On the Spread of Victimism
August 30, 2004
In this Sunday’s New York Times I read a book review by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg and learned that “The right’s Clinton hating was largely personality-driven. … Bush’s opponents, by comparison, despise the substance of his presidency.”
Granted, the stereotypical Clinton-loather tends to use a more plebeian form of discourse than people who read the Times and the latest Democrat agitprop over lattés. But it certainly cannot be said that the anti-Clinton right does not object to the substance of his presidency; it is a question of what counts as “substantial.”
Of course Weisberg knows the difference between “substantial” (legitimate) and insubstantial (illegitimate) objections and so do his implied readers. Substance is naturally on their side. If, as it seems, the Times is trying out Weisberg for graduation into “old-media,” he should get high marks for stylistic conformity to The Voice favored by the Times and its readers. You know it–that sage and slightly exasperated tone of simple bewilderment at the philistinism of red-state America. If The Voice does not prevail this election year, at least it is selling a lot of the agitprop that Weisberg reviewed.
I note, too, that Books & Culture editor John Wilson writes that he is tired of The Voice and the agitprop in the New York Review of Books himself. And, for those of us who dislike “conservative” agitprop as much as the “liberal” variety, B&C’s latest issue is delightfully free of it after a regrettable foray into the genre by Allan Guelzo last issue. Perhaps in B&C’s irenic and ecumenical pages someone will one day put forth a good answer to the vexed question of the nature and causes of popular loathings of particular presidents.
It is something that has perplexed me for years. Today Clinton can still be used to rouse the electorate against John Kerry, and that is fascinating in itself, but I doubt it is a phenomenon we can isolate on “the right.”
When I am in the States I make a point of visiting certain plebeian taverns where bad beer is sold cheaply, so I am very familiar with the sincerely held view that any and all criticism against the president, the war, &c. is the unholy maligning of “a good man” and a “necessary cause” by “evil” people. In my occasional studies at the great university bibliothéque of Crim Tartary, I sometimes meet American professors and am very familiar with these patrician “liberals” who must daily acknowledge that the Bush administration is oppressing them and the rest of the world. Friends tell me that some of these scholars even become physically ill from their agitation. How can this be?
Here is one theory: The left and the right have been playing “who is the real victim” for a good while. It is as if almost everyone shares a vulgar Marxist idea that he who has the most power must be the biggest evildoer. The applications are legion and very familiar on the left: cast Dick Cheney as Dr. Evil–except when he is playing the “supportive parent of a gay person” role. Describe Haliburton as a kind of supervillain conspiracy from a James Bond movie. And on the right, instead of arguing real pragmatic reasons to remove Saddam that can be debated, make him out to be Dangerous Dr. Evil. Despite an unprecendented run of political success, keep the rank-and-file in mortal fear of the ongoing cultural hegemony of liberal Democrats.
Victimism really should not appeal to true political conservatives, but perhaps the rise of the plebeian “moral majority”–refashioned now in the “religious right’s” self-understanding as a righteous minority–has introduced a new kind of conservative ethos among formerly withdrawn inheritors of failed theocratic dreams.
At any rate, while this sort of game is played, nobody really looks to questions of truth, justice or mere pragmatic dictates in a particular context with even a basic philosophical attitude. Each side is content to believe nearly everything “their side” says and to tar the others as complete liars and malicious propagandists. They are both correct in part–they are both liars and malicious propagandists, and some of the lies and propaganda are not devoid of a kernel of truth. But these people miss the real heart of the matter as they compete for the “true victim” status. There is no real analysis going on at all.
And maybe that is the point: demonization and emotionalism is in when analysis is out because it covers up the problem people don’t want to deal with: they have no secure basis, no comprehensive, well-articulated and well-understood doctrine. If “conservatives” and “liberals” didn’t keep each other so busy with the petty polemic, they would have to deal with this problem.
This is On the Spread of Victimism in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: Academic Standards | Next: Of Catholicism, catholicity, and “A Christian Review” | TrackBack (2) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On the Spread of Victimism:
» Of catholicism and “A Christian Review” from 1.4
New Pantagruelist Eugene McCarraher has an article on Max Weber in the latest issue of Books & Culture (not yet online), which is a rather unusual contribution to the magazine. McCarraher breaks the fourth wall of B&C’s anxious though typically… [Read More]
Tracked on September 14, 2004 08:51 PM
» Victimism from 1.4
On Victimism Notwithstanding the general lack of manners, there is thought and analysis going on today. But it’s easier and more fun to fight than listen and discuss. Slinging shit is real fun, and if you’ve got the money to… [Read More]
Tracked on September 8, 2005 08:21 PM