How Political Should One Be? Part 2: Seven Arguments for Non-Attachment

In Buddhism, non-attachment is a principle and attitude that applies to everything, not just the bad stuff. Naturally, you don't want to cling to anger or insecurity, but neither do you want to cling to happiness or love. This is because all is transient, all is flux. Nothing stays as it was, even from one moment to the next. While this truth is fundamentally obvious to anyone who has lived to adulthood, it nevertheless is exceedingly hard to internalize. Another way to look at this problem is that we don't control the world. We have our hands full trying to control ourselves! Scientists even argue that way more is out of our control than we can even begin to grasp. Be that as it may, we know that we do make decisions and the way we think and act and believe has a huge impact on how life goes for us. Of all life's domains in which we act few are as fraught with pitfalls as the political arena, what with the greed, the deceit, the power trips, and so on. But bad behavior aside, the very nature of politics itself is problematic, suggesting its outsized place in our society and individual lives is misguided, masking the non-attachment that is the healthiest stance in this realm. Part Two of "How Political Should One Be?" offers seven reasons why that is so.

1. Politics stands at a removal from life as it is lived

Let me open with this matter of distance and control. I suspect our political climate and personal and social health would be a lot more reasonable if we all internalized the Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference." In fact, they should read and recite this at the opening of every session of Congress! Politics is the domain of control: it seeks to employ human will and authority to structure and transform society along the lines that the majority, ideally with as much opposition buy-in as possible, decides is most beneficial. Yet almost by definition, in every case of legislation a significant group of people will not be getting what they want. And everyone needs to accept that. Instead of imputing nefarious motives to the other when they prevail, understand that this is just the way it is. This is especially true for the average citizen. Not only don't you control the opposition party: you don't even control your own! It seems to me that a person's passion for an issues intensifies in exact proportion to the extent it is out of one's control. Passion also increases in exact proportion to how little one knows about a topic, issue, and policy. Given all this, it only makes sense to treat the matter of results as most worthy of emotional investment in the context of the immediate sphere of one's life.

2. Politics oversimplifies by definition

This one is huge for me. The only way to be a political activist is to purposely ignore massive amounts of complicating information and factors. Bumper stickers, signs, pins, tweets, slogans, t-shirts, and pamphlets are the natural domain and modus operandi of activism. Defund the police, anyone? If anyone on the team were to say "yes, but" or "on the other hand" the momentum of the group would naturally slow down, or indeed, grind to a halt if they were to consider things like unintended consequences and the like. A related phenomenon is making sure that any information that is unsupportive of the cause is banished and silenced because "it might help the other side." We see this, for example in the "antiracist" movement and it's simplistic contention that any disparity in outcomes across racial groups is solely because of racism, an assertion that falls apart on even the slightest examination. The mental gymnastics that smart people go through to go along with this stuff is truly amazing. What happens is that by ignoring complexities the group actually weakens its own cause. You're building a house of cards essentially, one which, even if you "win" can still collapse in the slightest breeze. Now, I'm biased, of course, because I endeavor to be a serious writer of substantial essays, a pursuit which is antithetical to the activist mindset. Interestingly, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in part because MLK was not only a gifted orator but a true scholar and writer who laid out the reasoning and moral imperatives of the movement in rich and challenging detail in countless speeches, sermons, and essays, as well as in three outstanding books, that were intellectually solid while also being accessible. One problem with the antiracist movement, and woke in general, is the intellectual foundation, such as it is, is grounded in the profoundly impenetrable works of various critical theorists, which inspires only a bunch of grad students who know the secret code.

