Aug 1, 2022·edited Aug 1, 2022Liked by Leighton Woodhouse
Thanks! A really excellent piece that sheds so much light on our current political and cultural dysfunction aka our Age of Performative Outrage.
I think you really hint at a larger truth in mentioning "the accrued symbolic power of the social groups of whom they have made themselves veritable totems."
How drenched in the symbolic is our post-religion yet deeply religious discourse? Are black people and their skin color not the ultimate American symbol, by which I mean doesn't every American brain fill in so many other meanings and descriptions with just one glance at black skin: for the Left, the eternally suffering victim, the literal incarnation of our evil ancestors; for the Right, the dark and menacing dangerous Other. (I've always felt that one of the many burdens we place on black Americans is that they have to be symbols as much as humans.)
And could any issue be more fraught with symbolism than Trans? A tiny sliver of the population that one side weaponizes in their eternal battle to deconstruct and demolish the backwards bigoted Old in favor of the Glorious Equal new, and which the other side fights to protect traditional mores and the sexual innocence of their children.
America has always been the land of aggressive entrepreneurs and of puritanical moralism, so it makes sense that the two would combine and thus create the modern beast known as the Activist, an aggressively puritanical moral entrepreneur, looking to do good and do well at the same time. This has always been part of our history (see the Progressive movement of 100 yrs ago), but it seems to have been supercharged by our suddenly moralistic oligarchy and by the decline of religion and the subsequent funneling of so much religious passion and energy (for better or worse) into politics.
Just as the poor will always be with us, so too will the aspiring saviors of the poor, always looking to save souls and corner the market on public morality.
Woodhouse, where have you been all my life? This guy is fantastic, he is so incisive and just plain right! I find Freddie DeB and Jessie S to be both earnest and brilliant but kinda muddle headed at least compared to this Woodhouse fella.
I have worked for about fifteen years in a state legislature. The thing I've noticed more and more is how differential to the activists the members have become. (Almost universally from the young progressive side).
From narrow obscure one house (going no where) bills to the big state budget, you'll constantly hear "and I want to thank the activists...".
I find this curiously amusing that during these debates the word activist (almost rarely in reference to a specific one) is held in such in universal high regard.
I remember complaining to a friends mother who was a lawyer, that I thought it was ridiculous that judges often punish those who try to defend themselves. Her response was "Well remember, all Judges are lawyers...".
I think a similar dynamic is play especially in the left where many of the new members don't work up the political system anymore, i.e county legislature to state. They are often coming from the activist sphere, think neighbor association group, environmental group etc.
More troubling is I've seen with my own eyes how the activist movement has be co-opted by the lobbyists. It can be cheaper and easier for those scumbags in suits to launder their desires through these while usually well meaning but otherwise clueless or corrupt outfits.
Unfortunately it seems to be working because to be a progressive is to religiously laud the noble activist.
Institutions exist to perpetuate themselves. Victory cannot be declared, nor can the issue at hand ever improve, lest the resource pipeline to the institution be reduced or removed.
Am i missing something? You seem on board with the idea government programs exist only to prolong problems (as a means to increase their funding). And yet, you advocate for more government, at every turn, to solve this nation's ills. How can this be?
Isn't what you are defining as activists just lobbyists in jeans and tee shirts? At the end of the day our elected representatives are more responsive to the influence of activists/lobbyists than they are to their political constituency back home because they see an opportunity to get money/contributions and big number of voters. They also see lucrative employment down the road with these activist groups.
Another excellent piece and I believe completely on target.
I find myself thinking, as I often do when I read you or Glenn Greenwald or others like you, "Yes, that is exactly the problem. But how do we put a halt to this problem and pull ourselves back from the edge?" I know Step 1 is seeing it, and I know you are helping people to see it, but what is Step 2?
Thanks! A really excellent piece that sheds so much light on our current political and cultural dysfunction aka our Age of Performative Outrage.
I think you really hint at a larger truth in mentioning "the accrued symbolic power of the social groups of whom they have made themselves veritable totems."
How drenched in the symbolic is our post-religion yet deeply religious discourse? Are black people and their skin color not the ultimate American symbol, by which I mean doesn't every American brain fill in so many other meanings and descriptions with just one glance at black skin: for the Left, the eternally suffering victim, the literal incarnation of our evil ancestors; for the Right, the dark and menacing dangerous Other. (I've always felt that one of the many burdens we place on black Americans is that they have to be symbols as much as humans.)
And could any issue be more fraught with symbolism than Trans? A tiny sliver of the population that one side weaponizes in their eternal battle to deconstruct and demolish the backwards bigoted Old in favor of the Glorious Equal new, and which the other side fights to protect traditional mores and the sexual innocence of their children.
America has always been the land of aggressive entrepreneurs and of puritanical moralism, so it makes sense that the two would combine and thus create the modern beast known as the Activist, an aggressively puritanical moral entrepreneur, looking to do good and do well at the same time. This has always been part of our history (see the Progressive movement of 100 yrs ago), but it seems to have been supercharged by our suddenly moralistic oligarchy and by the decline of religion and the subsequent funneling of so much religious passion and energy (for better or worse) into politics.
Just as the poor will always be with us, so too will the aspiring saviors of the poor, always looking to save souls and corner the market on public morality.
Woodhouse, where have you been all my life? This guy is fantastic, he is so incisive and just plain right! I find Freddie DeB and Jessie S to be both earnest and brilliant but kinda muddle headed at least compared to this Woodhouse fella.
I have worked for about fifteen years in a state legislature. The thing I've noticed more and more is how differential to the activists the members have become. (Almost universally from the young progressive side).
From narrow obscure one house (going no where) bills to the big state budget, you'll constantly hear "and I want to thank the activists...".
I find this curiously amusing that during these debates the word activist (almost rarely in reference to a specific one) is held in such in universal high regard.
I remember complaining to a friends mother who was a lawyer, that I thought it was ridiculous that judges often punish those who try to defend themselves. Her response was "Well remember, all Judges are lawyers...".
I think a similar dynamic is play especially in the left where many of the new members don't work up the political system anymore, i.e county legislature to state. They are often coming from the activist sphere, think neighbor association group, environmental group etc.
More troubling is I've seen with my own eyes how the activist movement has be co-opted by the lobbyists. It can be cheaper and easier for those scumbags in suits to launder their desires through these while usually well meaning but otherwise clueless or corrupt outfits.
Unfortunately it seems to be working because to be a progressive is to religiously laud the noble activist.
Institutions exist to perpetuate themselves. Victory cannot be declared, nor can the issue at hand ever improve, lest the resource pipeline to the institution be reduced or removed.
You only have to look at Stonewall’s business model to see activist capitalism at work.
Am i missing something? You seem on board with the idea government programs exist only to prolong problems (as a means to increase their funding). And yet, you advocate for more government, at every turn, to solve this nation's ills. How can this be?
Isn't what you are defining as activists just lobbyists in jeans and tee shirts? At the end of the day our elected representatives are more responsive to the influence of activists/lobbyists than they are to their political constituency back home because they see an opportunity to get money/contributions and big number of voters. They also see lucrative employment down the road with these activist groups.
Another excellent piece and I believe completely on target.
I find myself thinking, as I often do when I read you or Glenn Greenwald or others like you, "Yes, that is exactly the problem. But how do we put a halt to this problem and pull ourselves back from the edge?" I know Step 1 is seeing it, and I know you are helping people to see it, but what is Step 2?