Skip to main content

"Yeah, but..."  This is such a common, almost reflexively-used phrase in response to good news by some commentators on the left that it might as well be a single word - perhaps even a single syllable.  "Yeabut."  It's a perfectly legitimate qualifier when the comment that follows is actually relevant to the news being discussed - "Yeah, but the bill contained an amendment that limits its effectiveness."  But when it's used as a means to change the subject completely - "Yeah, DADT repeal is great and all, but what about mountaintop removal mining, huh?  Talk about that, hotshot!" - in other words, when the only caveat to a celebrated achievement is that something else exists that hasn't been accomplished, what you have on your hands is laundry list politics: The obnoxious pursuit of outrage at the cost of never capitalizing on victory.

This is not to say that all or even most people afflicted with laundry list syndrome are just rage-addicted perpetual victims who see winning as a kind of death - they're a sizable minority, but hardly the bulk of the phenomenon.  Rather, the problem as I see it appears to stem from two perspectives that (as I explain later) stem from the same conceptual failure.  The first:

  1.  Sub-dimensional thinking.  This is my overly cerebral way of saying "oversimplification," but the distinction is not gratuitous - there are very specific consequences to ignoring applicable political dimensions.  Though the perspective may be simpler, the resulting picture often paradoxically appears more complex than it is because otherwise logical relationships are obscured or seem chaotic.  Consider the following series of visual illustrations.


Suppose the above is a two-dimensional representation of a set of agenda items one is hoping to accomplish, with each node denoting a particular objective.  Now, it is a very shallow, cross-sectional plane, so you cannot see anything in the foreground or background relative to these nodes, all you can see is that which exists in the plane - like in a microscope slide.  Based on this visualization, what would you deduce about the relative priority of these items?

Naturally, you might assume the largest and most obtrusive is the most important, and focus more on those closest to it than those further away.  But your attempts to address these issues based on this perspective are frustratingly ineffective - you find that the relationships you deduce are generally not quite as you think, and you have to keep reinvesting the same energy over, and over to protect gains already made and address new issues.  This is the laundry-list view of politics - nothing is connected, so every issue has its own costly political overhead rather than being addressed in a holistic way.  One can deal with this fact by looking deeper, or by inventing self-rationalizing betrayal mythologies that do nothing to improve your effectiveness.  Let's look deeper.  


Now suppose we extend our shallow 2D plane to a much greater depth - it's still two-dimensional, but objects in the foreground and background are projected on to the plane, as illustrated above.  We now have more information, and can begin to discern clearer and more useful relationships.  What deductions can we make based on this fuller picture?  It appears that one of the nodes is far more important than the others based on the number of direct connections it has.  Perhaps the largest is still important, given its enormous comparative size, but there is also this hub node that may deserve a great deal of focus as well.

When utilizing this deep-focus 2D perspective, one finds that the effectiveness of the agenda increases somewhat, but there are still a lot of puzzling failures and disappointments.  We are beginning to distance ourselves from the laundry-list mentality, but there is still some of that going on because the systemic relationships between the issue objectives are still not clear.  Once again, we can engage in self-justifying CTs and pathological betrayal theologies, or we can look deeper.  Let's look deeper.  

You'll have to forgive the relative crudity of this next model, I'm not using any kind of professional program to generate the dimensional geometries, I'm just drawing in MS Paint to give a rough idea of the concept.  Basically, it contains all the same information as the above, only we see what's causing that information - we see its origins.  Just realize that relationships are radically different when the perspective adds a new dimension:


From this perspective, the "central node" is seen to be almost totally irrelevant, and the largest node isn't connected to anything else - if you were to pour all of your resources to conquering it, you could not capitalize on that energy for any subsequent victories.  So, as could be said of anything, it's important to understand the connections - the systemics - in order to achieve lasting, sustainable political progress.  To make your efforts count, they must be calculated to address root causes of both problems and solutions, and efficiently deploy resources to have maximum impact.  

