, I’m just getting paid to write and talk like that, just a way to pay bills, you understand…” Cowardly words, debasing words. The men and women sneering through the windows chose to throw their lot in with the corporate class, chose to get up this morning and do the work that will bring grindingly efficient working poverty to new parts of DC, chose to be up there in collars and ties instead of down here ragged and stubbly. And they deserve much more hounding, derision, and violence than we’re permitted in a sidewalk protest. And this is a matter of respect, because they are not cogs in an economic machine but free beings who could have done otherwise, whose dignity cries out for the kind of recognition only punishment can bring.

Then the worst: “We’re not here to oppose you, Wal-Mart… we’re here to partner with you, to show you your true self-interest.” Reverend Greensuit again, and I spasm. The true self-interest of the people in the office building is exactly what they think it is, to keep people like Ernestine Bassett, the Maryland cashier operator who spoke earlier in the afternoon, working three jobs at minimum wage, busting any attempts at organizing so they cart home more wealth than ever off the backs of the people who actually produce it. From a man of the cloth, the spiritual torpor is jarring: “Get thee behind me, Satan!” is the tortured cry of the Son of Man in the desert, not “Ah, well, so long as you’re here, we might as well try to manage your evil for everyone’s benefit.” Labor and Capital are not broken fragments to be fit together with  the right spiritual glue; as in Revelations, one must end gnashing teeth in the Lake of Fire and the other in a tearless New Jerusalem.

“We come with an olive branch, but that olive branch has a time limit”- as impolite a threat as a man in a clerical collar is allowed, I guess, when private security guards are watching him. Some whistles and applause, the kind you might hear after a Bible Camp play when the kids forgot most of their lines but damn if they’re not adorable in their little robes and you have to anyway. Then, unconvincingly, as late lunch hours run out and the young people nearest the street begin to fumble with their bike locks: “We’re not willing to be stepped on. We will come back.”

The thing ends messy. The Wal-Mart people have locked their offices and mailboxes and the letters come back unopened. A thinned and sunstricken crowd disperses into the glass-and-steel wage slavery of downtown Washington. I walk across G street and through a revolving door and around the squat stone arsenal cool of the National Portrait Gallery. In a corner, suddenly, the manic chiaroscuro of John Brown, feral and Penteteuchal against the bourgeois (or worse) composure of writers, engineers, false Mormon prophets flanking him. His eyes kilns of a fire too hot for a God of Mercy. A Great fucking American. The kind who knew how to get things done. The kind who, when he said he’d come back, did.

 

 

 


First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

2 Comments »

  • VictorD said:

    Good stuff Fogle. Glad to see you talk about real stuff rather than just abstract rants. Check out Dream City Collective if you’re looking for more of the same.

  • Matthew Opitz said:

    I’m not surprised to hear that the clergy were exercising a reactionary influence on the demonstration. Please, point me to ONE mainstream religious establishment that was ever out in front, and not struggling to catch up to, some modern social struggle. The correct a priori assumption is to assume that, whether you are talking about Nicaraguan priests or Hezbollah social workers, the clergy, while at first sounding radical to a naive observer, is always, upon closer investigation, trying to catch up to, and reign back in, some more radical impulse that would, in the end, go much farther on its own without the clerical fetters. Examine the evidence each time, and you will find this a priori assumption confirmed time and time again.

    People have been cut off from the organic wellspring of direct religious inspiration, so they allow their opinions to be guided by a caste of experts. Why is any clergyman’s opinion on the morality of Walmart, or neoliberalism in general, disproportionately relevant to me or anyone else? The sad truth is, people only consider it so because they lack the necessary tools to make moral judgments on their own. One of those necessary tools is a coherent philosophical paradigm, which, insofar as that paradigm makes room for religious phenomena, means that empirical evidence of religious phenomena is also required in order to form one’s own moral judgments.

    One thing that infuriates me is the use of “faith” as a euphemism for religion, as if the two things are fundamentally similar enough to stand in for one another. No, just like any other body of knowledge, real religion is founded not upon faith, but upon *empirical evidence.* To be sure, the inquiry does not end there: there are numerous ways to interpret a particular piece of empirical evidence. For example, an empirical experience of the Virgin Mary visiting you at night in bed could be an inspiring event leading you to a realization of some fundamental truth about the human condition, the result of one’s brain going haywire, or both. It could also be the seed of some nefariously elaborate delusion. The game is not simple.

    But people lamely listen to the clergy without having any empirical evidence to consult at all. (Texts are, by the way, not empirical evidence. They are secondary sources of what other people said and experienced. Treating any particular text as having any relevance at all already requires an act of faith, except insofar as one has had primary empirical experiences whose comparison with the text seems to support the text’s authenticity and assertions.)

    We are told that it takes much thought and textual study in order to discover these answers. Much thought, yes. But textual study? It is only marginally helpful. Reading about the religious inspiration of others can provide a thoughtful perspective on your own religious inspiration, *provided that you have indeed connected with religious inspiration in the first place.* Without this basis of comparison, you are simply taking others’ word about it.

    What passes for direct religious inspiration for most people is, frankly, pitiable. If I sound smug, it is only because I have had sex (direct religious inspiration), whereas most people are naive spiritual virgins who have, at most, looked at Playboy pictures of other people having sex. When they see their clergy doing it doggystyle, they naively think that that’s how it’s done. When they hear their clergy say that corporate America and the American working class can find a common olive branch, they think that’s morality. Is it elitist to encourage all to similarly have sex, so they can see that sex isn’t just how they’ve seen the clergy do it?

    To be sure, sex for naive pre-teen virgins is a scary and mysterious thing. They are liable to believe the most outlandish scare stories. (As a southern magazine on proper social etiquette for young women from 1896 once said, “Take heed, young woman: your first night of sex with your husband will quite possibly be the most dreadful experience of your life. But it has to be done, and you must face up to it like a lady.” (I’m paraphrasing here.)) Is sex sometimes dangerous or hurtful? Yes, occasionally. Are there fairly surefire ways of avoiding dangerous or hurtful sexual encounters, and of ensuring that your sex occurs in a safe and comfortable environment with a person you trust? Of course. It is the same way with experiencing direct religious inspiration. To be sure, that first time will still change you as a person forever. You will no longer be a virgin. But, looking back, would you want to go back to sexual virginity, if you could? Sometimes you might think “Yes,” but on the whole you probably think not.

    As for how you obtain your empirical experience of religious inspiration, there are various methods. For some people, it happens spontaneously from temporal lobe seizures or other unexplained circumstances. If you are not one of these “lucky” individuals, there are other methods. Starving yourself in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights might get you there. Meditating for 30 years seems to be able to get a very small percentage of its practitioners there every once in a while. But by far the most reliable, most ergonomic, and most *democratic* method is to take a sufficient dose of a psychedelic drug. Unlike 30 years of Buddhist meditation, a day of psychedelic voyage is practical for the average wage worker. It is, as far as I’ve found so far, the only widely-extensible route to empirical religious experience, which is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any *real* religious judgment, in my non-virgin opinion.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.