some more thoughts on san francisco and the bigger world
I keep thinking about San Francisco, trying to pin down what this city is about. When I was young, I grew up with an idea that the city was home to a rare combination of progressive politics and cutting edge art. But in fact, it's really a conglomerate of villages controlled by an elite of some of the richest people in the world, who are amused by the spotty idealism of the city's residents. In a deeply schizophrenic way, this elite is able to reconcile its slash-and-burn capitalist activities with its vaguely liberal notions by passively tolerating occasional outbursts of populist activism. And by making an occasional donation to giant organizations like HRC, which have completely let go of any progressivism with their current support of anti-gay legislators.
This kind of passive tolerance is in direct odds to central European countries like Holland, Belgium, and Germany which, to use a very American term, proactively work to create cultures of tolerance, where an openly gay man can be elected mayor (Berlin), cities pride themselves on their active inclusiveness of foreigners and outsiders (Hamburg), become the first countries to allow gay marriage (Belgium and Holland), and generally work towards cultures that value life, relaxation, and peace, and actively resist the corrosively suicidal-pop-culture-government-policies of the United States.
Dissonance between what America professes to stand for and its death-wish tendencies has always existed, I don't actually think the country has changed much. But what has changed is that we now have a "Keystone Cops" (to quote Vonnegut) executive branch hell-bent on dragging this country through the mud and a popular resistance that took six years to materialize. I think one of the best analyses of the deeply dark side of this country was made by Lars von Trier in his film Dogville. I saw it in the Hague while I was living there. My only complaint at the time was the obviousness of his use of David Bowie's Young Americans as the closing-credit music. But in retrospect, I forgive him of that, it was a necessary brashness matched only by the movie's subject.
Comments
Auto insurance.
No, just kidding.
The HRC's reasoning is that they want to endorse candidates who can win and they want to build relationships with people. So Lieberman sucks, but he's the incumbent and they have a relationship with him. This is a serious conundrum for these kinds of groups. Do they ditch the person they've supported for years because some upstart is better, or do they stick with the not-so-great old guy who is probably going to win anyway?
Also, there is an idea that if they give money to people who suck, they might get those folks ear and talk some sense into them. (although why would anybody listen if they get the money anyway?)
I quit giving money to the HRC several years ago when they campaigned AGAINST adding trans protections to a non-discrimination act. They thought it would more likely pass without it and they were happy to throw trans people to the wolves. This is the evil that strategic thinking brings. You end up giving money to Liberman and voting for Kerry in the primaries. "Strategic" thinking is loser thinking. You never win by rolling over and playing dead, but that's what the giant left organizations, like the HRC and the DNC do over and over and over again. I can only figure that's because it's what their donors want. Maybe their donors are perfectly happy with fascism, it's not like they want anybody to fight it.
Posted by: Les | June 5, 2006 9:01 AM
Hi Les, my spam filter removed the "auto insurance" comment. Sadly. :)
"Strategic thinking is loser thinking."
I couldn't agree with you more! And that's so much the problem with the left in America right now, I think. People just keep settling for lowest common denominator solutions that lead nowhere.
I want to think that there is some new life coming into progressives in this country, but it's hard to be very optimistic. It just seems the whole debate is being handled sloppily by those on the left with power.
Posted by: roddy | June 6, 2006 1:10 PM