September 26, 2006
-
Taking Sides
James tries to bust my chops again by saying (in comments) that you can't have a war unless you take sides. The context of this statement is that I'm busting Republicans' chops for being inhumane inconsiderate partisan motherfuckers.
And you know what? It's true: It takes sides to tango into war. But if someone brings a war to you, you have to decide. And that's what's going on here. I'm not the one declaring war, to use your metaphor. To use a better metaphor, I'd take the opportunity to re-state the definition of the fallacy of the middle ground. Sometimes some people are wrong, and other people are right, and there are consequences to the fact that splitting the difference won't make the wrong people any more right. I might also use the metaphor of joining and spiraling, from aikido: Let's help these jerks find the floor before they hurt anyone else.
I understand from the excellent podcasts (and all the reading I'd done before) that the Fourth Way is about identifying 'I's and learning that we can't 'do.' And by not being able to 'do,' we're talking about shattering the illusion of false competence, shattering the illusion that we can accomlish things that we really can't. Setting sights on things that are real, rather than imagined or aspired-to.
And it's seductively easy to say that being passionate about the political situation is a 'do' that you really can't, because the world of the politician seems so remote, and requires so much energy, energy better spent figuring out that you can't 'do.' But that's artificial. That's not real. That's a cop out. It's like saying you can't breathe. Politics is what you *do* do. Yes, politics is do do. Politics is speech and action, and anyone who can speak or act in a meaningful way is being political when they do so.
It's simply true that trying to be above or outside politics, because of spiritual concerns, doesn't work. Some revolutionary shoots you and you end up dead despite your attempts to save his soul, your dying breath a prayer for his well-being. Politics, like all other forms of human behavior, is simply a context. It's a theater in which everyone works out their shit. Just like everything else. Just like time spent meditating, and just like time spent mugging elderly ladies to steal their social security checks.
Religion is politics. Spirituality is the politics of the esoteric world. Which policy will we enact in our mind? Which constitution shall all our 'I's ratify? We have to struggle with revolution of the mind. We have to form a more perfect union of intent. Declarations of 'mission accomplished' are almost always premature.
The inside and the outside aren't all that different. In fact, I'd argue that there's no boundary between them. It's true that everyone's situation can be elevated through spiritual practice. It's not true that this is 'do'able by ignoring the real conflicts around you.
Comments (8)
i also prefer to participate rather than stay outside. it's messy but then i can own the results.
Chuck and I go around and around on the same issue. Maybe thinking you can make a difference in this way is a Manly-Man thing. I prefer to go with my gut, which says that hey, people with wildly differing opinions can co-exist. And they co-exist better when they aren't being demonized and insulted, kthx.
I'm a deeply conservative woman. You have a set of assumptions about what that *means*, and all of them, all of them, are w-r-on-g wrong. My being conservative has no impact on your life whatsoever, any more than you being not-conservative has on mine. Wait, I might have less of an impact on you, because I don't blog sterotypes and partisan screeds.
To paraphrase--bitch about politics in one hand, shit in the other. Either way, you get stuck with the shit.
And as far as your "well OMG, they will march your meditating ass off somewheres and SHOOT YOU" thing--one, there is more than one way to resist, and two, they'll shoot you for bitching, too.
"Politics, like all other forms of human behavior, is simply a context." Excellent statement.
And yet here you are, Smarticus - engaging in the dialogue. That fact alone tells me that Homer's approach is better than merely "co-existing". Otherwise, how would your opinion be heard? And without your opinion, what will stop the spread of stereotypes?
The thing about stereotypes is that they're often misapplied. It's the archetypes that matter. And when the archetypical members of the other camp lie to start wars, condone torture, and spy on their countrymen - wel, perhaps a bit of demonizing and insulting is justified. Maybe more than a bit.
/me blinks at the light and crawls back under his apolitcal rock.
Politics is one person forcing her will on another person, but on a much larger scale. I'd rather not, thanks.
Smarticus: Where, exactly, specifically, did I say that *conservatives* were inhumane inconsiderate partisan motherfuckers? Because conservatism, the political philosphy, is not the target of my ire. And in this latest go-round, the conservative movement, the marriage of right-wing religion and politics, isn't my target, either. The target of my ire is the Republican Party, and right now, the GOP is not conservative in the slightest. You're conflating the two.
I really wish conservatives, that is *true* conservatives, people who claim the adjective, would start looking at the GOP and figuring out if they're really being served by these people. Because from where I sit, the Republicans are a bunch of lawless, wasteful, incompetents. How could this view be made untrue by having a different philosophy?
Homer, you hit it DEAD f*ckin on! Conservatives get all lit up when you talk about this current administration of Republicans, and they think that you are attacking THEM. What they don't realize is that true conservatives are being screwed just like the rest of us. True conservatives believe that government should "do less", should be less involved in the regulation of people's lives, and yet here we are with an administration that is in favor of violating as many of our civil liberties as it possibly can in 8 years, all under the guise of "security." I am conservative, although I embrace many of the ideals of the Democratic party, and I am APPALLED at the legislation that has been egested from the Bush administration over the last years. And it continues to be shat out constantly, while conservatives sit idly by and let these "lawless, wasteful, incompetent" and I add "greedy, dangerous, tyrannical, fascist" partisan motherf*ckers hi-jack the Republican party out from under them. The modern conservative that holds to ideals of self-sufficiency, self-governance, and state's rights (not the racist kind) HAS NO PARTY. The Dems have too many "moral issues" that these conservatives can't swallow, and the Republicans are just out and out EVIL incarnate (talk about a REAL moral issue....) You are so right, and more conservatives need to understand that! If they really want things to change the way they want them, they need to quit focusing on the Dems, and start trying to reclaim the party that belonged to them for so long!
I think it's important to concentrate on just a few criticisms of the Republican party. 'Lawless, wasteful, incompetent' is enough, really, and the thing is that the party can be changed to not be lawless, wasteful, or incompetent, given enough political will.
But if you talk about 'tyrranical' and 'fascist,' and apply these terms to the *whole* party, rather than, say, just the handful of people running the show, then you instantly marginalize yourself. It's a tricky thing to try and get people to wake up to the reality that has changed around them; you become a target for their ire. It's the truth-teller's archetypal story. No good deed goes unpunished.
Comments are closed.