[Shadow_Group] The End of Violence

[shadowgroup-l at lists.resist.ca]

The End of Violence

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2004/11/22/roberts/

The last thing enviros need now is a bout of radicalism

By David Roberts
22 Nov 2004

Enviros made unprecedented efforts to sway the 2004 election with 
legitimate tools: advertising, fundraising, rallying, knocking on doors. It 
didn't work.

Apparently that fact is not sitting well. The top response in a poll 
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/11/03/post_election/index.html 
asking Grist readers where green-minded folks should direct their energy in 
the next four years was "armed resistance" -- by a 10-point margin. You 
might say armed resistance received a mandate.

Enough is enough, you proclaimed. Time to shake off milquetoast pretensions 
of mainstream acceptance, pick up some tree spikes and Molotov cocktails, 
and fuck shit up. A Monkey Wrench Gang for the 21st century!

But you were just kidding, right? Heh heh.

Right?

Look, I know it's depressing. Environmentalists, Democrats, repentant 
Naderites, foreigners, even some old-school (read: principled) 
conservatives said for months that a Bush election would mean disaster. The 
most important election of our lifetimes, we were told. An historic turning 
point. The very fate of the planet at stake. Small, defenseless kittens 
would be slaughtered if W. returned to the White House. Think of the kittens!

And then he went and won.

The worst-case scenario for the next four years is not pretty. The rest of 
the world continues to mobilize against global warming while we hang out by 
the bleachers with Australia, smoking cigarettes and mocking science-club 
geeks. The Bush administration subsidizes the creation of new oil and gas 
companies because the current ones finally say, no, really, that's enough 
public land, we're full. The EPA announces an improvement in its proposed 
mercury regulations, bravely doubling the number of years power plants are 
given to make substantial emission cuts. Bush follows his "Clear Skies" and 
"Healthy Forests" initiatives with the "Immaculate Superfund Act" (which 
cuts funding for the Superfund program) and the "Pinch My Cheeks I'm So 
Healthy! Act" (which loosens controls on pollution from chemical plants). 
George Orwell spins in his grave so fast that he drills to the center of 
the earth, knocks the planet off its axis, and causes a new ice age. Damage 
is done that cannot be undone.

Direct and sometimes violent (at least to property) activism is part of the 
cultural mythology of environmentalism and has a storied past, from Ed 
Abbey down through today's mysterious Earth Liberation Front.

But still, in the here and now, going all Monkey Wrench on their asses is 
exactly the wrong thing to do, for two reasons. First, things won't get 
that bad. And second, it won't work.

Environmentalism is ultimately a cultural change, a change in the attitude, 
perspective, and expectations of ordinary citizens -- and like most broad, 
gradual cultural changes, it is not as subject to the whims of the 
governing class as people like to make out. If the Republican leadership 
thought it were permissible to openly demonize gays, they probably would. 
But it's not. Why? Not because of anything the government did, but because 
Will and Grace just isn't very scary. Acceptance of gays has been spreading 
and will continue to do so, and the political class will follow behind, 
even if some members thereof kick and scream on the way.

Admittedly, there is no homophobe industry with millions of dollars on the 
line, so enviros have a different row to hoe. But change is a'comin', like 
the hippies used to sing. Right now it is politically permissible to 
dismiss environmental concerns as the province of radicals and elites, 
luxuries we can attend to when the economy is safely tucked in bed. 
Sometime -- soon -- it won't be.

It may look at the federal level like progress is stalled, but it isn't. 
States are setting carbon-dioxide limits. Fuel-efficient cars are becoming 
so popular that fuel efficiency will soon be taken for granted. Working 
mothers are finding out that their Wal-Mart fishstix are full of mercury, 
and you really don't want to piss off a working mother. Crusty, 
conservative outdoorsy types in the West are bucking their party and asking 
why every square mile of the land on which they hunt and fish needs to be 
leased to energy companies. The forces of anti-environmentalism are 
shrinking and retrenching inside a few industries and political claques, 
and soon -- not soon enough, but we're not talking centuries either -- they 
will simply sink under the tide.

It's a slow process, and frustrating, particularly given the sense of 
urgency enviros rightly feel. But the point is, it's happening. Bush is 
nothing if not a political weathervane. He obviously feels the need to pay 
lip service to environmental protection. Why else the deceptive names and 
obfuscation? The game is moving down field, and grudgingly or not, he'll 
have to move with it in a second term.

Regardless, bomb-throwing radicalism is a political non-starter these days. 
It can be effective in specific times and places, for ruthlessly pragmatic 
reasons, but in a postmodern world, it eats itself. In our media-saturated 
environment, what matters is not old-fashioned institutional ties or 
personal allegiances, but perception -- and the meme jockeys on the right 
are experts at tagging the left with the actions of its most extreme 
members (a skill that continually eludes their counterparts on the left). 
An outbreak of lawlessness among enviros would be like Christmas for the 
wingers, their first opportunity in years to roll back public perception of 
environmental issues.

People want to be on the side of a winner, so if you want people on your 
side, act like you're winning. Karl Rove gets this; it's why he had Bush 
doing victory laps through obviously blue states toward the end of 2000's 
squeaky-close election. Spiking trees and blocking roads can be incredibly 
effective as emergency measures to stop specific timber harvests, but as a 
primary strategy they are a mark, like all violence, of marginalization and 
helplessness -- of losing.

The proper reaction to Bush's mind-bendingly disheartening victory is not 
to fight with more violence but to fight with more savvy. Enviros don't 
typically do irony well, but in this media climate the winning attitude is 
not earnest outrage but amused, mocking superiority. To be disagreed with 
carries its own sort of legitimacy. To be laughed at is deadly. Retrograde 
environmental opinions and policies must be made to appear small and silly. 
Republicans get this kind of strategy -- witness the time and money they 
spent making Kerry an object of ridicule, of a piece with their years of 
effort painting enviros as people-hating, varmit-loving fruitloops.

I do not mean to minimize the damage to the environment that is sure to 
take place in the next four years, or to discount the real harm it will do 
to the most vulnerable among us. But the answer is not to cede the playing 
field.

Environmentalism does not need another Edward Abbey. It needs a Jon Stewart.

- - - - - - - - - -

David Roberts is assistant editor of Grist.





++++++++++++++++++++++++++STOP THE WALL++++++++++++++++++++++++++

www.stopthewall.org www.nad-plo.org www.hrw.org www.pal-arc.org www.endtheoccupation.org www.sustaincampaign.org






		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/attachments/20041203/d35f1fe4/attachment.html>