Providing what certain wags designate High Quality Child Care means political events often move too quickly to provide the in-depth ruminating that's called for. But this doesn't mean there's nothing to say when you're pressed for time. In the wake of the still-evolving but it-don't-look-good struggle to preserve labor rights going down in Wisconsin, a few ideas pop out.
1) A consistent trope I've come across in the many pages, posts and tweets dedicated to the Wisconsin showdown has been the notion that the fourteen Democratic senators who decamped across the border to Illinois represent some kind of cowardly capitulation - "gutless wonders," as one particularly stirred-up individual put it, who need to be dismissed by their constituents on "the grounds of cowardice" for not staying put and fighting for what they "believe" (with "believe" in scare quotes in the original, suggesting, I suppose, a lack of belief). One could debate the merits of crossing state lines to block legislation, but I'm more fascinated by the unchecked desire for heroes and men of action implicit in the charge of "cowardice". Have we reached a point in our cultural narrative when only face-to-face combat and metaphoric violence is considered acceptable? Do we no longer subscribe to a general belief in the merits and power of non-action, protest votes, and peaceful resistance? Would observers be more likely to throw support behind Wisconsin Democrats if they barricaded themselves inside offices brandishing swords, or took schoolchildren hostage while the tinny cacophony of Rage Against The Machine blared from their iPhones? Might there still be a recognition that the actions of the Wisconsin 14, albeit perhaps more than a little self-serving and media-savvy, are in the grand tradition of Henry David Thoreau refusing the poll tax or Abraham Lincoln leaping from a second-story window in the Illinois House of Representatives in 1840 to prevent a quorum (look it up, it's a little-noted event)?
2) Out of the many justifications for the smoke-and-mirrors trick employed by wily GOPers early this morning, in which a vote was called for and closed before all present Democrats could participate, is the forcefully-argued suggestion that it simply one-upped the opposition in the dirty trick department. You dashed across state lines to block the vote, we'll slide the vote past you if you're not paying attention. Fair enough. Except I insist there remains a large and insidious difference between the two methods employed. Fleeing and holding up legislation undeniably denies others their right to vote - but it also removes the fleeing individual's vote from the equation. Neither individual gets to vote. Unfair, yet, fair. The 1 AM quick-vote, on the other hand, denies one group the right to vote (the Democratic senators present) while managing to get one's own vote in regardless. Hence, only one individual gets to vote. I don't believe this is an example of splitting hairs - and moreover, the act of suppressing votes in any capacity is emerging as a key strategy for the rightward-leaning. Put simply: I get to vote, and you don't.
3) One of the more unpleasant exchanges I witnessed (well, read) over the past week involved a vote on Wednesday by the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization in Madison to "restrict access to meeting rooms and legislative offices after normal business hours" in the Capitol - a move designed to move along the many protesters who have clogged the hallowed halls of government. A perennial thorn in the side of one progressive friend wondered aloud why this was a big deal or even troubling - after all, people do not ordinarily get to sleep in other state buildings after business hours. In addition, it was pointed out, even the homeless people sleep outside of the library, not in and among the stacks. You'll note that this is not exactly conflating the protesters with the homeless, but you get the sense the author wouldn't exactly mind if you made that conclusion. Given my own experiences in libraries w/r/t homeless individuals (have I ever related the time I found a guy eating chicken wings, smoking a cigar, and drinking vodka straight from the Seagram's bottle? remind me to), and the sort of mind that recalls how often protesters of any stripe are dubbed "bums" by opposition forces, I spoke out. The response noted that homeless people were actually taking advantage of the situation involving the protesters to sleep inside the capitol. I believe this nugget was supposed to scandalize me. In a way, it did. I don't often practice the slimy art of self-congratulation, but here, in this exchange, lies perhaps as clear a distillation possible of the wide gulf separating us progressives from more reactionary types. On the one hand, outrage at a bold power grab meant to wrest bargaining power away from the last vestiges of the American middle class. On the other, equal outrage that a handful of homeless people ("handful" is not my invention, by the way - straight from the article cited) are escaping the brutal Wisconsin February night to sleep inside. Being right doesn't help advance any cause, big or small. But once in a while, it feels good to remind oneself that one is, in fact, on the right side.
4) Song lyric enjoyed ironically this morning : "So many people / have their problems/ I'm not interested / in their problems. / I guess I've / experienced some problems / But now I've / made some decisions. / Other people's problems / they overwhelm my mind / They say compassion is a virtue / but I don't have the time." - Talking Heads, "No Compassion"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment