Why We Should Take Jared Loughner's Politics Seriously
Friday 14 January 2011
by: Steve Striffler, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, apparently drew political ideas from the radical right and radical left, listing (fascist) Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and (communist) Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" among his favorite books. He was also attracted to conspiracy theories, thought we should be on a gold standard (because the government was trying to control us through currency), and at times just believed life was meaningless and nothing could be done.
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, however, holding muddled political views does not in and of itself necessarily make Loughner mentally ill, unstable, crazy, or even particularly unusual. It makes him American and peculiarly so. In the college classroom, at political events and in grassroots organizing meetings, it does not take long to find many young (and not so young) people who hold what many of us consider to be an oddly contradictory collection of political views. After more than a decade of teaching, I can say that very few of today's college students have any sense of what "the left" or "the right" are or have traditionally stood for, what "liberal" and "conservative" have historically meant or where on the political spectrum we might place fascism and communism. When asked, most students - most Americans - "know" that Hitler and Marx are "bad," but very few can articulate what they stood for politically and many often assume that Nazi and Communist are synonymous.
Like Loughner, a significant portion of young people are, for very good reasons, profoundly anti-establishment, distrustful of anything they hear from the government or mainstream media. But this does not make them crazy anymore than it automatically leads them toward a coherent critique of the political system. Rather, in a world where fragments of information come from so many sources, it often leads them to the odd place where any explanation of the world is as good as any other, where there is no conceptual rudder for judging one theory or idea against another. Hence, they draw from wildly opposing political ideologies and are attracted to conspiracy theories. And it often leaves them in a frustrated place where public figures cannot be trusted, and to the conclusion that nothing can be done to change the world (except perhaps something chaotic and dramatic). Hence, the tendency toward apathy and (after a philosophy class or two) nihilism.
How the hell could we expect otherwise? It is bit ridiculous to ask why so few Americans are politically literate, much less hold politically coherent ideas, after we have gutted public education, turned schools into learning prisons and told young people over and over again they are consumers and not citizens. Political literacy, we learn, is no longer even a requirement for seeking political office, but is in fact seen as a drawback. And an important source of such political guidance, the left, has all but disappeared from mainstream life.
Within this context, it is amazing that any person in their twenties is able to develop anything resembling a coherent political framework for understanding the world, let alone acquire the tools to decipher between news and entertainment, to critically evaluate the fragments of information flying at them 24 hours a day from their TVs, computers and smart phones. Most do not have these tools by the time they arrive to college, and I long ago stopped expecting them to. But neither do I hold it against them, or dismiss their views simply because they are (from my perspective) muddled, incoherent and frequently go in completely opposite directions. I take them seriously both because it is my job as an educator and because I know a better future depends on equipping them with the ability to piece together a critical framework for understanding the world.
It is a bit ironic that at the same time as many commentators are urging us to listen more closely to our opponents' ideas and resist the urge to demonize them, that we are dismissing Loughner's political views without even so much as a real discussion. What he did is horrible, but the commentary has gone too quickly from "Loughner's actions were politically motivated" to "it had nothing to do with politics." We are now told that because his political views do not fall seamlessly into a neat box labeled "left" or "right" that they were irrelevant for understanding events in Arizona and, by connection, for understanding the current political situation in the United States. We should take Loughner's political views seriously. His mental state may have led him down a particularly destructive path, but his political confusion is by no means unique.
http://www.truth-out.org/why-we-should-take-jared-loughners-politics-seriously66864
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, however, holding muddled political views does not in and of itself necessarily make Loughner mentally ill, unstable, crazy, or even particularly unusual. It makes him American and peculiarly so. In the college classroom, at political events and in grassroots organizing meetings, it does not take long to find many young (and not so young) people who hold what many of us consider to be an oddly contradictory collection of political views. After more than a decade of teaching, I can say that very few of today's college students have any sense of what "the left" or "the right" are or have traditionally stood for, what "liberal" and "conservative" have historically meant or where on the political spectrum we might place fascism and communism. When asked, most students - most Americans - "know" that Hitler and Marx are "bad," but very few can articulate what they stood for politically and many often assume that Nazi and Communist are synonymous.
Like Loughner, a significant portion of young people are, for very good reasons, profoundly anti-establishment, distrustful of anything they hear from the government or mainstream media. But this does not make them crazy anymore than it automatically leads them toward a coherent critique of the political system. Rather, in a world where fragments of information come from so many sources, it often leads them to the odd place where any explanation of the world is as good as any other, where there is no conceptual rudder for judging one theory or idea against another. Hence, they draw from wildly opposing political ideologies and are attracted to conspiracy theories. And it often leaves them in a frustrated place where public figures cannot be trusted, and to the conclusion that nothing can be done to change the world (except perhaps something chaotic and dramatic). Hence, the tendency toward apathy and (after a philosophy class or two) nihilism.
How the hell could we expect otherwise? It is bit ridiculous to ask why so few Americans are politically literate, much less hold politically coherent ideas, after we have gutted public education, turned schools into learning prisons and told young people over and over again they are consumers and not citizens. Political literacy, we learn, is no longer even a requirement for seeking political office, but is in fact seen as a drawback. And an important source of such political guidance, the left, has all but disappeared from mainstream life.