3. The problem of mission and rights creep

I've got to admit, the way this how has played out has got me reconsidering some fundamental ideas and commitments. Who isn't for human rights or rights for historically oppressed or disadvantaged peoples? The rights sought in the Civil Rights movement, for example, were very concrete, based on goals like full and unequivocal voting rights, full and unhindered civic participation, the end of racially segregated spaces, including, critically, schools, and adverse discrimination in the job market. However extensions soon began and mission and rights creep ensued. In terms of schools, the extension of "rights" took the form of bussing, in which equal access was no longer the goal but rather creating specific proportions of races in every school. This has predictably been problematic. Which means, that even if one supports the cause, some equanimity would be in order, since the endeavor comes fraught with difficulties and paradoxes. The same holds in the latter case of jobs. Here the extension of "rights" came with the advent of affirmative action, which went beyond equal opportunity. One doesn't need to enumerate the pitfalls associated with this most well-intentioned of causes, but we should note that they are so pronounced that many, even most, minorities don't like it. Which is why it's curious that so many liberals go apoplectic when it is challenged, alleging racism as the only cause. Take a step back. You may consider your cause noble and just, but it is no slam dunk. Acknowledge that your commitment is unwavering, but loosen your grip and admit that others of good conscience may disagree. This is the tack the great African American intellectual Randall Kennedy took in his book weighing the pros and cons of affirmative action. His conclusion was that it is worth doing even though it brings problems. That I could respect. Oh, I would be remiss to mention in that England now people have the legal right not to be offended and individuals are actually arrested for that offense. Rights creep, indeed.

4. The inevitable trend toward us vs. them and all manner of projection

Well, this one is the most fundamental of all, hardly the sole province of politics. Tribalism is deep, deep, deep in our genetic inheritance, and, in my view, the transformation and transcendence of this impulse is among the most critical tasks we have as humans and social beings. Our job is to get past us versus them. We do this not by denying the impulse within us, but to acknowledge it and work to create the worldviews, practices, and modes of organizing ourselves that help us to not only minimize and mitigate this tendency but to express it in a conscious manner not given to the deleterious modes of tribalism that emerge in mass society. We don't need to get rid of teams and affinity groups. But, obviously, a two-party system fails miserably in this regard. Was there a time when the parties didn't see each other as evil as opposed to good people with different points of view? I don't know, and it's pointless to imagine some Golden Age. Ultimately, it's kind of like family. You may not be especially fond of every relation of yours but let someone else attack them and you start getting pissed off, circling the wagons, and attacking back. What's weird is that the political parties are built on platforms of policies that actually don't even of necessity go together, but if the Party says such and such is what "we" believe, then goddammit, that's what I believe. From the conservative side, what does being pro-life have to do with weakening environmental regulations? Beats me. I guess there is always the sense that on aggregate, our side is better than theirs, even if some of our stuff sucks, so I'm fully Team Blue or Team Red or whatever. Yay, us! Boo, them! I know there are good people who get a lot of meaning from being party stalwarts, but that's not me. And it doesn't need to be you either.

5. Best intentions and moral positions/imperatives may prove incorrect.

We're still going to believe what we believe and you need to proceed politically in the way you think best. That's how citizenship works. But you could be wrong. Let me repeat: you could be wrong. Jesus, where to begin? There was no greater moral cause for liberals in the 60s and 70s than the Great Society and the instituting of a massive welfare system. Time has shown that this was an unmitigated disaster, making things way worse for intended beneficiaries and society as a whole. This falls under the category of "unintended consequences." Theoretically conservatives are more sensitive to this pitfall, which is why they are conservatives. Let's think carefully about messing with what we have, they say, since, you know, what we do could actually end up not only not being better but could screw things up royally. What we have, they say, at least is the result of decades of trial and error. I think there is sense there, but it's also true that what we have could also be completely misguided. So there's that. The trouble is ideology. If conservatives are sensitive to unintended consequences, it certainly did not keep them from invading Iraq, a completely predictable dumpster fire for all involved. Look at any number of programs launched in the communist countries. Not good. Look at the tariffs here for that matter. Ideology is impervious to facts on the ground. Ideology knows better, because it must be so that this thing that is so noble is correct and good. How could it not be? I'm a philosophical pragmatist, which is meant to be Kryptonite to ideology. One must constantly check both means and ends. You may love your means, but the ends could be a failure. Time to change your methods and policies. Your ends could be good, but the means may have really hurt a lot of people. Time to readjust. Ends do not justify means.

