Angry Populism and Compassionate Nonviolence

As inequality worsens, anger-driven populism increases. As one of many elements in the political arena, this component can play a constructive role. Progressive populists can help keep key issues in the air, place heat on others to address those issues, and make more acceptable centrist compromises that move society forward. This strategy, however, contains certain inherent constraints that limit its effectiveness.

Other approaches, including the nonviolent philosophy of Martin Luther King, also need to be strengthened. Clarifying the limits of progressive populism could boost the development of compassionate nonviolence, thereby minimizing the risk that progressive populism will undermine prospects for comprehensive social transformation.

Ideally, proponents of all of the various political strategies would respectfully recognize their differences and learn from each other.

Building a large, effective movement requires support from the mainstream. Physical and verbal violence undercut that goal. Many concerned Americans, turned off by negativity, withdraw from activism. Those who are mobilized by hate most often eventually burnout.

Driving taxi the day the Rodney King verdict came down, a number of my passengers spontaneously expressed outrage at the verdict. But the next day, as rioting spread in Los Angeles, my passengers directed their indignation at the rioters. Their attention to the flaws in our criminal justice system was diverted.

The same pattern applies to verbal violence. Leftist websites, pundits, and organizations that consistently hurl angry personal attacks turn away potential supporters, especially when those criticisms are directed at allies. Such “violence of the tongue” prompts many people to ignore those who are chronically harsh, immoderate, and rough.

In 2006 in “Goodbye to All That? Lescek Kolawski and the Marxist Legacy,” Tony Judt wrote,

The moral appeal of some refurbished version of Marxism is likely to grow…. And since no one seems to have anything very convincing to offer by way of a strategy for rectifying the inequities of modern capitalism, the field is once again left to those with the tidiest story to tell and the angriest prescription to offer (my italics).

American progressive populists say they intend to win the class war. With severe judgments, they aim to “kick ass” and defeat the enemy. They often want retribution, to retaliate, to inflict punishment.

Sometimes they want to fight regardless of the chances for short-term success. Moral victories, sending a message, and planting seeds for some distant future are sufficient for them, and at times they achieve those goals. Building a massive movement, however, requires winning concrete victories in the near term.

In addition, transforming our society into a more democratic society requires the development of democratic grassroots activist organizations. As reflected in the fact that few progressive populist organizations are member-controlled, once the right conditions prevail many progressive populists hope to lead the masses to victory with the strength of their wisdom, the power of their passion, their refusal to compromise, and their persistence.

With a deep-seated arrogance, these self-appointed vanguards aim to mobilize a top-down, impersonal machine. They assume they already know what needs to be done. The only problem is how to get others to do it. But when authoritarian organizations are victorious, they impose authoritarian regimes.

The leaders of our populist organizations often have some camaraderie with each other and their troops. Some of their followers form supportive friendships with one another. But check out their websites. Their organizations rarely explicitly affirm a commitment to ongoing self-improvement and mutual support. Nor do they clearly commit to the conscious cultivation of caring community.

Humble dedication to ongoing self-improvement is sorely lacking in activist circles. Though some talk about developing certain skills, very few activist organizations actively encourage constant, open-ended self-improvement (as defined by each individual). Nor do they intentionally foster mutual support for such efforts, which is critical.

This approach leaves many potential activists without the compassionate social support that is needed to sustain activism over the long haul.

Bertolt Brecht acknowledged the common attempt to justify unkind means with the hope of a future grand end when he said, “We, who wanted to prepare the ground for kindness / Could not be kind ourselves.” In The Rebel, Albert Camus detailed how rebellion that is originally morally grounded often morphs into a revolutionary fervor that contradicts the original impulse.

With his criticisms of the brutality of Soviet totalitarianism, Camus isolated himself from his comrades in what was a highly polarized country. Later, he became even further isolated when his commitment to nonviolence led him to refuse to support the brutal Algerian struggle for independence, though he had strongly criticized France’s own brutality for decades and continued to do so. His predictions about the disastrous consequences for Algeria proved true. Later, in South Africa Nelson Mandela successfully adopted very much the same path that Camus proposed for Algeria.

Now, in a highly polarized America, I identify with Camus and wonder if I too will become similarly isolated. These days, it’s hard to disagree on certain matters without being shunned.

Like Camus, I reject ideology. But many of my peers prefer to apply narrow, single-minded, linear, mechanical abstractions. They fail to appreciate that holistic, interactive systems require many-sided awareness. They talk about “the system,” but don’t engage in systems analysis.

Many populist firebrands charge that the problem is “the oligarchy,” which is "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class." But no elite has all power.

Consider this scenario. The strongest student on the schoolyard brutally beats a weaker boy. Several boys watch and do nothing. Are those onlookers equally responsible? I say yes.

