I frequently wonder if I am living in the same universe as everyone else. Is the world going to hell in a hand basket or is it me? Is everything meaningless now or is it me? Is nothing sacred; is there nothing to hope for; does the arc of history not really bend toward justice or is it just me? I hope it's just me, but my hope is thin.
Having plenty to do to occupy my mind and, as often as possible, to amuse myself to excess, I can usually ignore the decrepit state of my universe, but Twitter has a way of snapping me to. This is never more true I find than when some current event reminds people of the deep conflict between those who thought that the greatest evil in the presidential election of 2016 was Donald Trump and those who thought the greatest evil was voting for either of the 2 likely winners. Those who didn't vote at all (41% of the eligible adult population) can generally hold their peace and don't seem to be blamed (much) (nor should they be) by either side of that eternal debate. It's the much smaller but more disproportionately visible online cohort of Jill Stein stalwarts who are blamed by and who blame the anti-Trump left when some blameworthy event happens.*
In general the sky did not fall because Donald Trump won in 2016. He used executive power mainly to undo the modest environmental and diplomatic accomplishments of his predecessor as well as to intimidate the vulnerable with threats of eviction, but his exposure of the froth at the heart of our power structure was arguably a service. For all of his bluster and show and the real pleasure he gave and took in owning his haters, real action was too real to be part of his agenda. As clownish as Trump's response to COVID was, Joe Biden's lackluster performance for the duration of his turn at the helm of the crisis so far has betrayed the reality that matters of public health and apocalypse may have a life of their own that politics-as-usual can barely touch. Certainly Trump's graceless reluctant exit aside, if there are two areas in which he caused real damage, they were his gift of the treasury to his class in the form of massive tax cuts at the end of his first year, and the murdering of any hope of reversal of conservative precedents or protection of human rights on the part of the federal judiciary with the selection of 3 young reactionary Supreme Court justices and 28% of all currently sitting Federal judges-- a success rate in his 4 years well above average compared to his 3 most recent predecessors over each of their 8 years.
Each milestone in the progress of Trump's domination of the Supreme Court has reliably caused the conflict between anti-Trump and pro-Stein partisans to flare. The latest has been the long expected imminent dismantling, nearly 50 years after Roe v Wade was decided, of the scant remaining Federal protection of a woman's right to abort an unplanned, dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. The end of this protection will immediately mean that in half of the united states, caregivers who perform abortions, and the women who seek them will be subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and-- who knows really-- perhaps worse. Of course the poorest most marginalized women will be impacted the most, but it's foolhardy to think that even a more well-off citizen of an anti-choice jurisdiction who travels to terminate a pregnancy in a state where it's still allowed (for the moment) will not ultimately be vulnerable to the whims of any ambitious two-bit DA with the power to prosecute her. None of this would have been possible without a Senate in which, thanks to a constitutional requirement that each state regardless of its population have equal representation, 50 percent of the body represents less than 40% of the population. Never mind what the majority of Americans actually want; minoritarian meanness has been enshrined.†
So assuming you think this is a tragedy for the left (let alone for women, for America, for democracy, for freedom), are Jill Stein 2016 supporters culpable in the erosion of civil liberties by letting Trump happen, or were Hillary Clinton voters responsible by virtue of their complicity in Hillary Clinton's failed campaign to forestall a Trump victory?
While my views about all of this have mellowed a bit since peak-irascibility in the earlier part of the previous administration, I continue to find myself preoccupied with the implications of this rift when it comes to prospects for meaningful change that we want. I have come to see the 2 sides as exemplary of 2 dispositions toward the progress of leftist ideals in replacing the status quo which both agree has got to go. The Jill Stein side (and others who were perhaps actively indifferent to either likely outcome of 2016) could be viewed as being disposed to "accelerationism"-- letting the capitalist system implode on its own and presumably leaving an opening for the building of a socialist future. Those who voted unsuccessfully to prevent a Trump win might be termed to have a more "incrementalist" disposition-- a strategy of working within the system to effect -- eventually-- socialist change. Although the "incrementalist" strategy did not prevail in 2016, neither did the "accelerationist" outcome result in socialism. 2020 was in some ways a replaying of this dynamic, with a different outcome, but still no socialism.
The rightist intellectual underpinnings of accelerationism as a political philosophy help explain the openness of that contingent of the left to forming alliances on the right in contrast to their contemptuous attitude toward aligning with the incrementalist left. The antipathy is mutual. But while left "accelerationism vs. incrementalism" is the rift that keeps on rifting, I seriously doubt there are a great number of intellectual adherents of either strategy on the left. I don't doubt that they exist, but my suspicion is that for most of us, it is not a philosophical commitment but rather a matter of temperament, personality, personal history, taste, capacity to hope, supply of patience, even whimsy that determines which side a person is going to be on at any moment.
Let me be clear, it's not that I believe in incrementalism, or that I prefer a leisurely stroll to a revolved society. I simply don't trust that a societal breakdown would resolve to an improved state. If I were a gambler, my money would be on repressive fascism as the victor of that contest. To think otherwise takes a faith that I do not have, or at best a lack of concern about the outcome that I cannot muster. For change that materially benefits people's lives to happen, the prison of my sense of prudence dictates that the surest direct route to it is through systemic change which experience shows happens relatively incrementally-- in fads, fashions, cultural breezes, laws-- when it happens at all. A lifetime of disappointment has taught me that the forces that power our current system's endurance in spite of its decrepitude should never be underestimated-- incrementalism demonstrably staves off incremental rightist regress as often as it advances leftist progress. It could be argued that incrementalism takes a bit of faith as well, but speaking as an accidental incrementalist, I can attest that it's not faith but merely compulsion, and at best a faint hope that given natural attrition and changes in circumstances (it's happened before-- March 2020 for instance), sands could shift under the power structure enough that government for the people could make some reappearances-- although no doubt success most often takes the form these days of full throttle dystopian fascism being mitigated one more day.
It sounds so lame when I say it out loud, but ultimately that is my point. My obsession with this topic of late does not stem from any desire to persuade to my point of view. § My only point of view is that we need change. I think I agree with the accelerationists (of the left; not of the right) on what that change should be like. Neither of us knows how to get there-- nothing has worked yet-- but may we please take stock in the numbers of us who will do anything to make it happen.
~~~~~
* By the anti-Trump left I of course do not mean those who to any degree blame Clinton's general election loss to Trump on Bernie Sanders’ remarkably successful primary challenge. Those are the Clinton true believers. I'm talking about the Clinton-voting nose holders, most of whom had been Bernie Sanders supporters. This is a distinction the Jill Stein partisans do not always make.
† It's encouraging that there is a contingent of activists openly expressing their intention to educate about modern means of flouting anti-choice legislation by the use of abortifacient medications. Protection is not guaranteed, but the fostering of a spirit of active contempt of a Law of the Land that is increasingly contemptible is to be applauded.
§ And by the way, to anyone who can explain why incrementalism is an obstruction to getting people to what they want in a way that accelerationism isn't, don't antagonize me. Convince me!
No comments:
Post a Comment