The contempt for the radicals
Also published on Democracy Chronicles
In the New York Times article “What’s Wrong With Radicalism” (December 11) columnist David Brooks generalize about radicals. And actually, if one thoroughly consider his exact conclusions even though it’s nicely put together, it carries a patronizing tone. Having all radical political voices of today bundled into an unserious package should be met.
If you have a radical view of societal change today, you belong
to a mob of factually misguided, gullible, irresponsible, malicious
loudmouths who create unrest.
That is the conclusion of New York
Times columnist David Brooks’ analysis in his article “What’s Wrong With
Radicalism”. An easy and ingratiating read for the diminishing host of
readers who are still convinced that the cause of increasing populism,
the mistrust of the establishment, and a new political landscape across
the western world is only an unusual virus; namely this radical,
malignant and infectious mob. But it will soon pass; the
well-established politicians, economists and opinion leaders are the
obvious shepherds and healers.
There is something religious about
this. Or at least a strong sense of escapism. Thoughts veer towards the
Titanic and the orchestra that played for the 1st class passengers
until the end. Well-dressed, cultured and wealthy people, mostly men,
who share an illusory culture that just has to remain.
To me –
politically engaged in an activist movement consisting of 70000 members
with concrete economic, social alternatives to the current order, in
pursuit of genuine democracy and transparency – and others who left the
sinking ship long ago; columnists such as Brooks seem like a dying race,
with neither political argument nor vision. In the United States as
well as in Europe, wise and innovative people and activists work to
create a different and worthwhile social structure that can put an end
to people’s increasing distaste for those in power and politics.
The
Panama papers, paradise leaks, persuasive and dishonest presidents,
surveillance, a small autocratic clique of people in the financial
industry who are allowed to own most of the world´s resources, media
companies controlling millions of people’s digital lives, increasing
numbers of people suffering from mental disorders, and globalization
that has removed power so far away from people’s everyday lives that no
one cares anymore, are some aspects of our reality. Perhaps Brooks
considers this fake news and behind the denial is, of course, the
insight that this miserable state is not caused by “political fools”; it
has been created by all the common democratic and undemocratic forces
that have, for so long ruled the western world. Most of the passengers
aboard this sinking ship are now trying to protest, knowing that we have
crashed into an iceberg – and knowing who steered us into it. But in
one of the sloping salons you will find people like Brooks. Clad in
evening dress, puffing on a cigar, still in the process of ordering the
best available cognac, in conversation with a small clique of opinion
leaders who live in the past.
It may be that in this time of doom
some of the passengers are screaming, are raging and shoving at each
other and that every little pronouncement is not always true, but still,
in comparison with Brooks, they stand on firm ground in the
understanding that our society no longer primarily serves its citizens.