The "Grievance Industry"
18/4/14 12:26![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMany years ago, just after the end of Reagan’s first term, I was listening to a local Talk Radio host, Ronn Owens, doing a sort of “summing up” of the Reagan administration so far. He brought up Reagan’s question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” and he said, “I gotta tell ya. Yes, I am. And everyone I know is better off too.”
Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.
Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”
“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”
I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.
There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.
This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.
Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:
So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)
The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.
I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!
Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?
*
Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.
Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”
“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”
I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.
There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.
This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.
Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:
So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)
The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.
I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!
Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?
*
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 00:01 (UTC)Color me surprised, but otherwise happy to hear it.
What? Is this some oblique complaint about men being prosecuted for date rape?
Yes. Advocates of the "rape culture" hypothesis have made great strides eroding due process protections for men. What I am implying is that female defendants should be subject to the same standards (or lack there of) as their male counter-parts.
Equality means equal levels of moral / social culpability, and above all equality in the eyes of the law.
Indeed I do. I know the correct answer is, "yes, a single parent, male or female, needs to be home and available to the kids at least part of the time, and our employment policies should reflect that reality."
...and if that means fewer working hours, they should accept the hit to their income that entails. Equal pay for equal work is the goal is it not?
What have I said to indicate this?
See above, do you want equal pay for equal work or don't you? If equality is not your goal, you need to be upfront about it.
and no I have not changed my mind about Scandinavians. Why? Are they not running a surplus anymore?
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 17:13 (UTC)You keep making pronouncements about women's issues that reveal just how ignorant you are about them.
paft: What? Is this some oblique complaint about men being prosecuted for date rape?
s: Yes. Advocates of the "rape culture" hypothesis have made great strides eroding due process protections for men.
"Rape culture" isn't a "hypothesis." It's reality, and it's one many women after a certain age are painfully conscious of.
s: What I am implying is that female defendants should be subject to the same standards (or lack there of) as their male counter-parts.
So the victim should be put on trial as well?
Look, I'm no fan of any effort to throw out due process. I was speaking up about it during the '90s during the child molestation scare, and I hold no brief for how the prosecutors handled the Duke Lacrosse case. But the fact remains, I've known quite a few women who were raped. One was a college friend who drank too much, passed out, and awoke realizing that someone had raped her while she was unconscious. Another was drugged at a friends house and raped . One was grabbed just a few feet from her front door and raped in her yard...
Rape as a crime is pretty prevalent, as is the tendency to put the onus on the victim rather than the rapist. (My friend who was raped at the party was afraid to tell report it. If her father had found out what happened, he would have beaten her.)
s: ...and if that means fewer working hours, they should accept the hit to their income that entails. Equal pay for equal work is the goal is it not?
Well, first of all, that "hit in income" is part of what makes poverty so prevalent among single mothers. It's not just a matter of mom not being able to shop at Whole Foods. It's a matter of working mothers being sometimes unable to afford to put food on the table.
As for equal pay for equal work, I've not heard any feminists advocating that the working hours accomodations they request only apply to single mothers. Single fathers would benefit also.
s: and no I have not changed my mind about Scandinavians. Why? Are they not running a surplus anymore?
And yet, they have a strong social safety net, incredibly generous parental leave policies, much longer vacations, and a shorter work week than Americans.
How do you account for this?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 05:18 (UTC)If that is what it means to "face your accuser" then yes.
Are you prepared to bet ruining an innocent person's life on less?
Rape as a crime is pretty prevalent
Not nearly as prevalent as some seem to think and even IF it were to define it as a womens' issue is disingenuous. The oft quoted 9 in 10 statistic dates back to 1995 when sexual assault was still defined specifically as a crime against women and minors.
Well, first of all, that "hit in income" is part of what makes poverty so prevalent among single mothers.
Work more, get paid more, work less, get paid less.
your point is?
How do you account for this?
I've explained this to you repeatedly but for someone who complains about others "lack of nuance" you seem to have a lot of trouble parsing simple conditional statements.
As far as I know, (see according to the IMF) Norway, Sweden, and the other Scandinavian countries run an economic surplus with very little external debt. This is actually one of the "positive cultural traits" that the Spirit Level cited.
To put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible, their governments have disposable income.
IF the government of some country or another wants to spend their disposable income on domestic programs instead of say building a huge-ass particle collider or fighting world hunger, that is their prerogative. I am not a Scandinavian tax-payer and thus have no stake in the matter.
HOWEVER This is predicated on having money to spare in the first place. Which the US government DOES NOT
The US government spends way more than it takes in, the opposite of "surpluss", and the majority of most of our debts are external rather than internal.
Again to put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible. we are running out of money and our credit rating sucks.
As such we need to EITHER cut back our expenditures till we have a surplus. OR deal with rampant inflation and/or shortages.
And before you even suggest it...
No we can't just tax our way out of it because with our current debt ratio you would need to tax everyone not in the bottom 1% at the maximum allowed tax rate to even make a dent. Even if we restricted ourselves to "the rich" simply confiscating the income and assets of the upper "73 Percent" (what it would actually take to square the circle) is simply not a realistic solution.
TLDR
How do I account for this? Easily, they have the time and the money to spare and we don't.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 15:25 (UTC)No, it's not what it means to "face your accuser." Nor does "face your accuser" mean that the victim is treated as being as culpable as the accused.
s: Not nearly as prevalent as some seem to think...
