Not Your Everyday Erinyes

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

We’ve talked here, and probably all of us have read elsewhere, about why “conservatives” think the way they do, if you can call it thinking – since it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense most of the time. I keep coming back to the concept that they don’t have a moral code, not in the sense that we do, but instead substitute a hierarchy which tells them what to do. Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and author whose description of conservative thinking presents the concept of this hierarchy in the context of a story, which she calls “The Ancestral Story,” and if I may put it this way, she adds a lot of meaty story to the bare bones hierarchy, so that it looks like something resembling human. She used to be, but no longer is, an Evangelical herself, so she has some pretty intimate knowledge.

In a short paragraph which (intentionally or not) responds to the question we so often ask of “Why do Republicans so consistently vote against their own interests?”:

Liberal social policies benefit many conservative voters, especially those who are struggling to get by, but they almost all, to some degree, threaten the conservative cultural narrative. To people who have internalized that narrative and played by its rules, expecting specific perks from society in return, that threat can feel personal and visceral. 

But Ms. Tarico goes beyond analyzing the conservative story to looking at the liberal story – and has discovered that there isn’t one. Most simply put, there are two, and those two stories go a long way toward explaining why we couldn’t get it together in 2016 – and why getting it together in 2018 is NOT going to be simple or easy. But we need to do it, and I think we should give her a look.

I truly hope to inspire everyone who reads this to read both articles in full, doing whatever the online equivalent is of highlighting passages which induce that “click” of recognition of truth. For that reason, and for the reason of fair use, my quotes will be short.

The liberal stories, as I said, are two in number; the one which is perhaps a little more obvious is “The Social Liberal Story.” It is primarily through doing their best to live this story that activists of the 60’s. 70’s, 80’s came to be (or maybe I should say “become”) liberal.

Dig deep enough into a liberal activist, down to what one might dare to call the spiritual level, and I often heard something along these lines: We’re all in it together. There’s no such thing as a self-made man. I actually am my sister’s keeper. Everybody needs a hand up sometimes. One local leader, Eric Liu, contrasted a rightwing icon, the cowboy, with the image of a barn-raising — rugged individualism in a world of gunslingers vs. collaborative construction in organized community. Many of those interviewed thought of their activism as giving back or paying forward what had been given to them….

In contrast to the common rightwing metaphor of government as an authority figure, thought leaders on the left depicted government as a tool—one we use to create inclusive wellbeing and build shared assets that get handed down to future generations.

Of course we (and I say we, being in and of that generation) didn’t invent any of this. It goes back to ancient Athens, to the words of Jesus (such as the words in Matthew 25), to the Magna Carta, to the Enlightenment, even to the French Revolution (before that Revolution ran up against the other story.) And throughout history, it was not always taken literally! The words of the Declaration of Independence, for example, did not exactly mean to our founders what they mean to us. But we embraced it, continued to strive for it, and still continue to strive for it. I see that striving in myself, and I also see it in the actions, past and present, and the words of many others here.

The other story Ms. Tarico calls “The Structural Oppression Story,” and it goes like this::

All prosperous capitalist societies—including, especially, the European democracies and the U.S.—were built by oppressors on the backs of the oppressed. Modern America was built by stealing the land of American Indians, commandeering the sweat and blood of black slaves, keeping women in the kitchen, oppressing brown-skinned immigrants, and exploiting Europe’s former colonies. Virtually all societal ills derive from this one fact—structural oppression—and redressing this wrong will fix most others. “Everything flows from racism,” a young white activist commented on Facebook. Many of her peers agree.

Well, I believe this story has a lot of validity too. But I didn’t always see it. I had to become “woke” – and, believe me, if my striving to live the first story is a work in progress, this story is a work which for me has barely begun.

It’s no [redacted] wonder, as Ms. Tarico doesn’t exactly say, that activists who are coming from this story sound exasperated, and raw. This is a story of people who are “done making nice, done waiting politely,” and of others “who are horrified at their own history.” Well, color me horrified. Just don’t color me white. I am lavenderish-pinkish-beige, thank you, and my race is “HUMAN.”

With the Social story as a basis, we did accomplish things. But we didn’t accomplish enough. And what we did accomplish was so fragile that all it took was one Trump to blow it away. I feel strongly that we still need it. But we need the Oppression story too. For one thing, we desperately need the light of truth – and the Oppression story is filled with truth. We need it now more than ever.  I think most of us have both stories in us to some degree, but nuanced.  And we really need to get our act together – not to agree on everything necessarily, but to work together.

If you have any doubt that this is a serious divide which has the potention to trip us up, read what Democrats are saying about Conor Lamb’s special election victory in Pennsylvania. Lamb, you may remember, is the candidate who was the target of quite possibly the worst political ad in all of recorded history. (If you decide to watch, do turn the volume down. I can only describe it as “shrill.”)

He also is close to the definition of a Blue Dog – and Blue Dog Democrats think that every Dem candidate should be exactly like him – regardless of the state or the district’s particular makeup and views. No, no, no. But he is better than a Republican!

Alecto, Megaera, Tisiphone, this week I think you should come after us (please be gentle.) Prod us to the soul searching that we need to do so that we can both make peace, and encourage the best candidates for every district and state, in every district and state. Because, if we ever needed to win nationally by a landslide, now is the time.

The Furies and I will be back.

Cross posted to Care2 HERE.