Within this context, it is amazing that any person in their twenties is able to develop anything resembling a coherent political framework for understanding the world, let alone acquire the tools to decipher between news and entertainment, to critically evaluate the fragments of information flying at them 24 hours a day from their TVs, computers and smart phones. Most do not have these tools by the time they arrive to college, and I long ago stopped expecting them to. But neither do I hold it against them, or dismiss their views simply because they are (from my perspective) muddled, incoherent and frequently go in completely opposite directions. I take them seriously both because it is my job as an educator and because I know a better future depends on equipping them with the ability to piece together a critical framework for understanding the world.
It is a bit ironic that at the same time as many commentators are urging us to listen more closely to our opponents' ideas and resist the urge to demonize them, that we are dismissing Loughner's political views without even so much as a real discussion. What he did is horrible, but the commentary has gone too quickly from "Loughner's actions were politically motivated" to "it had nothing to do with politics." We are now told that because his political views do not fall seamlessly into a neat box labeled "left" or "right" that they were irrelevant for understanding events in Arizona and, by connection, for understanding the current political situation in the United States. We should take Loughner's political views seriously. His mental state may have led him down a particularly destructive path, but his political confusion is by no means unique.
http://www.truth-out.org/why-we-should-take-jared-loughners-politics-seriously66864
Daar zou aan kunnen worden toegevoegd dat de jeugd nu weet hoe corrupt het systeem is waarin ze leven en hoe weinig ze daaraan kunnen veranderen.
4 opmerkingen:
Ieder die even kijkt naar het spel 'Koloniseer de Westelijke Jordaanoever' dat de Vpro met de kerstdagen in haar omroepblad (pp. 95 en 96 ) promootte, ziet dat onze jeugd soms ook weinig weet van bijvoorbeeld Israel-Palestina, maar eerder prat gaat op dit gebrek aan kennis en inzicht. Op haar geheel eigen wijze wilde de Vpro met de Kerst jonge mensen 'aan het denken zetten ' door op internet het spel de Kolonisten van Katan op een ironische manier, als een 'pastiche' vorm te geven. In het spel worden lezers opgeroepen de Westelijke Jordaanover te veroveren en een nederzetting
te stichten.
http://weblogs.vpro.nl:80/dorst/kolonisten/
Het Nederlands Palestina Komitee schreef een bezwaar tegen dit spel.
http://www.palestina-komitee.nl/NPK-berichten/268
De Vpro ziet het geheel anders.Aldus de reactie van hoofdredacteur Hugo Blom van de Vprogids:
'Het idee om het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict te verbeelden in het spel Kolonisten van de Westelijke Jordaanoever is u volkomen in het verkeerde keelgat geschoten. Ik wil daar graag op ingaan. Het Item/spel is gemaakt onder auspiciën van de redactie van Dorst, het jongerenmerk van de VPRO. De makers van Dorst zijn tussen de 16-23 jaar oud en hebben van de VPRO een vrij ruime mate van vrijheid gekregen om, binnen redelijke grenzen, de wereld te verkennen en daarvan op creatieve wijze verslag van te doen. De VPRO heeft niet aan de makers van dit item gevraagd om zich eerst uitgebreid in de materie te verdiepen en de wijze van
presenteren in de gids en op de site wil ook niet suggereren dat het hier om een doorwrocht journalistiek item gaat. Wat de makers beoogd hebben, en ik zeg met nadruk beoogd, is een ironisch commentaar te geven op een schrijnende kwestie. Door voor de overdrijving te kiezen, door voor een pastiche te kiezen, kiezen de makers van ‘Kolonisten’ voor een stijlmiddel
dat door u als ongepast wordt gezien. Het ligt niet in mijn bedoeling om u dit stijlmiddel te laten aanvaarden, wel kan ik zeggen dat het ook in de aard van de VPRO ligt, door middel van experiment, overdrijving, en ironie naar de wereld te kijken. In uw ogen hebben de makers van dit item daarbij de plank misgeslagen. Dat kan, maar neemt niet weg dat hier geen sprake is
geweest van de opzet mensen te kwetsen, of het conflict te marginaliseren.De uitvergroting in het spel is juist bedoeld om (jongere) mensen aan het denken te zetten, niet om ze aan te sporen Palestijnen te verdrijven. '
Hugo Blom
Ik kan alleen maar zeggen dat ik met schrik de zelfingenomenheid van de jonge makers van dit weblog van Dorst en het standpunt van de Vpro-redactie waarneem.
Jose
Dorst, het jongerenmerk van de VPRO.
Fantastisch toch?
En ongetwijfeld al geschreven door iemand die niet weet dat ooit de VPRO zijn eigen "jongeernmaerk" was.
En ongetwijfeld al geschreven door iemand die niet weet dat ooit de VPRO zijn eigen "jongerenmerk" was.
(zucht)
"de wereld te verkennen en daarvan op creatieve wijze verslag van te doen".
O, dus Dorst zit in de toerismejournalistiek? Dit is toch om te huilen. De enigen die "op een creatieve wijze" omgaan met informatie over misdaden die mensen begaan zijn de daders en hun handlangers.
Een reactie posten