And much more prevalent that many others seem to think. Women past a certain age are usually pretty aware of how prevalent because "rape" has ceased to be something that happens to someone else you've never met. Either you've had friends who experienced it, or you've had at least one narrow escape, or you've experienced it yourself.
s: Work more, get paid more, work less, get paid less.
There are single mothers working two jobs who still are unable to pay for basic necessities. That's not a reflection of how much they work. It's a reflection of how little they are paid.
s: To put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible, their governments have disposable income.
And how have they managed this with their generous social safety nets and shorter work hours?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 20:54 (UTC)Innocent until proven guilty REQUIRES us to consider all accusations against a specific person false until proven otherwise. Anything else would be a legal paradox, not to mention violation of due process and basic rights guarenteed by the US Constitution.
I ask again, Are you, Paft, prepared to stake ruining an innocent person's life on less?
And much more prevalent that many others seem to think.
Yes, but i think you'd be surprised if you knew who the victims were.
There are single mothers working two jobs who still are unable to pay for basic necessities.
And?
And how have they managed this with their generous social safety nets and shorter work hours?
We've been over (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1830965.html?thread=145203765#t145203765) this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1838915.html?thread=145434947#t145434947) before (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1851460.html?thread=146111300#t146111300).
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/14 15:37 (UTC)That doesn't mean you treat the victim of a crime as if they were as "culpable" as the accused.
s: I ask again, Are you, Paft, prepared to stake ruining an innocent person's life on less?
No, which is why I reserved judgement on cases like the Duke Lacross players who were accused of rape and later cleared. But assuming innocence until proof of guilt is a far cry from the attitudes I've seen reflected in your posts on this subject, which read as though you consider the entire concept of date rape a myth. Most women my age know it is not.
s: Yes, but i think you'd be surprised if you knew who the victims were.
I know who the victims are, sandwich warrior. Some of them are friends of mine.
Paft: There are single mothers working two jobs who still are unable to pay for basic necessities.
s: And?
And so there needs to be either a raise in the minimum wage that prevents fulltime workers from ending up on the dole, or a more generous social safety net.
paft: And how have they managed this with their generous social safety nets and shorter work hours?
s: We've been over this before.
VBG, indeed, and you never did get back to me on how, if Scandanavians on the whole work less hours and take longer vacations than Amercians, they qualify as more hardworking.
Ever going to get around to it, or should we assume that your answer has to do with a certain lack of melanin among Scandanavians?
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 18:20 (UTC)Really, like what?
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 20:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 22:53 (UTC)That isn't true.
and undermining the accused's 6th amendment rights (specifically the right to be informed of the charges and evidence leveled against them, and the right to confront their accuser) out of some misguided effort to spare the victim.
And neither is that.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 04:48 (UTC)Jeff already linked the article I was going to, so I will just leave you with this unhappy thought...
for each one exonerated (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) there is another who would, if this were just world, take their place for bearing false witness.
Unfortunately this is not a just world.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 06:05 (UTC)And why I am I not surprised that you just said rape victims should go to prison for incorrectly remembering a psychologically traumatizing event.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 07:29 (UTC)The idea that a specific accusation against a specific individual is true until proven otherwise makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence.
why I am I not surprised that you just said rape victims should go to prison for incorrectly remembering a psychologically traumatizing event.
Not necessarily the victim. The person who's testimony lead to their incarceration, and because it is fair.
If you aren't prepared to stake your own life and freedom on your testimony you damn well shouldn't be staking anyone else's. After all, you can't give someone their life or reputation back, you can only offer to take their place on the block and hope that they are the forgiving sort.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 20:25 (UTC)Good thing that isn't how it works. Its almost as if you have no idea how rape is actually prosecuted and yet you are so very passionate about it...
And color me surprised that a libertarian is bitching about private universities exercising their right to freedom of association!
Not necessarily the victim. The person whose testimony lead to their incarceration, and because it is fair.
So... some other person subpoenaed under threat of arrest to show up and testify should go to prison because of fucking unconscious cognitive biases and systemic failures of a judicial system?
If you aren't prepared to stake your own life and freedom on your testimony you damn well shouldn't be staking anyone else's. After all, you can't give someone their life or reputation back, you can only offer to take their place on the block and hope that they are the forgiving sort.
I'll tell ya a little story:
A very good friend of mine was forcibly raped by her ex-boyfriend about 8 years ago. The cops didn't believe there was enough evidence beyond her testimony to prosecute, mostly because they fucked up the rape kit. You clearly don't understand how rape shield laws work, because in cases where there is no fucking evidence, it becomes very easy to claim consent. And guess what kind of evidence can be introduced to prove consent? Prior sexual encounters with the accuser.
He went on to do some more horrendous things to something like 4 or 5 other women in town after town. And he still hasn't gone to jail for anything more than a few bookings.
Soooooo I'm just about done listening to you whine about the trials and tribulations of someone accused of raping another person and the implication that witnesses to rape are liars. You must be a realll hit at parties.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 20:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/14 21:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 05:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 05:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 07:34 (UTC)http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1851460.html?thread=146103108#t146103108
not liking it doesn't change it.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 00:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/14 00:32 (UTC)