I have no idea if this is the right approach, or what it will accomplish, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be my approach going forward. As far as I'm concerned, this election marked the end of political correctness, and I'm no longer going to be polite about the pussy grabbers or the Church of Child Molesters or the white nationalists or anything else.
This idea that people like me have bruised the tender feelings of morons has been bullshit - up until now. Going forward, I'm not going to fret much about their feelings.
Mostly, this means that there are people who are just off my list -- who I won't be interacting with. But if people expect me to continue to tolerate bullshit in the Era of Trump, they are going to be surprised.
Will this be helpful? Is it a prescription for social improvement? I don't know. I just think that one has to live one's life with a minimum level of integrity, and that requires not pretending that the direction of politics in this country is acceptable.
Thanks for linking her essay, Mossy and Heebie.
I've long loved her writing, and this essay reminded me strongly of Eye of the Heron, one of her novels. It was challenging to me for exactly the reasons she writes--one of the cultures is non-violent to the point of no longer valorizing war and violence; it was quite foreign.
I'm not quite on-board with part about the river goes lowest and accepts foulness... mostly because modern processes have overwhelmed the old "dilution is the solution to pollution" mindset. Rivers have a limit to the foulness they can cleanse before they become part of the problem, spreading contaminants downstream from city to city, until the river finally catches fire or poisons the downstream towns.
I worry that modern propaganda is similarly unprecedented in its corruption. By which I mean that I was dismayed when my country club republican aunt (in-law) approvingly linked to Breitbart with a note that she'd finally decided to check it out and that it's nothing like the mainstream media has painted it. That's pretty slick.
2: I think we also have to consider the possibility that country-club Republicanism is nothing like the way that the mainstream media has painted it.
If there's one American institution that's long been known for openness and tolerance it's the country club.
3,4: I suppose. I haven't interacted with her a lot, but she did a lot of museum work, so I hoped that she was more "a tax cut at any price" rather than culturally regressive.
I wonder what objectionable thing she was imagining from the "mainstream media" portrait? AFAIK even literal Nazi propaganda doesn't make people blink these days. (Literal pogroms, I think yes.)
The country club republicans are a lost cause. This year was their chance and they blew it. A little discussed issue is the extent to which urban republicans are trampling their cities' futures. Despite the (very real) urban-rural divide, my urban county went like 36% for Trump. Many suburban and rural counties weren't nearly that close. Hense, we will never get the transit upgrades we need and the suburbanites will take even longer to commute to their McMansions (unfortunately along with the working/middle class people priced out of the city).
As for engagement, I think fucking shit up and giving no quarter over several things are not just good for virtue but good politics. No Nazis! Yes Medicare! But I wonder if it wouldn't be too costly, at this early stage of our decline, to counter the rural revolt where it lives. Maybe engagement and presence is almost as politically valuable as agreement. Organizers should get into some these communities and organize them around nonpartisan local issues and community concerns. If folks want to be listened to, I think that's likely a low-cost way to take back the upper Midwest without tearing the whole party apart or compromising core values.
Literal pogroms, I think yes.
I bet people were saying that in 1934, too.