dagblog - Comments for "Dagbooks: Blowing Smoke - Chapter Two - Weep for Your Children"

This may be resolutely off

Flavius — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:32:38 +0000

This may be resolutely off thread but Thatcher went a very long way towards converting the NHS from a loved institution to short hand for something that doesn't work.

Presumably if, pace Maggie, there's actually such a thing as society , its strength is affected by the existence of institutions. If conversely your goal is a society that isn't , actually ,well ,a society , than you're right on target by weakening any institution that works.

Self fulfilling prophecy sort of describes that.

At least Maggie didn't say

when I hear the word society I reach for my gun.

Same here, Doc. I think

LisB — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:01:40 +0000

In reply to I thought the historical

Same here, Doc. I think Genghis was brilliant in putting that out there first, in his second chapter, because as I've been reading further into the book, the thesis he started there is a building block that he (thankfully) goes back to again and again later on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a) I am up to Chapter 7 and should sort of slow down in order to catch up with Orlando's weekly posts while the chapters are still fresh in my mind, and b) I love how Genghis touches upon his "reminders" for the reader throughout the book, bringing up points he made in this second chapter later on, and tying them together with his new thoughts and theories that he brings up in addition, later on. It's very well done, it's NOT repetitious, it's just a gradual and subtle reminder of the big theme. And it keeps me wanting to read more.

The distinction you make

moat — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 01:51:13 +0000

In reply to AT, I think that your

The distinction you make between "generalized" oppression and the specific persecution of a particular group helps me think through more clearly what I was fumbling with in my first comment. I haven't gotten your book yet (I will try to snag it this weekend) but it seems you are describing how the actual removal of privileges held by a specific group morphed over time into a belief that they are still being singled out for punishment; now for being Christians. The idea of transformation over time makes me want to make a distinction between what happens to a group of people and the development of codes that compete in a public space beyond a group. Your example of how Wallace was using the expression "American People" is a perfect example of how political expression works simultaneously in different realms of meaning. This dynamic explains why there is so much debate over whether the Tea Party really is talking about something that oppresses "us" or is code for something else.

Another Trope's description of how Liberals came to be perceived by a constellation of associations as much as by the articulation of ideas is important because it focuses on the alienation many conservatives experienced. His mention of how that played out in academia is worth expanding upon (especially since you focus on the changes in colleges over time). The output of the last fifty years of conservative writers has been done in the language of protest against received Liberal ideas. The line here between what is general oppression and a particular intention to maginalize a group gets all mixed up in the arguments they had with each other. Outside that conversation, there was a much larger group who were generally put off by how they were pegged intellectually and socially by a majority consensus that they didn't share. I submit that the combination of these two elements played a signicant part of who came to self identify as conservative in the last four decades.

The question I ask, Genghis, is whether you see the group who see themselves as being specifically targeted by a powerful cabal is part of a continuum of a larger conservative movement or something else?

It's a good point. The

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:24:00 +0000

In reply to I agree basically with what

It's a good point. The "culture" in Culture War has become fairly meaningless these days. It once represented fierce battles over art, film, music, etc. Here's one of my favorite anti-secular-humanist bits from Blowing Smoke:

Dallas Cowboy coach Tom Landry, whose political opinions were important because of his coaching record, warned the audience of a massive prayer rally that secular humanism was "sweeping America." As an example of its influence, he cited the film On Golden Pond, explaining, "The language was as bad as I've ever seen in a movie." (According to the New York Times, On Golden Pond, rated PG, "includes some slightly vulgar words in its dialogue.")

Thanks, AA. I would add that

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:19:11 +0000

In reply to re: backlash against early

Thanks, AA. I would add that the persecution of socialists and anarchists was also connected to anti-immigrant xenophobia, as demonstrated by the Sacco-Vanzetti case. In the little discussed First Red Scare, an actual anarchist bomb plot sparked a national wave of anti-labor xenophobic hysteria.

But again, this was a case of real persecution against a minority. What's distinctive about today's right-wing persecution politics is that the dominant majority imagines that it's being persecuted. It's more akin to Serbian nationalism, in which members of the dominant Serb population convinced themselves that they were being persecuted by "Turks."

Wow, that looked a lot better

Atheist — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:34:24 +0000

In reply to And, of course, there's a

Wow, that looked a lot better before I posted it. :P

And, of course, there's a

Atheist — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:33:45 +0000

In reply to And I think one problem for

And, of course, there's a whole bunch of other semantic questions: what exactly is an agnostic? what is an atheist?

I prefer to put those on orthogonal axes. Here are my definitions: A weak agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not there's a god or gods. A strong agnostic is someone who thinks it is unknowable whether or not there is a god or gods. A weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods (negative belief - or the lack of belief). A strong atheist is someone who believes there are no gods (positive belief in the lack of deities).

I consider myself both a strong agnostic and a strong atheist. Although some atheists claim to be weak atheists (although they don't use that term), presumably because it precludes them from having to justify any belief, I don't think any such people exist, beyond early childhood at least. Some atheists are not agnostic at all. They think there can be no doubt whatsoever. I think most atheists at least acknowledge that, in theory, there's room for doubt. I think the chances of a deity existing are about the same as the chances that I'm actually living in a simulation, à la The Matrix. I can't rule either possibility out (seriously), but I also live my life on the very strong assumption that the world is as I perceive. I could go on, but I'll spare y'all. (FWIW, prior to my "conversion" to atheism I did have religious experiences, so I also reject the idea that religions are completely evidence free and that atheism does not require any faith whatsoever. OK, I'll stop now.)

And I think one problem for

LisB — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:57:53 +0000

In reply to Interesting. In thinking

And I think one problem for agnostics is that they all too often get lumped in with atheists, or "other", and get considered by some as "non-spiritual", which is far from accurate.

re: backlash against early

artappraiser — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:27:56 +0000

In reply to AT, I think that your

re: backlash against early 20th-century socialists and anarchists

I would say decades before the early-20th century--since their banner year of 1848--socialists and anarchists are often dangerous, if romantic, characters in late 19th-century novels and plays.

By 1892 and for many years thereafter, everyone coming into Ellis Island was asked "whether an anarchist?" (as well as "whether a polygamist?")--you can see the question on the ship logs on the Elllis Island website when you research your ancestors, and their answer. Like today, when we are asked at the airport if anyone else helped pack our bags, everyone, even the illiterate, knew to say no.

I have read from many issues of The Masses magazine published from 1911-1917. From that, I would say that by that time there were a lot of persecution issues, where all socialists and communists felt tarred as potential anarchist terrorists, and a majority of persecution was seen as by the Feds. They spent a lot of time and energy trying to counter their image in the populace. The editors went out of their way to cover Federal cases against their own kind and slanted the stories heavily to make them all seem to be entrapment or just plain made up out of thin air (some were definitely that, as though some might not believe it, our law enforcement was quite a bit looser about ethics in those days.) Odd, or maybe not, that "the Feds," the awesome state is/are often a main enemy of the "persecuted," whether left or right activist.

P.S. Early 20th-century law enforcement against these groups wea not just free speech issues i.e., Margaret Sanger or John Reed, there were also more than a few actual bomb plot cases like are going on now with supposed Al Qaeda. Communists and socialists had a similar problem to Muslims today in being suspected as sympathetic to such actors, you wouldn't want their club in your neighboorhood unless you were the free-lvoing bohemian Greenwich Village:

Here's a few pages on NYC's anti-radical bomb squad in 1914 and a bombing in St. Pat's Cathedral:

which I recall was covered heavily by The Masses as a complete entrapment job, as the author there recounts. And of course, the 1927 Sacco Vanzetti case became a famous cri de coeur for all leftists who felt persecuted. But whether or not guility as charged, they were Galleanists and like wikipedia says For three years, perhaps 60 Galleanists waged an intermittent campaign of violence against US politicians, judges, and other federal and local officials, especially those who had supported deportation of alien radicals.

I agree basically with what

Elusive Trope — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:06:50 +0000

In reply to AT, I think that your

I agree basically with what you have said. When I talked about the persecution by the "the Man" through popular culture expressions, I was thinking in part of the subgroups. There are plenty examples, but for whatever reason the movie Billy Jack comes to mind. We can see it today in contemporary rap music where the Man, personified by the police, is seen as the persecutor. And how many times I have heard some conservative bring up the lyrics of rap songs to justify their persecution politics and general agenda.

My main point about the sixities wasn't that it was the first time for progressive radicalization, but rather that this progressive radicalization occurred at time of an expanding mass media. In large part because of the Vietnam War seemed to politicize everything, the expressions in popular culture were fast and furious in a way that defined what being liberal was, whether it should have or not. The impressions left behind by these expressions built up over time and played a role in the defining of what many conservatives understood liberalism to be. So while the progressive radicals were working on implementing their political agenda, what many conservatives saw as the liberal agenda had more to do with their impressions of a Grateful Dead concert. And because they saw everything as threating from Elvis' hips to ganstarap, and all this was meshed into those on the other side, the liberals, they were more easily led down the path to believe that the "secular humanists" or whatever one called them that day were out to get them and tear down their values and culture.