Impure Thoughts

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

Any time you hear the word purity too often in a conversation, the sound of jackboots can’t be far behind.
– Anthony Bourdain

(foodie and travelista, following a healthful massage and mud bath in Iceland)

Our president has suggested that the proposed initiative to tax the rich be named after one of theirs, one of the few who can equal Bill Gates in wealth and influence: third-richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. Years ago, Buffett was the billionaire who proposed that he should pay, on average, at least as much tax as his secretary, rather than less. His was an early voice for liberalizing both the tax structure and its current rate in an effort to rebalance the economy.

When FDR proposed taking business-gone-rogue to the woodshed, his contemporaries accused him of selling out his class. Not so for Buffet, whose modest lifestyle and habits did not change over the years to reflect his skyrocketing wealth. Buffett made an ethical decision, determined not to be swept away by the power and privilege that came along with profit. He has been a frontrunner for protecting mainstream America by promoting an equal share in both responsibility and benefit, rather than the top-down protections for both profit and profiteers that have become government policy over the last decades.

If you want a crystal clear example of how skewed these laws have become, please take a moment to watch Stephen Colbert create an anonymous political entity, an addition to his super PAC, here. I consider this to be absolutely brilliant political television: his comments punch a hole the size of Texas in the credibility of this kind of organization, which is based on the one designed and run by Karl Rove. Colbert’s über-conservative shtick gives him latitude that Jon Stewart can’t begin to touch with straight satire.

Not that I think Jon’s a slouch, of course, as his numerous Emmies attest. The night before, Stewart called bullshit on Bill O’Reilly’s contention that if taxes get any worse, he might have to give up his multimillion-dollar job as overlord of FOX News nightly talk shows. Nose to nose, their conversation (off air and on web) was described as “feisty.” Neither Stewart nor Colbert have any problem crossing the sensibilities of their own viewer-base, so we can rightfully accuse both of being “politically incorrect,” as are Mike Moore, Bill Maher and others who give the nation an alternate version of reality, the non-approved version.

Me, I don’t remember ever having been politically correct. Early on I chalked it up to Sagittarian blurt. Now I realize it’s an internal bullshit-o-meter, the reflections of which are often better mumbled to myself than screamed in a crowded theatre. It’s taken all of a lifetime to learn when to offer those candid thoughts and where they’re welcome, but back in the day, they caused significant problems. A friend described this inability to mind other people’s cultural prohibitions while tap dancing on their dearly-held mythologies as akin to an enthusiastic puppy snagging the hostess’s panty hose. All I can plead is that I’m an equal opportunity offender. As Mike Moore describes in his new book how his early documentaries placed him in danger to life and limb, I can relate to his bewilderment that someone wanted to stuff a gag in his mouth and carry him away (wag, wag, wag).

Political correctness changes with the wind, of course, a matter of social conditioning, and let me suggest to you that if you suffer this malady, it contributes to your lethargy and depression. In order to be politically correct, you have to ignore your own feelings and intellect, put aside your common sense and adopt the views and prohibitions of the majority. Perhaps the biggest boon to mental health in the last several years is that nobody appears to know what the majority is anymore. The resulting chaos may be disorienting and confusing, but it’s enormously more productive and sane than all of us reading from the same politically approved script.

Purity tests issued by the right have given us the current presidential aspirants, who assure us that they alone speak for the American people. So far, however, no one has been pure enough to capture the fickle approval of the heavily-religious Republican base, so this group has yet to gel into anything powerful enough to worry about. Perry has imploded over immigration, and Romney still can’t get anything acceptable into his “empty suit.” The current cries for Chris Christie to throw his hat in the ring will no doubt cease when the faithful discover he believes in the science behind global warming. And who knows if recent racy allegations about Sarah Palin would hurt her slim chances to take the nomination, should she finally cajole her web-readers to send enough contributions to make it worth her while. Meanwhile, the only truly sane candidate — John Huntsman — can’t get a gig.

Hovering somewhere in the middle, Libertarian voters — sometimes described as undecided, a philosophical foot in each of the mainstream political camps — blend their democratic instincts with a kind of grumpy-old-man xenophobia and Ron-Paul isolationism. Their talking points are most often aligned with weenie personalities like Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul, and they’re irretrievably entwined with the Koch Brothers money that financed the original anti-tax, anti-government, anti-anything-designed-for-the-public-good Tea Party movement.

The truth about the Bagger phenomenon is that there are fewer of them than we imagine. On their best day, they only represented about a quarter of the right-leaning population, and that day is behind them. The chattering class continues to magnify their influence because in an immature fit of pique, the American public replaced actual legislators with these “nattering nabobs,” resulting now in frighteningly low Congressional approval. The thought that the House of Representatives actually represents anyone but the weak-minded and barely literate is laughable, as is the chance that the nabobs have selected a fortunate career path for their future. The Grand Old Party is as internally divided as the nation itself and less likely to survive the stress.

