Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was one of the books sitting high on my "I really need to read this" list, and I finally found the time while keeping watch over my napping, newborn daughter. Atwood's work is often prophetic, and the following passage stood out as especially relevant (keep in mind that the novel was first published in 1986):
It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics at the time....That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn't even an enemy you could put your finger on. (pg 174, Anchor Books Edition)
While Atwood's novel specifically deals with an authoritarian state that enslaves women for the purposes of procreation, I'm generally struck by her description of the lack of public outrage and their overall sheepishness. I find myself asking, quite often, what is the appropriate level of outrage one can enact these days? Since Atwood's dystopic passage refers to suspending the Constitution, I'll focus on that for a moment.
In the media, for example, I find that the blog of Salon's Glenn Greenwald always contains the appropriate level of outrage, especially concerning FISA legislation--he's combed through every detail, getting exponentially furious along the way. On the other hand, The Washington Post not only withheld any criticism of Congress over the so-called "FISA compromise," but labeled those who were outraged as mentally deficient:
Reasonable people can differ on the issue of immunity, but the FISA debate hasn't been overpopulated by reasonable people. As a result, the immunity issue has assumed a significance in the legislative process that far exceeds its underlying importance. ("Fisa Follies" 3/4/08)
Maybe I'm wrong here, but it sounds like they're saying a lot of boisterous, mouth-breathing complainers have no idea what they're talking about.
Bob Herbert of The New York Times is another columnist who feeds off a steady diet of social outrage, and I'm never disappointed by his willingness to detail that anger. Sadly, I find this outrage in small quantities, except for the blogosphere--but even then the outrage is glossed over as "the liberal blogosphere," and I wish I had a better understanding of the real impact of such posts. I suppose one could tune into MSNBC's "Countdown" for significant doses of outrage, but, as much as I appreciate the sentiment, I too often feel like one of Atwood's tame citizens "watching television, looking for some direction" from Olbermann's often scripted outrage and increasingly frequent "Special Comments." (That said, scripted or predictable outrage is surely better than none at all, especially when you're the only cable show that does so.)
I've even begun wondering if there is a movement to label outrage as pathological, requiring immediate diagnosis. I can't help but think of someone like Cindy Sheehan--I don't know Ms. Sheehan or what's in her head, but I was sickened by how quickly her grief was painted as an Ahab-esque insanity. Maybe I'm a bit off here as well, but needlessly losing a child seems like an appropriate moment for outrage. Unbelievably, even Pat Tillman's mother is under attack for being angry and asking questions.
In The Handmaid's Tale, the main character, Offred, and her walking companions often stop by "the wall" to see the hanging bodies of traitors, their offenses often a mystery; this of course serves as a reminder for the need to stay in line, to follow orders, and to provide unconditional obedience. In Atwood's dystopia, Gilead, even mere the appearance of impropriety, such as whispering too loud or standing in one place for too long, can lead to one's end. That's how I perceive outrage in today's climate--as an impropriety. If you're mad, something is wrong with you--you're not reasonable, you're too ideological, you're crazy, etc--and all because they "blamed it on the Islamic fanatics." Frankly, I feel like I'm losing the battle to express outrage--how do you do it without, as Atwood says, "rioting in the streets"? Is casting a vote for Obama action enough? Under what conditions does someone look at you, in your outrage, and deem you reasonable? That you project a type of outrage that is worth acting upon?