Summary: If we are, as Mahatma Gandhi once counseled, to be the change we seek, we must eschew and reject the temptation to fall out among ourselves, engaging in flame wars and testy exchanges. Political movements fail because their members seem more interested in policing each other’s tone than in coalescing to advance a commonly held goal. We are recapitulating in Cathedral City the later history of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The hatred Austria-Hungary’s squabbling nationalities bore each other prior to World War I exceeded their hatred of Vienna, and helped keep the fabulous Habsburg invalid alive into the closing days of that conflict. Where hypersensitive umbrage-takers and fight-pickers hijack a movement, no critical mass is possible, and what could have been a successful community-based movement or bloc fragments and dissolves. Bad politicians hold onto office when their opposition self-sabotages. I see this process fully at work in Cathedral City, and I beseech my brothers and sisters (in Oliver Cromwell’s “bowels of Christ”) to prove me wrong.
-----------------------
By: Paul S. Marchand
A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Mark 6:4
No man is a hero to his mishpokhe. -Yiddish proverb
Bad government holds on when there is no effective movement out there to force it into competence. Opposition movements often enable bad government because they cannot effectively coalesce to advance commonly held goals. That has been the case in Cathedral City.
One of the saddest realities of politics is that almost any group, particularly a group seeking change, will ultimately fall out, as its members succumb to the inevitable temptation toward internecine backbiting and fights. Like-minded people flee from consensus and seek discord. Where no discord exists, it will be fabricated.
In almost any Usenet discussion thread, including threads on Facebook, the progress by which consensus breaks down can be easily detected just by reading the posts in the discussion thread. Commentor A will post or comment. Commentor B will take exception to the tone or content of A’s comment and the flame war will be well and truly underway. No matter how uncontroversial or anodyne A’s comment may have been, ineluctably there will be someone to take offense, and sadly, it is the hypersensitive umbrage-takers or fight-pickers who often wind up hijacking comment or Usenet discussion threads, indeed, entire movements.
Such tendencies particularly show up when there may be matters of public or political interest under discussion. The briefest visit to the discussion threads of the Los Angeles Times or the Desert Sun will disclose the inevitable tendency of comment threads to veer toward angry denunciations of the President, or toward off-topic personal attacks on other commentors on the thread. Moreover, the degree of emotional capital certain commentors will invest in their posts is often in inverse proportion to the relevancy or importance of the original news item. When a comment thread on the use of Wikipedia in schools degenerates into exchanges of threats of violence, it is not difficult to conclude that way too much emotional capital is in play.
Yet, my disappointment is not with the inevitable inability of participants in a Usenet discussion thread to stay focused on the original matter under discussion, any more than it is a function of my deep suspicion of any invocation of Godwin’s law, which postulates that as the length of any Usenet discussion group increases, the probability of comparisons involving Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
Rather, my disappointment is more in the way like-minded people flee from consensus and eagerly set up barriers to joint action by engaging in self-sabotaging infighting that inevitably breaks the consensus, undermines collegiality, and destroys friendships. Moreover, many participants in any kind of consensus or movement group find the courage of conviction somewhat difficult to muster, and their want of such courage often manifests itself in the form of prim little attacks upon the tone and manner in which others express their views.
Indeed, “I agree with you, but I don’t like your tone,” has become the bane of just about any effort to organize joint action. No sooner will a more zealous and intrepid soul venture an opinion than do more timid souls emerge to find fault, and to attempt police others’ tone. In fine, it is hard to muster any kind of commitment or conviction when one’s so-called friends are busy taking one to task.
A sentiment often attributed to Edmund Burke holds that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good persons to do nothing. (Originally, Burke is said to have used the word “men” in its all-inclusive and traditional signification. I changed it to “persons” precisely because I know that if I were to use the word “men” someone, somewhere would take umbrage and spin out of my word choice of whole lengthy attack on my sexist male chauvinist, piggery, flaming me in the process to a well done crisp, and utterly losing sight of the issue under discussion.) The corollary here is that evil triumphs when good people fight among one another over tone, word choice, or irrelevant, overwhelm-the-main-event sideshows.
So, if I sound a little despairing, it is because I am. I’m tired of unproductive flame wars and testy exchanges. In many communities, civic minded citizens attempt to coalesce, as Gandhi once counseled, to be the change they seek. Yet, such efforts often fail because group cohesion often takes second place to gratifying the felt need of specific individuals could be right, score points, and police the tone or thinking of other participants in the effort. Unpopular and embattled politicians often hold on to office not merely because their opposition splits in the run-up to the election, but because that opposition is never able to muster the will to cohesion upon which success and positive change depend. Call it the Austria-Hungary effect, thanks to which the Danubian Habsburg monarchy was able to hold itself together into the closing days of the Great War because the minority nationalities of the Monarchy hated each other more than they hated the Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King in Vienna or Budapest.
Scripture tells us in Mark’s Gospel that “a prophet is not without honor, but in his own country.” Jesus having been Jewish, he might with a wry smile have agreed with the later Yiddish proverb “no man is a hero to his Mishpokhe (family).” Any movement, even if ultimately successful, ultimately falls prey to its own internal contradictions. When the internal contradictions arise before a given movement or community of interest can reach a critical mass of self-sustaining, long-term cohesiveness, the movement dissolves.
Here in Cathedral City, the unexpectedly strong opposition movement to our unpopular incumbent Mayor came within 13 votes of ending the nine long winters of her tenure. Sadly, that movement seems to have Balkanized end fragmented, and when Councilmember Greg Pettis came under attack in the pages of the Desert Sun, those who rallied to his defense found themselves under attack from others who claimed to support the Councilmember, but who --- curious to say --- spent more time criticizing Mr. Pettis’s defenders for their tone than they did actually defending Mr. Pettis. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
If we are to ensure meaningful, positive change in our community, we will need to coalesce into a broad-based community movement whose members understand the importance of vigorous, zealous advocacy, organization, and action. Unfortunately, the recent flurry of flame wars and testy exchanges among those who should be at the forefront of being the change we seek leaves me skeptical that such a movement or bloc can survive long enough to reach a political critical mass.
Brothers and sisters in Cathedral City, prove me wrong! In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you, prove me wrong!
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and practices in Cathedral City. The views herein are his own and not anybody else’s, and he expects to be roundly attacked by hypersensitive umbrage-takers. Given what has happened of late, Mr. Marchand finds himself increasingly emotionally constipated, and has difficulty giving a shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment