By now, Agre's piece on Conservatism has made the rounds.
There is no doubt that he's right on the history. At every point in modern time European conservatives and their American progeny fought against the expansion of citizenship rights, and fought for the preservation of an aristocratic hegemony largely based on inheritance rather than merit. I think much of modern black conservatism fits here as well--definitely the works of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and old Glenn Loury. The works of conservative blacks are much more amenable, as I believe they are about preserving what SHOULD be preserved--the best of black American tradition and culture. I believe this heritage to be "naturally" democratic. I place "naturally" in quotes because if Asians were enslaved rather than Africans we'd be making the same argument about "yellow" American tradition and culture.
But there are caveats here.
Stanley Crouch and Albert Murray for example would both drown hip-hop if they could--all comments about "I only mean gangster rap" notwithstanding. And even though Cosby has spent more loot on trying to help black people than most people with his wealth it is also very clear where he stands.
Reading the Agre piece though the one thing that really stood out for me was the following quote:
The spiritual leader of modern liberalism, Martin Luther King, taught nonviolence. This has been narrowly construed in terms of not killing people. But, as King made clear, it has other meanings as well. You have to love your enemies. This is difficult: the reality of conservatism is so extreme that it is difficult even to discuss without sounding hateful. There is also an intellectual dimension to nonviolence. Nonviolence means, among other things, not cooperating in the destruction of conscience and language. Nonviolence implies reason. Analyze the various would-be aristocracies, therefore, and explain them in plain language, but do not stereotype them. Nonviolence also has an epistemological dimension. Few of us have the skill to hate with a clear mind. Conservatism is very complicated, and you cannot defeat it by shouting slogans. This is the difficulty with Michael Moore. He talks American, which is good. But he is not intellectually nonviolent. He is not remotely as bad as Ann Coulter, and liberals have criticized him much more thoroughly than conservatives have criticized Ann Coulter. But he is not a model for liberal politics. There is no doubt that Martin Luther King would be in George Bush's face. But how? That is why liberals need a language.
I used to slit throats for a living. Some people think I still do. My students mainly. But while I still believe in wrecking fools, I have grown more and more interested in what Agre calls the epistomological dimension of nonviolence. What does it mean to disagree with someone without being disagreeable? To FORCEFULLY disagree without slapping the shit out of somebody, physically or intellectually? It's one thing to fight back in the spirit of self-defense. I haven't gone King in the face of someone trying to take me out. But it's a totally different thing to purposely go on the attack to demean and dehumanize someone.
I still maintain the option of pulling the Ginsu out. But I'm not trying to use it anymore unless I really have to. Our goal isn't to eradicate the enemy. Our goal is to convert the enemy. Because we all live here...and we aren't going anywhere.
Posted by at August 18, 2004 07:43 PM | TrackBackBut who is the enemy?
Posted by: Golasso at August 19, 2004 08:40 AMHm. I'd say that anyone who believes and acts upon the fakelore of white supremacy is an enemy.
I can make a strong argument against my own position...the term "enemy" itself does not imply a particularly nonviolent position, as it suggests war not against powers and principalities (King, from the New Testament), but against PEOPLE. I have to think about this some more.
Posted by: Lester Spence at August 19, 2004 09:17 AMThere is a problem with accepting King's demeanor as a strategy rather than as a tactic. In King's world, in order to be to consistent you must be physically non-violent, even in the face of physical violence. Ultimately you must sacrifice, and this is where King fails.
If you are willing to sacrifice people's lives in defense of a principle, what is the added value of sending them into battle unarmed? If people are going to die, and you know it, why not give them weapons with which to fight? This is the dilemma. Non-violence must therefore be a tactic and not an strategy, because as long as the enemy is willing and able to use violence, he will win. I touch upon this vis a vis Spawn Camping.
Intellectually, it is a bit different. Can one be intellectually non-violent and yet militant? I think this is the essence of diplomacy. Yes. But assuming you are strictly non-violent it means that there is a certain level of attacking you cannot do. You therefore must dismiss. You can only afford to dismiss if you are willing to be silent while your enemy talks.
To me this sets up an interesting dynamic, because what's going on today in political advocacy is that both sides are trying to reach more people, and they are doing so by vulgarizing their messages. You have grains of truth carried on foul winds. But some folks only pay attention when they can smell the stink, and their voice (when it comes to voting) is just as weighty as the most civil and erudite of us.
Sure you can say we're above all that and refuse to acknowledge 'gangsta rap politics', but they're selling and nobody is going to pull the plug on them. They're too powerful. You get to the point where the foul winds are carrying more sand than sweet breezes - people are not paying attention to the civil discourse.
The only way to reverse this problem is to cut people out. You basically have to put your foot down, from a position of authority and reject the messenger and the horse he rode in on. In other words, you have to do what Clinton did to Sistah Soulja. Completely disown her and everybody she speaks for.
Now you tell me who has the balls for that.
3597 http://www.play-poker-i.com
Posted by: http://www.play-poker-i.com at October 1, 2004 07:20 AM
I still maintain the option of pulling the Ginsu out. But I'm not trying to use it anymore unless I really have to. Our goal isn't to eradicate the enemy. Our goal is to convert the enemy. Because we all live here...and we aren't going anywhere.
Well said.
Too bad the goal of others is eradication.
Posted by: DarkStar at August 19, 2004 05:52 AM