Month: July 2020

For those of us wondering how American politics and political discourse got to the point where it is today, Hersh’s bit of work goes a long way to explaining the path that got us here.

While there are any number of crosswinds blowing across the barren plains of the American political landscape, Hersh lays the bulk of the blame on one particular subset of the population. I was all set for him to take down the big money interests, the Citizen’s United decision, the “deregulate everything at all costs” camp, gerrymandering, white nationalists, etc. Nope, he has his sights set elsewhere.

Drum roll, please.

And the winner is… white, educated, middle-class liberals.

Dammit.

For much of America’s white political left, political activism has become less of something to be engaged in and more of something to be observed. Politics has become a team sport for many. We get up in the morning, go to our preferred media outlet to check the most recent scores of how our team did yesterday, read about the pitching matchups scheduled for this afternoon and then, tomorrow morning, check back in on the results from today’s contest. We might engage in some online debate about who is the best designated hitter (or best choice for a VP pick or most productive middle linebacker) but let’s face it: it’s a hobby.

Fact #1: “Being white and financially comfortable makes it hard to understand a sense of fear that would push people to want power. Being white and comfortable means already having enough power. Only if you don’t need more power than you already have could politics be for fun. It’s when you don’t have as much as you need — that’s when politics is for power.”

Facts #2 – 18: “Within a political party, a union, or a church, [individual action] comes with too great a risk to the brand, or so organizations have learned. Over time, the risks have led to serious shifts in how organizations encourage individuals to participate. Party organizations want you to come around to them during elections, give some money, knock on some doors with a canned script, follow a procedure that keeps you from embarrassing them. Because the forms of these engagements feel so shallow, because they lack all substance … not many of us want to do that. To get our political fix, we can’t go to the local committee because the local committee doesn’t do anything interesting. Hobbyism fills the vacuum. Our taste for not dirtying our hands with actual politics combined with organizations’ desire to maintain top-down control results in many of us having a hard time learning how to channel our political energy in useful ways.”

Hersh’s solution? Hershlution™?

1. Recognize that politics (and resulting power) isn’t an intellectual pursuit about who has the best ideas. Case in point: political debates on Facebook.
2. Find a problem that other people are having and work to fix it. That’s where political power comes from. Case in point: my library is solving an ongoing problem for Spokane’s business community. Over the last decade we took what had been a political foe and turned them into a political cheerleader. We did this not by arguing our worth, but by solving a problem.
3. White liberals need to stop decrying “identity politics” as being divisive. Identity politics seem to be the only thing that has worked on the political left (Voting rights, civil rights, ADA, gay rights, etc.) so why would we not engage in and support identity politics? Oh, because we’re white. Right. Got it.
4. Find ways to be politically engaged that go beyond updating the daily scorecard. Take a percentage of the time that we currently use to “keep informed” and put that toward some other effort.
5. What is that “some other effort”? It’s up to you. A couple tips, however: make it local (the more hyperlocal the better) and make it meaningful to you. The broadest definition that I can think of is this: help your neighbors. Establish trust that you aren’t out to kill them.
6. Once that baseline has been established (it really is as rudimentary as that), only then do doors open up to political persuasion… and yes, power.

This is a book worth spending some time with. Go find a copy here: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1138706707

In 1942, a twenty-eight-year old member of the Polish underground, Jan Karski, left on a mission from Nazi-controlled Poland to travel to England and from there on to America. His goal was to inform world leaders of the horrors being inflicted on the Jewish populations under German control and implore the world to act.

In June, 1943, Karski met with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, himself a Jew. After hearing Karski’s description of the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto, exterminations in the concentration camps and atrocities, Frankfurter’s response was this: “Mr. Karski, a man like me talking to a man like you must be totally frank. So I must say I am unable to believe what you told me.” When a colleague of Karski’s attempted to add more details and weight to the argument, Frankfurter responded, “I didn’t say that this young man is lying. I said I am unable to believe him. My mind, my heart, they are made in such a way that I cannot accept it.”

Many of us find ourselves in Frankfurt’s position when it comes to climate change. We know, but we don’t believe. We know the projections and estimates. But we don’t believe the projections and estimates fall within our spheres of influence. And herein lies the thrust of Foer’s work.

I received this book as a Christmas gift from my cousin-in-law and at first glance I was dreading (another) book discussing the crashing and burning of the climate, chapter after chapter filled with tightening spirals of dire and gloomy data.

That is not this book.

This book assumes the reader already knows the data and estimates and projections. Foer then sets out to map the contours of our inaction. Sure, there are graphs and charts and numbers thrown in, but they really are beside the point. Knowing what we know, why are we not acting like we know what we know?

Most chapters in the book are presented in readily digestible sections of about five pages each. With one exception, which forms the heart of the book. This exception is a chapter entitled “Dispute with the Soul.” In this lengthy segment the reader is given a chair in the corner of the room while Foer debates with himself the causes of his inaction.

Does he believe that a technological solution will save us all?

Does he believe that there is nothing to be believed in?

Does he believe that humans are destined to consume their supporting environment, regardless of location?

Does he believe that he has any ability to change the outcome, one way or the other?

Throughout Foer’s conversation with himself, the takeaway is that the most important metric in terms of our individual impact on the world is not our distance from unattainable perfection but our proximity to unforgivable inaction. Our desire to avoid being caught up in inconsistencies that run counter to a certain ethic of care (imported Canadian pine shavings for my compost toilet, anyone?) leads us to a failure to act in a manner that reflects how dire things are. We have to get over that. We have to know that any action we take on behalf of the biosphere is going to be imperfect and flawed. And that’s okay. But what is unforgivable is inaction.

Oh, and yes, getting back to the actual title of the book: Foer suggests that if we all elected to not eat any animal-based products until at least lunch time, the effects on the climate would be significant. That seems doable.

Want to read a copy? Of course you do. Go find a copy here: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1097599395