Old-fashioned conservatives, reluctant to call themselves Republican any longer, prefer to consider themselves Independents. They appear to be terrified at the scorched earth tactics of the t-evangelicals and want no part of such association. As these are people who find compromise an agreeable political tactic, the Baggers want none of them either. Even now they’re plotting the demise of mainstream Republican John Boehner for being too eager to cut deals with the socialist hordes. Essentially, conservatives aren’t happy with the president, but they’re not happy with the options, either. Some will cross party lines on election day simply because they see anarchy in their future unless they do. They are scrambling to find what’s left of their core, and what they find politically correct at this point is anyone’s guess.

And progressives? Unhappy, depressed, clamoring-for-real-action, squaring-off-for-a-fight progressives? We’re less hostile to Obama at the moment, watching to see what he does with his remaining clout. As he picks up campaign steam, we hear the kind of liberal talk that encourages our participation. We’re following the growing protest on Wall Street with interest, noting the brutality of sadistic cops with disapproval while approving the growing coverage and mainstream attention. A dozen days in, Jon Stewart gave us a boost with his takedown of the pepper-spraying cop, and it appears that several other cities are organizing for occupations of their own. If that lights a bulb over your head, find a movement near you — or start one.

So far, those at the Wall Street Occupation are pledging to dig in for the long haul — despite growing hostility from the cops and the mayor — even though there isn’t a single organization proclaiming leadership. Perhaps that’s both the good and the bad of it; perhaps the ability to be non-structured and organic will make the group a little more slippery, a little less pedantic, a generic movement that hasn’t just one bone to pick, but — as reflects the times — a whole carcass of inequity and fraud and rogue capitalism to decry. In short, a group to which everyone can relate.

Given the temperament of the left, there’s no purity test on this side of the fence. If an unhappy Tea Bagger shows up in New York to march against swindling bankers, more power to ’em. If a disenchanted Libertarian has enough grievance with the Federal Reserve to walk the occupied streets, bless their little heart. Airline pilots and union members, average citizens and activists, members of Adbusters, US Day of Rage and Anonymous have all come together to choose, as Chris Hedges tells us, whether they are a “rebel or a slave.”

Clearly, there’s a revolution in the making in New York, not one already made. It’s beginning to spread around the country, even though, and perhaps because, it’s organic, holistic, given to fits and starts. It smacks of the same populist integrity that promoted Arab Spring, which has proven to have the staying power to remain spring-like well into the seasons ahead. And don’t think the darker forces haven’t noticed.

Perhaps we’ve been politically correct too long to understand how important it is to crack the facade of our unquestioning acceptance, or how vital to our nation and to our own sense of livelihood and self-esteem such a movement can become. The danger, of course, is that once we crack that pre-established social coding, we will realize we stand at a dark precipice and, overwhelmed, sink into depression or worse. Over at AlterNet, Bruce Levine wrote a piece on how critical thinkers can rise above their pessimism and hopelessness. He calls for us to encourage our own individual self-respect, collective self-confidence, courage, determination, anti-authoritarianism, and solidarity. He thinks these atrophied muscles — the kind the left used to have, and once used for the betterment of all — can be exercised into renewed power at events such as the Occupation. I believe he’s right.

And, please! Do I have to say, once more and politically incorrect as it is, that this is 2011 we’re talking about? That all of this is occurring even as unimagined change gathers behind the mundane events of the day? That even as the Haves work like demons to buy their politicians, secure their power, protect their riches and legislate against any populist shenanigans, the entirety of the Have Nots is just beginning to wake up, to look around, to wonder how they got pushed off the game board. And no matter how impolitic that silent group of well-trained citizens is, no matter how the powerful protest that they’ve got all the money and power? Ahhhhh, but we’ve got the numbers, don’t we! Just give us a minute to stretch and rub our eyes!

I found a quote that sums up the zeitgeist of this movement, from my point of view. In the soup of democracy that these Wall Street protesters enjoy, the Occupation has a nightly general assembly meeting that recently produced this sound bite: “Occupy your own heart, not with fear but with love.”

Really? Can we fight against big money concerns, against the bludgeoned powerlessness of hungry children and frightened elders, the under-employed and overworked and growingly desperate citizens? Can we face down sadistic cops with pepper spray and the criticism of reptile-brained pundits and still look within our heart to find the love?

You know how much mega-tonnage that is, that heart-stuff? How quickly it can swell into something bigger than Wall Street, with all its criminal intent and covert money-laundering, ever thought itself to be? Is this a spark we can fan into flames? Because if we can, there isn’t any power that can stop us. The only purity needed in the great experiment ahead is the politically incorrect understanding of what love for one another and continuing life on this planet can do — unconditional, unstoppable, undeniable.