“There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad.”

by

Rebecca Solnit has written a column for The Guardian called “To my dismal allies on the US left”, and while she is discussing secular politics, some of what she has to say may resonate with people who are active on justice issues within the Episcopal Church.

What bothers her, she writes, “is not an analysis, a strategy, or a cosmology, but an attitude, and one that is poisoning us. Not just me, but you, us, and our possibilities.”


Solint adds:

…I want to lay out an insanely obvious principle that apparently needs clarification. There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad. The mentioning of something good does not require the automatic assertion of a bad thing. The good thing might be an interesting avenue to pursue in itself if you want to get anywhere. In that context, the bad thing has all the safety of a dead end. And yes, much in the realm of electoral politics is hideous, but since it also shapes quite a bit of the world, if you want to be political or even informed you have to pay attention to it and maybe even work with it.

Instead, I constantly encounter a response that presumes the job at hand is to figure out what’s wrong, even when dealing with an actual victory, or a constructive development. Recently, I mentioned that California’s current attorney general, Kamala Harris, is anti-death penalty and also acting in good ways to defend people against foreclosure. A snarky Berkeley professor’s immediate response began: “Excuse me, she’s anti-death penalty, but let the record show that her office condoned the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs.”

Apparently, we are not allowed to celebrate the fact that the attorney general for 12% of all Americans is pretty cool in a few key ways or figure out where that could take us. My respondent was attempting to crush my ebullience and wither the discussion, and what purpose exactly does that serve?

Solint wonders if the attitude she describes is “part of our country’s puritan heritage, of demonstrating one’s own purity and superiority rather than focusing on fixing problems or being compassionate. Maybe it comes from people who grew up in the mainstream and felt like the kid who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.”

Whatever the reason, she suggests it is time to give this sort of moral one-upmanship a rest. What do you think?

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwitterrss
Ann Fontaine
Guest
Ann Fontaine

Upon reading her column --it reminds me of when I went to All Saints Pasadena after GC in Anaheim (the first time) and George Regas was preaching - and I was thinking -- "but we won" shouldn't we be celebrating? I think it is hard for people who are so used to being on the losing side to shift their thinking to being magnanimous winners.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
MarkBrunson
Guest
MarkBrunson

I find it funny that, given her tone, she goes on to condemn the the idea of "demonstrating one's own purity and superiority" when the entire point of her tirade is exactly to demonstrate how much better she is than her "dismal allies." Frankly, I find people like her to be complacent and self-congratulatory, the "it's all gooooood" school of spurious social justice.

Mark Brunson

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
wpDiscuz