In the visual metaphor above, this would mean focusing on the second largest node, which is much smaller than the largest and has far fewer connections than the apparent "hub" node, but would in the larger perspective be key to accessing the rest of the system.  Were you to focus on the largest node, even if you were to succeed you would end up isolated; and if you were to focus on the apparent hub, you would discover it was an optical illusion and you had just wasted your energy.  

So that is one type of laundry-list politics - failing to appreciate the dimensionality and systemics of the issue.  Now for the second type:  

  1.  Inability or refusal to prioritize.  For some on the left, politics is not about achievement, but about expression.  In particular, expression of judgments and reactions.  They regard activism as a series of conditional but nonetheless one-dimensional statements: If x, then y - this is the definition of morality for them, and if you follow the program, then you are a "true progressive."  They find the addition of new variables disquieting, confusing, and corrupting - it smacks of "triangulation" or "capitulation" to them.  "If x AND z, then NOT y" simply doesn't compute for them because x is present, so the core statement "If x, then y" must apply or else one will be deemed to have violated it.  There is no recognition that "x AND z" is fundamentally different from x - no recognition that one number is different from another that is a factor of it.

For these people, prioritizing would be an abhorrent act of amorality, like choosing between one's children.  They do not understand the roots of their own values, and how those roots ultimately converge on fundamental principles that not only tolerate, but frankly demand casuist ethics: If "standing up" for your issues is more important than actually advancing them, then you don't actually care about them - you simply worship them as ideal objects, and wish to preserve them in your mind far more than you give a damn whether they are represented in practice.  

If one asks such a person what they stand for, they will not tell you their values - i.e., what moral postulates they apply in determining actions.  Instead, they will recite guessed it...laundry list of specific agenda items, legislative positions, and - if they're assholes - reel off a litany of grievances, perceived betrayals, and individuals whom they deem to be insufficiently committed to these items, whose motives they suspect, or whom they consider to be actively treacherous.  They're not actually telling you anything by this, let alone engaging in productive thought - what they're doing is regurgitating the contents of their brains so that you can bask in the awesomeness that is them, and perhaps pay them the compliment of imitation.  Basically religious proselytizing.

In reference to the illustrations above, a person who cannot prioritize either does not know or does not care that they can win two or more victories for the price of one - they would consider it "cynical" or a form of "cheating" to address the roots of issues rather than individually focusing on every single twig and leaf.  Because activism for them is an expression rather than a constructive activity, victory is just another form of defeat - it temporarily dampens the emotional potency of their cause, and thereby deprives them of what may be a central motivator.

In such cases one might as well dismiss them, because they are quite happy to be inconsequential - merely expressing themselves fulfills them, and they couldn't care less whether anyone else benefits from what they're doing.  It's the expression that matters to them.  But at the same time, there are people who simply aren't aware that laundry-lists are not how things are accomplished - that politics in reality does not consist of discrete, non-negotiable items that you obtain by shouting louder, stomping your feet, and waving around signs more vigorously.  

The first step to transcending the laundry list mentality is to know what it is you actually want.  You can start with the litany of issue positions if you must, but start looking for commonalities between them - the connective tissue that reveals where it is your interest comes from.  Do this repeatedly until you begin to recognize the nature of your own motives: Is it that you feel inadequate, and thus want to change the world around you in the hopes that it will change you in turn?  Do you hate someone or something, and attack ideas and policies that benefit them or remind you of them?  Are you afraid, and trying to defray your fear through a lot of pointless noise and self-distraction?  Or do you actually see something larger than yourself?  Do you see what fills the spaces between you and others?  Do you understand its fluidity and living nature?

Once you know what you're about, then you can begin rationally designing your political program.  If you are afraid, what is the root of your fear?  If you hate, what is the root of your hatred?  Not the object at which it is directed - it's never that simple.  We never hate the objects of hatred or fear that which frightens us - it's things about them, things they do, reactions they cause in us.  The deeper you examine, the more mutability you discover - principles of connection that reveal that that which we assumed to be absolute was fluid, that which we thought permanent, temporary.  And vice-versa!  And it's not a bad or depressing realization at all, because it creates far more possibilities than it limits.

