IGNORANCE IS EASY & COOL, KNOWLEDGE HARD & HOT, BUT WE STILL MAY
CHOOSE, TODAY, THOUGH PERHAPS TOMORROW NOT
The signs crop up everywhere, quite compelling in their expression of
the dire straits of humankind and the importance of peace. “WAR IS NOT
THE ANSWER!!” they shout, showing us the image of a startled dove,
rising---olive branch clasped in its beak---in search of some landing
spot. Unfortunately, not only are the signs 100% wrong, they are
actually utter nonsense.
Such a critique, coming from a writer such as me, who is 100% in favor
of peace personally and 100% committed to democracy in determining such
matters as troops in Iraq and elsewhere, has to appear anomalous at
first glance. The signs emanate from the Friends Committee on National
Legislation(FCNL), and only the best of intentions inform the group’s
work. It provides useful research and valid information on a wide
variety of critically important topics and questions. I have belonged,
at some very loose level of affiliation, to several Friends
congregations. How, in this context, can I say that these signs are
incorrect and nonsensical?
This essay offers a partial answer to that query, and insodoing lays
the groundwork to examine similarly wrong-headed and well-intentioned
foolishness that passes for ‘leftist’ policy and politics in this
woefully ignorant land. The analysis here consists of three easy to
follow points. The first is that we need questions much more than we
need so-called ‘answers,’ which, as often as not, dodge the fact that
we lack the most basic elements of a capacity to get what we want. The
second is that being able to pose these central questions depends on
actual political potency, instead of lobbying, protesting, and
otherwise whining about the current relations of power. The third is
that FCNL and like organizations lack any cohesive, let alone logical
and viable, plan or strategy for obtaining such power. In closing,
this brief diatribe reaffirms my desire to work and converse with the
Friends and others, but in a fashion in which the fundamental inquiry
into gaining political power is first and foremost.
WHAT IN HELL IS THE QUESTION??!!---
The propagandists and potentates behind current United States policies
have done an excellent job of framing questions, in the contemporary
climate of terror, so as to make any other answer than war an obvious
error. “Is the liberation of a people, long oppressed and beknigted,
worth fighting for?” “Is self-defense a legitimate response to attacks
that use ‘terror’ and other unconventional methods of warfare?” To any
but Jesus himself, in the incarnation of Christ which many believers in
the man reject, the answers to these queries are affirmative.
“Ah, but we’re pacifists,” a gentle Quaker might pronounce, quietly
and humbly. At best, though, all who call themselves pacifists are
proponents of a completely unobtainable ideal, not actual practitioners
of anything real. I think of the Rev. Joseph Lowery’s hilarity in
confessing in a recent interview that, “all those ‘pacifists,’ back in
the ‘Freedom Rider’ days, most of ‘em left their guns when they
marched, but they left ‘em in their cars, just in case!” Not that any
‘Friend’ would stoop to actual armament, but many angry pacifists have
these eyes beheld, practically apoplectic at one or another trampling
of their peaceful sensibilites. Since one of my alter egos is
“Lightning Rod Jimbo,” I have been in the enviable spot of such an
observer on various occasions. I used to believe that Buddhists might
be different, capable of manifesting the peaceful ways of which most
proponents say they are capable. The recent anecdote of the Dalai Lama
and the mosquito, however, the little creature crushed beneath his
precise swat, freed me from such an illusion. “How could you kill it?”
his shocked followers asked, after he had gently shooed it away several
times. His answer was simple and direct. “It annoyed me.”
As much as I enjoy this digression, I could even say to folks, “O.K.,
so you think you’re a pacifist. Who am I to argue with you?” The
point is still that, in practical terms, only a different set of
questions will yield a conclusion other than “war is the best answer.”
My certainty that ‘Friends’ and others reject this proposition leads me
to one of the basic points of this essay: progressive people, average
people, many of whom are ready to act outside of this backward country,
need to empower themselves to pose the questions at issue. Put another
way, a corrected version of the FCNL sign might read, “War is the only
answer so long as corporate criminals and fundamentalist flacks are
creating the queries.” Or, stated more positively, we might aver that
“Peace is the only answer to the questions WE are asking.”