Or better yet, take the song, “Who Killed Davey Moore?” The choruses of that Bob Dylan song point to possible agents of responsibility for the death of a boxer: the referee, the angry crowd, the boxer’s manager, the gambling man, boxing writers, and the other fighter. Dylan thus illuminates that many factors interact to create social phenomena.

A social system is like an ecosystem; there is no single dominant cause. No one element controls a system. The American people collectively are as responsible as any other group. And each of us reinforces the system daily in countless ways.

The temptation to scapegoat is enormous. It feels good to vent. People get depressed, frustrated, and angry, and want to take it out on someone. The process often seems so driven by deep emotions it is beyond the power of reason.

But it seems imperative to discuss these matters rationally. Stepping back and looking at our emotions from some distance helps us get a handle on them. In doing so, we can experience spiritual insight emerging from the depths of our soul that establishes a profoundly nonviolent perspective on these matters.

As one approach of many, this country needs a united, proactive, inspiring, joyous, grassroots movement dedicated to the proposition that we, as a society, are morally obligated to protect all of our people against the ravages of global market forces. When people must struggle to merely survive, they’re less able to contribute to society and often engage in anti-social behavior. Promoting the common good therefore involves enlightened self-interest as well as compassion.

Though free markets produce valuable goods and services, they cannot meet many needs that provide no chance for profit. And poorly regulated markets self-destruct. To ensure economic stability and security the federal government must play a major role.

Our Congresspersons and Senators therefore must establish the conditions that are necessary to assure that all people have a decent opportunity to enjoy life, develop their potential, and participate fully in community life. Doing so will benefit everyone.

To help us move in this direction, we need a movement to re-structure our economy for the common good with step-by-step realistic, positive solutions rather than idealistic dreams, anti-capitalistic rhetoric, personal attacks, and scapegoating.

As I addressed in “Nonviolence: Worldview, Strategy, and Lifestyle,” I’m returning to my roots: Martin Luther King’s nonviolent philosophy, which differs from progressive populism in key respects. This approach:

• Is directed against injustice, not the people who commit it.
• Does not seek to disgrace or defeat opponents, but to gain their understanding and cooperation while achieving both justice and reconciliation.
• Aims to persuade opponents they are wrong with moral appeals to their conscience.
• Involves a willingness to accept suffering without retaliating.
• Affirms that accepting suffering can contribute to a change in the heart and mind of opponents.
• Trusts that justice will eventually replace bitterness and hatred with love.

Active nonviolence requires constant striving in order to develop the emotional and spiritual abilities that are needed to resist injustice. Howard Thurman’s Jesus and the Disinherited, which King carried with him when he traveled, is a manual for how to develop this spiritual strength.

Thurman wrote, “The religion of Jesus says to the disinherited: ‘Love your enemy. Take the initiative in seeking ways by which you can have the experience of a common sharing of mutual worth and value. It may be hazardous, but you must do it.'”

Thurman declared that both privileged and underprivileged persons must liberate themselves from their assigned role in society, because “love is possible only between two freed spirits.” They must undo their conditioning, remove barriers, and create “real, natural, free” social situations that enable them to be “status free” and experience their common humanity.

Thurman said, “We are here dealing with a discipline, a method, …an over-all technique for loving one’s enemy.”  He called for those in need to cry out, “The [human being] in me appeals to the [human being] in you.” Whenever a need is “laid bare,” Thurman wrote, “those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions [irrelevant].” He insisted that this “personality confirmation” is essential for “lasting health” in a democracy.

Applying these principles to our current situation will be one of our greatest challenges. How can we create social situations that enable wealthy individuals and low- and moderate-income individuals to deeply encounter one another, witness their needs laid bare, and consider how they can work together to define fair and practical solutions? I’ll address that question next week.

Note

Last week, given the urgency we confront, after consulting some trusted community leaders, I tried to help jump-start a new project by posting “Tax Fairness: An Appeal for a Nonviolent Movement,” which opened with an introductory request for feedback. Seven individuals replied with generally favorable comments and no one expressed clear opposition to this draft proposal.

There’s reason for some encouragement in that response, but since I emailed the piece to about 1,000 individuals in my address book and only five clearly stated that they would endorse a final proposal with much the same substance, I consider the reaction weak. My expectations were low, however, so I’m not disappointed.

I’m sure there were many reasons for the limited enthusiasm. But I suspect a major reason is that the proposal was rooted in the compassionate desire for reconciliation rather than the widespread, angry, populist quest for victory over the hated elite.

I remain dedicated to King’s nonviolent principles and believe that with a new approach, we can attract many concerned individuals who are currently inactive. So in the next Wade’s Weekly I will start over with the basics and pose some open-ended questions that may help those of us who share a similar perspective to begin deciding how to deal with the state of our economy, our nation’s number one concern.

Then I’ll probably rework those questions and present them as the proposed agenda for a breakout group at the January 15 Compassionate Politics Workshop, at which the participants will be invited to determine our next steps. Your participation in this process, including feedback from afar, will be appreciated.