But leaving aside the philosophy of it, you also come to understand the reality of what already exists and how others achieved it.  Real historical accomplishments that most people gloss over with puerile fantasies of an angelic crusade against evil become understandable, manageable, and what's most important, replicable within suitable contexts.

I, for instance, stand for Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity - my signature line.  Those three words encompass everything I stand for: Countless specific positions, countless potential legislative items, and innumerable opinions of political figures past and present.  I don't have to memorize a laundry list, and I don't have to randomly select some cherry-picked example out of the ocean - I can just say Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity, and know exactly what I'm talking about.  In fact, I wrote a diary about it a while back, so feel free to check it out.  You can ask me to elaborate on the meaning, and I can - easily - because I'm beginning with the root principles of my politics and expanding outward rather than stumbling around trying to synthesize a million different agendas into a pithy statement.

So let's generate a small example of someone's political laundry list (real ones can run to hundreds of items):

  1.  Guaranteed healthcare.
  1.  Free college education.
  1.  Save endangered species.
  1.  Gay marriage.
  1.  End capital punishment.
  1.  Rebuild New Orleans.
  1.  Net neutrality.
  1.  Teaching evolution.
  1.  Higher minimum wage.
  1.  The DREAM Act.

If you were to hear someone advocate these issues, you would know their politics lean to the left, but you probably will not see any kind of coherent mission behind the litany of subjects.  As a result, more often than not, they cannot prioritize them - they are struggling to express a unified agenda and failing to do so, ending up instead spewing out huge litanies of specific positions that are only loosely related at first glance.  But look deeper.

  1.  Guaranteed healthcare - Equality, Opportunity.
  1.  Free college education - Equality, Opportunity.
  1.  Save endangered species - Opportunity.
  1.  Gay marriage - Liberty, Equality.
  1.  End capital punishment - Liberty, Equality.
  1.  Rebuild New Orleans - Opportunity.
  1.  Net neutrality - Liberty, Equality.
  1.  Teaching evolution - Opportunity.
  1.  Higher minimum wage - Opportunity.
  1.  The DREAM Act - Opportunity.

Judging by the deeper interpretation of this person's laundry list - and please, let's not quibble with the interpretation, it's just an example - they appear to value Opportunity most highly, then Equality, then Liberty.  Perhaps this reflects their personal circumstances, where they feel the greatest inadequacy to be lack of opportunity, or perhaps it is just a reflection of their character to be more interested in that side of things.  Others may be more interested in addressing Equality, and still others Liberty.  Some may find them of equal interest, and possibly some who discover their interests to be imbalanced will decide that the three are equally important and deserve a conscious effort to address them all with equal vigor.  

Whatever the case, it becomes obvious that the three are intertwined, and reflect an even higher principle - albeit one so abstract it's virtually meaningless to assert it beyond recognizing that it exists.  We can just call it "freedom" for want of an equally universal, all-encompassing term - one that has gradually diverged from "liberty" over the course of American history and become a generalized term for democratic political virtue.  This apex value is different in different societies - in some Asian cultures, for instance, the apex value might be "harmony," and in others (pick your usual suspects) it could be beauty, while still others are rooted in the ideal of happiness - but there is no mistaking ours.  In this country, everything is defined in reference to freedom, even where it has been ruthlessly extirpated: Liberals fight to preserve and cultivate it, conservatives seek to pervert and co-opt it, and everyone, sincere or otherwise, wraps themselves in its iconography because freedom is our national postulate.

Now, one realizes there is a strangely Trinitarian relationship in that "freedom" as we've defined it cannot exist in the absence of the three stated principles, and yet the three cannot exist in isolation either - they naturally form a gestalten whole requiring a separate definition from its components and representing the essence of a living democracy in homeostasis.

There is not one progressive agenda item that is not derived ultimately from at least one of the three - liberty, equality, or opportunity.  So feel free to use it if you find it helpful, or (perhaps more fun) go on your own exploratory adventures and discover the roots of what you do and why you do it for yourself.  Now, that isn't to say I'm fundamentally motivated by support for liberty, equality, and opportunity - those are just the moral/philosophical derivations of my actual motives.  In truth, I'm a little more human than that: I just fucking hate liars and bullies.  Analyzing deeper than that becomes a trivial exercise, because beneath instinct there is only more instinct.

