They have got us and they know it. That is why they are so smug and arrogant. They have succeeded in disempowering the opposition by instilling a sense of futility. We rail against Bush and Co. on "the Internets," on the editorial pages of progressive publications and among likeminded souls, but the vast majority of the progressives are unwilling to take risks, unwilling to make sacrifices and unwilling to see that each tiny incremental action can make a difference. We are much like
Thoreau's patrons of virtue:
"[We] hesitate, and [we] regret, and sometimes [we] petition; but [we] do nothing in earnest and with effect. [We] will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that [we] may no longer have it to regret. At most, [we] give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them."
Last night, as I gathered with friends for New Year's Eve, I shared with them the call for people to observe
NODDD. The response from these thoughtful progressive folks was disappointing: "What good would that do? Why hurt innocent business owners? That's not going to change anything." When I said that it could send a clear message of the potential power of those who oppose what
Shrillblog calls "the mendacity malevolence, incompetence and sheer disconnection from reality of the George W. Bush Administration." Their response was that not enough people would do it to actually be noticed and why be inconvenienced for such a futile endeavor. Later in the conversation, a friend made the often heard of late comment that the election revealed a great cultural divide and that we had to reach out and pay attention to the other side. The conversation was thoroughly disheartening but encapsulated what I have been reading and hearing since the election.
They have got us and they know it. That is why they are so smug and arrogant. They have succeeded in disempowering the opposition by instilling a sense of futility. We rail against Bush and Co. on "the Internets," on the editorial pages of progressive publications and among likeminded souls, but the vast majority of the progressives are unwilling to take risks, unwilling to make sacrifices and unwilling to see that each tiny incremental action can make a difference. We are much like
Thoreau's patrons of virtue:
"[We] hesitate, and [we] regret, and sometimes [we] petition; but [we] do nothing in earnest and with effect. [We] will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that [we] may no longer have it to regret. At most, [we] give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them."
Mind you, I understand the hesitation. I feel it myself when I am teaching American Government to conservative students, constantly asking myself if I am presenting too biased and crossing the line from stating the truth to being polemical. The ability to engender hesitation and disempowerment on the part of critics is the strongest tool in the neocon's arsenal. Milton Meyer in They Thought They Were Free, quotes an anti-Nazi professor describing what it was like to be aware of, but powerless to stop, the rise of fascism:
"...one doesn't see exactly where or how to move... Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone; you don't want to `go out of your way to make trouble.' Why not?- Well you're not in the habit of doing it. And its not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty. Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows."
I have been reading Jonathon Schell's
The Unconquerable World: Power Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. His examination of people's wars and non-violent social movements shows the importance of leadership in overcoming the sense of futility and mobilizing the people to challenge those in power. It seems to me that the anarchic nature of the progressive movement and the lack of a charismatic progressive leader (or leaders) is a serious impediment to mounting a challenge to the Bush Administration. Has there has ever been a popular movement that succeeded without such leadership? If so I certainly can't recall it. While I will continue to light my candles in the darkness by my teaching, informal conversations, lifestyle choices and donations to worthy causes, I suspect that a real movement for change requires a leader that waits somewhere out there.