6. Catastrophizing is built into political partisanship. 

Just open your solicitation emails, texts, and letters from the political parties and interest groups. Let me summarize: The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Because of them. And we are the ones to fight them and fix it! The thought is that to get people to open their wallets there has to be a threat of immediate and surpassing danger. Hell, maybe that works, maybe that does "encourage giving." I don't know. But let's say it does. What you have then is people on all sides increasingly indoctrinated into negative, polarized perspectives. There are all manner of ways we hypnotize ourselves. The little things we read like those fundraising missives, all the headlines and tweets and articles, the talking heads intoning the belief systems that imperceptibly becomes ours. They drone and whisper. When you awake you will believe the world is ending. Because of them. I'm not saying bad stuff doesn't happen and won't happen. But I think our ability to adjust, survive, and carry on is underrated, at least by politicians and partisans. As far as I can tell, there is no politician who is a Stoic. It's a contradiction of terms. True, Marcus Aurelius was leader of the Roman Empire and he wrote the ultimate Stoic tract, the Meditations. But he was, um, the emperor, so he could believe as he wished. It's good to be king. Which raises the question of: Where are the actual leaders? The Stoics, pragmatists, people of the world who can speak truthfully without needless hyperbole who eschew bullshit, even if said bullshit would fire up the partisans and please interest groups? This supposedly is Trump's identity, the grown up straight talker impervious to pressure. But he can't go five minutes without catastrophizing. That's how he justifies his expanded powers. On the left, where were the grown ups with the nerve and the, shall we say, adult good sense, to stand up when the doom-saying, university children were taking over the party? Nowhere. Too many wanted to gain approval by joining The Revolution and The Resistance.

7. Actual change is tectonic, and closely associated with matters of culture and values

Walt Whitman, from whose work this blog took it's name, is a giant of American literature, and a unique individual who is the patron saint of American cultural and spiritual nonconformity, a tradition which is in fact lofty in its goals for humanity, committed as it is to "the real work" I spoke of in Part One. Late in life Whitman became friends with a dynamic young man named Horace Traubel, who became Whitman's interlocutor as well as the diarist of the great poet's later years. Traubel was, like many in the late 19th century, an ardent socialist. And he really thought Whitman was a natural fit for the cause and should commit himself publicly. In a famous encounter between the men in which Traubel again made his pitch, Whitman responded: "It is queer, how the whole world is crazy with the notion that one book, one ism . . . is to save things. . . . I would not go across the room to change the course of the stream—not a step: in due time, under the right conditions, the stream will fix its own bed anew as it has in the past—no hand, yours or mine, being needed to force it." Look. I know the objections and that this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's mine. Everything we do has some impact on others and by extension society. Voting and the actions of politicians are sporadic and pitched at a level that really doesn't touch the extravagantly textured nature of life as it is lived, the point of my opening reflection here. Let me digress here and consider this notion from another angle. The novelist Karl Ove Knausgaard, of whom I am a big fan, is famous for his "auto fiction" in which he might spend 15 pages on pushing his kids in their carriages down the street as they go to a gathering, and then another 10 describing the dynamics in the room as they arrive. In his work he always includes flushing the toilet, opening a can of beans, as well as detailed conversations on minor matters. And he still doesn't come close to describing the detail of life as it is lived! Can't be done. But life is what matters and what shapes the stream. This is true, even if you are a political diehard.

Conclusion

As I endeavored to show in Part One of this essay, there has been an awful lot of political water that has passed under the bridge of my life. And as I reflect, I can see that for me, my first or early impulse was correct, that the way for this particular person to be in the world is to pursue that "real work" that Gary Snyder and Walt Whitman practiced and advocated for. The kind of work where you reach someone with a poem or, indeed, an essay. Not to change anyone, but to plant the kind of seed that will blossom somewhere down the road, in its own time and its own way. My reasoning is that, put simply, people are gonna be who people are gonna be. You've got to work with that truth, no matter what sphere you are engaging in. And that requires non-attachment. Do your best to persuade or cajole or encourage without thinking you are going to change someone or, rather, don't think you need to change someone to get the world you envision as optimal. Fight for your cause, but understand that, like the song says, whatever will be. Oh, and don't forget to vote!

Read Part 1 here: "Politics, the Real Work, and Me"