Whatever the origins of one's philosophy and politics, what matters is what you do with it.  If politics is just another form of masturbation for you, there are far less selfish and socially corrosive ways to go about it than adding your voice to the Noise that pollutes our society, deforms our debates, and drains public energy from reform.  Whatever you do, at least let it be the result of a conscious decision on your part, and not the default result of unexamined reactions.

Originally posted to Troubadour on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 02:18 AM PST.


Which type of activist voter is more annoying?

73%14 votes
26%5 votes

| 19 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you. (9+ / 0-)

    I stated elsewhere today that an old friend taught me "Anything after but is bullshit"

    A qualifier that negates the "Yeah".

    Single issues deny the intersectionality of a liberal/left/progressive agenda.

    Which is why my sig speaks of coalitions and people getting out of their comfortable niches in the leftie world.

    Very thought provoking diary.

    Tipped and rec'ed.

    "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 02:38:39 AM PST

  •  Going to be thinking about this one for (6+ / 0-)

    awhile Troubadour.

    Very nicely done.

    Thank you. :D

    "I get up, I walk, I fall down. Meanwhile, I keep dancing." Daniel Hillel

    by Onomastic on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 02:48:40 AM PST

  •  North Star principles (9+ / 0-)

    One of the reasons I support the President are his underlying priorities; respect, empower and include.  These line up with another trilogy I like that comes from self determination theory, the intrinsic motivators; competence, autonomy and relatedness. In my faith community we have five underlying testimonies; simplicity, peace, integrity, community and equality.  These can take a lifetime to ponder and work towards.  Then I like sustainability as a north star guide and I contrast that with narcissistic forces when I look for what to support.  Another terrific guide is to look for power-over versus mutual mind sets (I got that one from literature on verbal bullying).  None of these guides that I use separate necessarily along the lines of right and left.  Bullies live in all camps unfortunately.

  •  After reading the admonishments... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LongTom, enhydra lutris

    to others, how is the diarist any different than those who, according to the diarist, just can't figure things out?

    The diary seems no guide to action, but a bunch of theory based on concepts that may have little to do with what is on one's laundry list.  It ignores matters on the ground.  For that reason, the diary seems a similar masturbatory exercise to that which the diarist criticizes in others, just not the diarist, and states what is obvious in a complicated way.

    One other point.  There is no need for the diarist to condescend to others, nor make value judgments about others because they do not conform to the diarist's way of thinking, and an apparent I know better attitude of what is important in political practice, what is important to pursue in that realm, and what means must be adopted.

    In other words, does the diarist have any expert credentials that are compelling?

    This exercise told me nothing that could not have been said in much simpler and less judgmental terms.  Sometimes the intellectual muct prove he/she is the smartest one in the room, and often that fails due because that takes precedence.

    The diary could just have said, try to understand your principles and motivations, then prioritize your action accordingly.

    •  I'll address these point-by-point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      how is the diarist any different than those who, according to the diarist, just can't figure things out?

      I put forth an effort, and share thoughts I consider potentially useful.

      The diary seems no guide to action

      The point of the diary is that you already have a guide to action.

      but a bunch of theory based on concepts that may have little to do with what is on one's laundry list.

      I'm pretty confident I made it clear that such lists are an obstacle to achievement rather than a facilitator.  One comes to fetishize the specific and misses the over-all.

      It ignores matters on the ground.

      "Matters on the ground" as you put them - i.e., that which is immediately apparent - stem from interconnected relationships.  Strategically, logistics matters far more than tactics, and you have to be aware of systems to know logistics.  You have to be aware of what you want to know what to do with a system, or else you're just a self-indulgent anarchist breaking things out of frustration.

      In other words, does the diarist have any expert credentials that are compelling?

      An appeal to authority?  Seriously?

      The diary could just have said, try to understand your principles and motivations, then prioritize your action accordingly.