ESTABLISHING AGENDAS, RULES, AND LINES-OF-INQUIRY REQUIRES POWER---
To reach a different solution, therefore, is only possible if we
assume real responsibility for social agendas. Technically, which is
to say ‘on paper,’ of course, that right is already ours, enshrined in
the founding documents of this nation, still among the most important
contributions to human liberation in existence. However, whatever the
inumerable cases of people-power that grace our history, never have the
majority of U.S. citizens come close to demonstrating the unity and
commitment necessary to practice popular politics at the national
level, at least in anything like a fashion that allows having a
people’s agenda uppermost over elite, or ruling class, schemes.
Thus, efforts such as the FCNL’s stumble before they even begin. Only
by starting with the commitment to everyday democracy, with, in other
words, our bedrock position being that we are taking over the agenda,
is peace other than a fantasy. We need no longer ask for what is ours
for the taking, we must merely puzzle out the process of grasping it,
the political supremacy purportedly already ours.
This assessment of things does not aim to dismiss the Quaker church.
Nor do I intend to disparage their enterprise, of which the Friends
Committee on National Legislation is an IRS code 501-(c)-4 lobbying
effort, itself supported by a 501-(c)-3 research NGO. This important
work, however, will never in and of itself bring about the conditions
for peace, an irreplaceable aspect of which is the ability to ask the
questions that generate policy and action. That this paradox is
ineluctable should be obvious, inasmuch as, were FCNL to advocate for
people power, as opposed to people’s support for certain legislative
positions, it would be in violation of its charter and would experience
severe civil penalties, at the least, as well as the revocation of its
tax exempt charter.
Thus, both in terms of everyday practice and any expression of what is
practically plausible, given its present approach, FCNL can never
establish the conditions that will permit what it says it aims to
achieve. For peace and social justice to be plausible options, in
other words, a definite dismantling of corporate hegemony and
predominance must happen that law and custom prohibit FCNL from
advocating. In such a situation, all the marvelous hopes in the world
notwithstanding, the FCNL can never demand the production of a strategy
that might effect the transformation for which its members and
supporters undoubtedly stand. We can never move from “War Is Not the
Answer” to “Anything but Peace and Justice Are Out of the Question,”
unless we develop just such a strategy for people to claim in fact the
power they possess already in theory.
REALIZING TRANSFORMATION THROUGH STRATEGIC CONVERSATION---
There are a dozen hundred components to what I think a strategic
approach to popular power should contain. A popular party independent
of corporate control seems a necessity, as do multiple local seizures
of political control---in violation of the established order---to
perform what would essentially be ‘demonstration projects’ of what is
possible under a different set of social and political and economic
relationships. The reader will probably believe me when I say that “I
could go on. And on. And on.”
Whatever my own favorite notions are, however, they are basically
immaterial to reaching the point where large numbers of people can
actualize a popular strategy for power. Such a delightful eventuality
is only available on the basis of what seems lunacy to insist that we
have, which is a negotiated agreement of partnership among the plethora
of average folks’s interest groups and social representatives. The
daunting difficulty of bringing such a collaboration to pass is obvious.
No easy finesse is available either, to accomplish this simple
necessity, the popular unity in the practice of political power that is
the foundation for all we seek . But one thing is certain. Such an
achievement is only plausible on the basis of thoroughgoing and ongoing
discussion. Our talk cannot consist of lobbying Congress, however.
Nor will proving that we have facts at our command accomplish our
purposes. The time has come when we must be frank and forthright that
popular and participatory democracy is our aim and our intention.
So saying, and my absolute conviction that FCNL’s path is unworkable
notwithstanding, I call on all folk of good faith, who believe in fair
dealing and democracy, to commit to playing a part in this
conversational partnership. Media, action, research, education, all
and more are essential to success. How shall we proceed? I don’t
know, except to take a stand and wait for cohorts to appear who are
willing to talk. This essay is one part of my stand, and I await the
reply of those who would begin our correspondence.
~This article was written by JIMBO