``...Nathan, you frequently paint this portrait of innumerable activists tirelessly doing excellent things. I admire them for doing so. But if there are so many of them working so busily, why is America so fucked up?..'' Doug
``...Many lefties mistake that tipping point for a singular event where consciousness radically changes for the whole population. In many cases, it is merely a final change in consciousness and alignment among the swing group that held the balance of power...'' Nathan
---------------
I think I subscribe to the latter view, that a swing group holding the balance, might have finally changed in consciousness and possibly alignment---to a very modest and very untrustworthy degree.
The question is, who is that swing group?
Carl Remick indirectly named them: ``... What matters to me is that we're one full generation into the Reagan Revolution. It's high time The People had all the rightwing shibboleths flushed out of their craniums...''
I'll define the swing group as that one full generation of: white, male, 30-45yrs, college educated, middle class, straight, married-divorced, 1.6 children, suburban, probably working in the tech-related business service sector. In other words your average all American white boy who grew up believing Reagan was some kind of founder of America, had every conceivable advantage during childhood and adolescence, was moderately successful straight out of college---and completely incapable of a serious thought that isn't also an utter triviality.
They probably voted for Clinton because he had just the right sounding mildly liberal social policies, didn't seem like an outright racist, and generally supported business and getting ahead on the job and confirmed this was what life was all about. After Clinton, they may or may not have voted for Gore, but they were attracted to Bush who seemed a little more like them---although he wasn't exactly the sharpest guy around.
This same group distrusts anybody to the left of the DNC, because they are the radical fringe, although what radical fringe might mean, is rather unclear. It's a little like homosexuality---a kind of dirty joke with too many syllables that makes them nervous and has a vaguely threatening quality. They can imagine what it means, but don't want to think too clearly about it. The idea of socialism is something like a police state where some government official tells you what to do and pushes small businessmen around, who are after all just trying to earn a living.
Their idea of politics is taken straight out of the daily news, and is rather well reflected by that news. So that, for example, Israel is defending itself against Palestinian terrorists, the WTC and Pentagon attacks were unthinkable and inexplicable events, the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and more security measures coming from Washington is probably a good idea. Although, most of this seems to be fumbled at the moment.
Because their own lives have been well sheltered and modestly successful, it appears that all those millions of have-nots in the US probably deserve their fate through some personal failing: not very bright, maybe not very honest, generally slackers with careless personal habits---the type of people you see busted on Cops. In other words, poverty is the fault of the poor and not much can be done about it.
I seriously doubt this swing group could connect the dots, without a news documentary to do it for them. On the other hand, most have been exposed to some form of media essay or documentary on social justice, but some how they didn't get it. If it was about civil rights, then they felt threatened by the vaguely anti-white rhetoric, or they felt unjustly accused of something they had nothing to do with. If it dealt with poverty, then they couldn't really identify with the people depicted because they were minorities or blatant white trash. If it dealt with worker's rights, then those depicted were from the wrong class. If it dealt with women, homosexuality or disability, then there was even less to identify with or understand.
In general, social justice issues are seen to mostly concern other people, but not them. And this sort of focus is seen as essentially denying that they have problems too. As a consequence, a vague sort of resentment settles in, which can conveniently stand-in for a much broader form of denial. Since their privileged position, which they don't see as privilege, but merely a natural state of affairs, is frequently attacked by left wing and minority groups, they retreat even further away from conceptualizing social justice as of paramount importance to humanity in general, and harbor the suspicion that these radical fringe groups want to take something away from them.
In their heart of hearts, they want a better paying job, something for the house, a better car, a wife who fucks more, children with fewer problems, a nice home media center, more time off for vacation.
They have no conception at all that most of the productive capacity of the US has been carefully orchestrated through consumer capitalist heaven and its propagandistic media to support them and their illusions, exactly so they will approve of and vote for the reactionary white, male, all American middle class sensibility that rules the earth.
The idea that they could easily be tossed into a chaotic vortex with nothing to hold on to---that the job, wife, kids, house, car, and everything else they think they possess could disappear tomorrow is inconceivable to them. And yet, there is just a hint that such a nightmare might be lurking in the overlapping shadows of the stock market crash, the completely inept government with its fool officialdom, and the general malaise that seems to have settled into the house like an alcoholic in-law.
All I can say is, Duh!
Chuck Grimes