      So your complaint is not that this is not an action-oriented diary, but that I respected people's intelligence and took the time to build a full picture rather than just sending down a commandment on a stone tablet.

      Liberty, Equality, Opportunity.

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 12:59:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the construction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Larsstephens, yawnimawke

    and I think you have a lot better chance of being able to formulate strategies that get you what you want, if you're sure of the set of values that underpins what you believe.  In my own writing, I emphasize that concept as "coherence," and I think it's something we should strive for.  

    So I suppose I analyze people's "laundry lists" is a similar manner -- do they seem consistent or contradictory? What are the underlying principles? For myself, when I see a contradiction between two things I'm "for," then I'm motivated to resolve it -- this is also something I've encouraged my students to understand for almost 30 years.

    Thanks for the diary and the visual aids!

  •  You bothered to type that? Gosh, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris

    talk about "adding to the noise." I wonder how many Tea Baggers would agree that they stand for Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity. Over 75% I bet.

    If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

    by LongTom on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 05:10:33 AM PST

    •  Check out the diary I wrote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      explaining my principles.  A teabagger is just throwing around words when they say them - words have meaning when they come from a liberal, and I can provide it to anyone who asks.  The fact that you didn't ask indicates you don't actually want to know, and don't really care whether what you say is true.

      Liberty, Equality, Opportunity.

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 12:49:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Merry Christmas! What can I say, when I smell (0+ / 0-)

        gas, I open a window. "Words have meaning when they come from a liberal?" Really? Even when they're the same words? Tea baggers are "just throwing around words?" and you're not?  

        While most tea baggers aren't smart, a few are, and I'm sure could match your windbaggery syllable for syllable. I find your analysis pedantic, prolix, unilluminative, and unproductive. There are major differences between the right and left, but this piece doesn't help delineate them.

        If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

        by LongTom on Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 02:12:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so debate them, and be constructive (0+ / 0-)

          He bothered to type something that was intended to be helpful and useful. Even if one does not agree, a civil debate about what he got "wrong" is still helpful and useful. Everyone can learn.

          What constructive point do you offer in place of (or expanding on) Troubadour's work?

          I tend to agree that "laundry list" thinking is not the most productive way of thinking, and that it does lead to way too much "yahbut". Troubadour uses "Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity" to state his underlying principles. What are yours?

          Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

          by IndyGlenn on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:27:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This part seems to make sense to me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fladem, Troubadour, Larsstephens

    For some on the left, politics is not about achievement, but about expression.  In particular, expression of judgments and reactions.  They regard activism as a series of conditional but nonetheless one-dimensional statements: If x, then y - this is the definition of morality for them, and if you follow the program, then you are a "true progressive."  

  •  well thought out theory that backs up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Larsstephens

    prior arguments you have made. Motivation is a fascinating subject. One can spend a lifetime conducting studies on motivational factors and people will still poo-poo them for it. Is it needs based, personality based, behaviorally based, etc. I really enjoyed this diary. Keep up the good work and the introspective search of the "why".  

    Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

    by yawnimawke on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 08:48:14 AM PST

  •  Laundry lists make for engaging pop music. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Just one of many old school
    literary formulas and devices.
    It's not surprising that we should
    find it dominating so many narratives.

    My story is much too sad to be told,
    But practically ev'rything leaves me totally cold
    The only exception I know is the case
    When I'm out on a quiet spree
    Fighting vainly the old ennui
    And I suddenly turn and see
    Your fabulous face.

    I get no kick from champagne.
    Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all,
    So tell me why should it be true
    That I get a kick out of you?

    Some get a kick from cocaine.
    I'm sure that if I took even one sniff
    That would bore me terrific'ly too
    Yet I get a kick out of you.

    I get a kick ev'rytime I see
    You standing there before me.
    I get a kick though it's clear to me
    You obviously don't adore me.

    I get no kick in a plane,
    Flying too high with some guy in the sky
    Is my idea of nothing to do,
    Yet I get a kick out of you.

    Cole Porter

    Interesting and thought provoking. Well done.
    Thanks for all of your many efforts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site