I Wanna Take You Higher, Part II
Give me a TTGive me an RRGive me a UUGive me an MMGive me a PPWhat’s that spell?Trump!What’s that spell?Trump!What’s that spell?Trump!There were two notable sing-alongs at the historic Woodstock rock festival of 1969. One was Sly and the Family Stone’s exhilarating performance of "I Wanna Take You Higher", which I focused on in Part I. The other of course was Country Joe and the Fish’s rousing I Feel Like I'm Fixin’ To Die Rag introduced by the "Fish Cheer"--which went slightly different than my paraphrase above (though T-R-U-M-P and F-U-C-K are interchangeable in a non-sexual context). Before I go further in placing the "Fish Cheer" in the context of a Trump rally, let me declare my undying love for Country Joe’s Woodstock performance, which is delivered with more wit and charm than has ever been apparent at any Trump rally. That being said, there is a key aspect of it that bears comparison with Sly’s sing-along for what they both portend for the future of American democracy.The stark difference between the two songs is clear in the titles alone. One wants to help you get ready to die—as at a Trump rally, stoking peoples’ fear and anger for confronting a mortal enemy; the other song wants to take you higher—as at a church service, spiritually binding people together for community and higher purpose. One wants to stop a war; the other wants to promote peace. One is nihilistic; the other is inspirational. It’s a significant matter of emphasis…not just lyrically, but tactically. It's the difference between the inherent narcissism of taking to the streets singing "I Ain’t Marching Anymore" to marching with “We Shall Overcome” solidarity on your lips. Advanced neuroscience studies consistently show that we are not the wholly rational beings that the so-called reality-based side of the political spectrum would like to believe we are. We are largely emotional creatures, and our intellects have all they can do to keep up. This is critical in the current political environment where one side…the dominant right side of the political spectrum…is almost entirely driven by emotion. It’s negative emotion to be sure, but it’s still emotion powerful enough to motivate behavior, such as voting or mass shooting. The other side seems to be constantly casting about for an overriding, powerful emotional message. When pressed for their message during the current midterm election campaign, Democrats usually fall back on providing healthcare--specifically as it relates to pre-existing conditions--as their defining message. But healthcare is a policy, not an identity-shaping, movement-making emotional message with a shelf life beyond any single election cycle. In Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion he makes much ado about Emile Durkheim’s 3 circles of religion, illustrated below.
According to Durkheim, those three circles--believing, belonging, doing—are the essence of religion. Anti-religionists will, as always, be quick to focus on some of the more arcane and bizarre of those beliefs, the occasions of intolerance in that belonging, and the malevolence of some of that doing. And though religions are burdened with the weight of all that, the greater mass of believers, as Durkheim and subsequent modern studies reveal, adhere to religion for the sense of community and higher purpose it gives them. That is something for those of us with a more leftist, secular mindset to consider as we struggle to survive these dark authoritarian times and emerge from them with not just renewed political power but with a vision for the future beyond November 6, 2018. In going against liberal orthodoxy here, I’m not only turning to religion for help, but to long-time Republican strategist Steve Schmidt. Watch this video clip where this traditional small government Republican suggests that Democrats look back to Bobby Kennedy for how to elevate our politics to higher ground. From Deadline: White House, the most sane show on cable television
At one time an “argument for better” and for using government to accomplish better would’ve seemed quaint. Now, after decades of “Government is not the solution; government is the problem” and “The era of big government is over”, this suggestion is damn near radical. So radical that we watch establishment Democrats and their consultants cower from the idea. But the thing is, if you’re the party of government--and Democrats are the party of government whether they come from North Dakota and West Virginia or New York and Californian--they best be making the most of it...not running away from it. And how hard can that be? How hard can it be to go before any electorate anywhere and promise to deliver a government that’s there for them when the flood waters rise, when diseases become epidemic, when Wall Street goes recklessly wild, when food and air become toxic, when old age and failing-health threaten survival? How hard can it be to defend a government that’s constitutionally committed to the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How hard would it have been to say, “The era of bad government is over” rather than blame big government? As I said in Part I, forging a unifying, uplifting message doesn’t come easily for a political party predisposed to champion individual rights, diversity, and nuance. But we have abundant empirical evidence that tells us that at some point, a movement needs a transcendent, emotional message in order to cohere and succeed. It is no mystery why African-American women are the foundation of the Democratic base…they are also the most religious so they understand at their core the meaning and importance of believing, belonging, doing.
According to Durkheim, those three circles--believing, belonging, doing—are the essence of religion. Anti-religionists will, as always, be quick to focus on some of the more arcane and bizarre of those beliefs, the occasions of intolerance in that belonging, and the malevolence of some of that doing. And though religions are burdened with the weight of all that, the greater mass of believers, as Durkheim and subsequent modern studies reveal, adhere to religion for the sense of community and higher purpose it gives them. That is something for those of us with a more leftist, secular mindset to consider as we struggle to survive these dark authoritarian times and emerge from them with not just renewed political power but with a vision for the future beyond November 6, 2018. In going against liberal orthodoxy here, I’m not only turning to religion for help, but to long-time Republican strategist Steve Schmidt. Watch this video clip where this traditional small government Republican suggests that Democrats look back to Bobby Kennedy for how to elevate our politics to higher ground. From Deadline: White House, the most sane show on cable television
At one time an “argument for better” and for using government to accomplish better would’ve seemed quaint. Now, after decades of “Government is not the solution; government is the problem” and “The era of big government is over”, this suggestion is damn near radical. So radical that we watch establishment Democrats and their consultants cower from the idea. But the thing is, if you’re the party of government--and Democrats are the party of government whether they come from North Dakota and West Virginia or New York and Californian--they best be making the most of it...not running away from it. And how hard can that be? How hard can it be to go before any electorate anywhere and promise to deliver a government that’s there for them when the flood waters rise, when diseases become epidemic, when Wall Street goes recklessly wild, when food and air become toxic, when old age and failing-health threaten survival? How hard can it be to defend a government that’s constitutionally committed to the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How hard would it have been to say, “The era of bad government is over” rather than blame big government? As I said in Part I, forging a unifying, uplifting message doesn’t come easily for a political party predisposed to champion individual rights, diversity, and nuance. But we have abundant empirical evidence that tells us that at some point, a movement needs a transcendent, emotional message in order to cohere and succeed. It is no mystery why African-American women are the foundation of the Democratic base…they are also the most religious so they understand at their core the meaning and importance of believing, belonging, doing.
No comments have been added yet.
