<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/26/1421204>
==================
An interesting exchange and very instructive.
Like a fog, samsara melts away. It's now clear to me that there are two sorts of people when it comes to progressive politics, held apart from each other by a perceptual wall. Statements that start with "there are two sorts of people" are usually thoroughly boneheaded - as indeed mine might be - but I feel driven by observation to make this crude division.
On one side there is the softly, carefully tribe (labels are silly aren't they? And yet I use them - what a pity, the limiting primitiveness of the human mind). 'Be realistic, work within the existing frame, don't indulge your adolescent passions. We must step carefully - eating bitter tea and sleeping on beds of nails if necessary. Think of those who aren't convinced of your politics - how will you bring them over if you aren't reasonable?'
On the other side are their antagonists, some of whom simply want to speak the entire truth (break the spell of American exceptionalism via the ruthless use of irrefutable example) without concern for offending delicate sensibilities. Others want to burn the moFo house down. We don't need no water, let it burn. Most are in the the warm and getting steadily warmer middle.
These groups seldom see eye to eye though, of course, they need each other and form a helix of sorts. Like Malcolm needed Martin and Martin needed Malcom - like Sistani needs al Sadr and al Sadr needs Sistani. Fire and ice, ice and fire. It's a strange kind of marriage in which the spouses believe and act as if they're divorced.
Niels Bohr, I think, spoke nearly a century ago about something he called complementarity. Originally, he was concerned with this idea's usefulness for understanding quantum reality (the atomic-scale thing, the observed object, is neither wave nor particle but each and both depending upon the moment to moment circumstance). Eventually, it grew into a philosophy of life.
Imagine how scary formidable "the movement" would be if we accepted the need for a weapon in one hand (if only aggressive argumentation - in most cases) and an olive branch in the other.
Wave AND particle. Particle AND wave.
If reasonableness is the only thing you have in your portfolio - polite discussion over coffee and cake with people you can 'agree to disagree' with - you will be, in the end, a sweet member of the 'loyal opposition'. Forever. A friend describes this condition as being "a lamb in kitten's clothing".
So squeezably soft.
I'm thinking of Todd Gitlin now. Such a nice, liberal boy.
Alternatively, if you're never willing to tune your stuff to be understandable by the millions who're still spell caught, who still believe in the national religion and are easily shocked by suggestions that this is not virtue's final resting place then you'll be alone, isolated and, eventually, vaporized.
Strength in numbers. Trite yet true.
Will the wall separating the calm, self-proclaimed adults from the rowdy cage shakers be torn down - or, at least, climbed from both directions? Is this possible?
.d.