The Limits Of Political Junkiedom
Rich Horton wrote another column for my blog, and it is – if I may say so – another must read. The subject: political junkies. Excerpt:
Ah, the joys of being young and in a near perpetual state of indignation.
Today, I have a lot more sympathy with my old professors. Yes, I still think it wouldn’t kill them to have some basic knowledge of the present political scene, even if they do nothing else in their careers but study sub-Saharan Africa or IR formal modelling. (Subscribe to Newsweek, for God’s sake.. It takes all of 15 minutes a week to read and you at least have a primer.) But, I think their aloofness was on to something about the political scene. There is a sameness about the disputes and controversies. Pure political junkies don’t really notice this as they can always live “in the moment.†They are like the guy in Memento: everything is perpetually new. Every new issue is taken upon its face value, and analogies are just tools used to bludgeon the other side and not to remind us that we have been here before.
For Political Scientists, however, we have always been here before. Every new political issue can be related to older issues. You don’t have to take anything at its face value, because chances are it is in reality an older controversy dressed up in new clothes. And, as much as it pains me to repudiate the me of 15 years ago, I can see a lot of merit in this view. Political junkies always see the world they live in as a “tipping point†(the most overused trope of the last fifty years). Every issue is of epoch making importance, each setback is a “disasterâ€, and every politician can be categorically labelled as ally, enemy, hero or traitor. Contrary to a common opinion Political Science has actually taught us some things, including that such hyperbole is largely nonsense. Today, I cannot blame these professors for not getting worked up about the controversies of the moment. Why should they? So the political junkies of today get themselves in a tizzy over the guilt or innocence of a man named Scooter? So what? In so many ways it is no different from all of the political junkies who got worked up (and still do) over Sacco & Vanzetti, Whittaker Chambers or Alger Hiss. The names may change, but the motivations remain largely the same. In any event, Political Science is more interested in abstracting out patterns of political behavior as opposed to obsessing about the minutiae of the political tabloids.
Political junkies simply do not and cannot recognize when their world is deja vu all over again.
You can read Rich’s entire column by clicking here.
I am afraid that I have to admit that I am a political junkie myself, albeit one who is getting a little bit tired of it: although it is important to look at what is happening every day, and to keep up with recent developments, it is even more important to see things in their perspective (which is exactly why I decided to ask people to become columnists instead of co-bloggers).
Something new happens every day, but in a way it is always ‘same old, same old.’
Strange, isn’t it?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “The Limits Of Political Junkiedom”
Politics is ultimately one of the basest of human pursuits: the divvying of power, by the elite over the masses.
Note how so many people who are poli-junks, incl. many TMV readers, actively encourage the stagnation and repetition of minor issues. They actively mock real change- i.e.- the formation of newer political parties, because they WANT there to be the constant turmoil of minutia.
Look how many want to equate a minor war over oil with the World Wars, as if a few recherche Islamists are a threat on par with Hitler or Stalin.
One knows one live sin small times when people have to convince themselves that they live in big times. Watch how many times between now and Election Day, 2008, the candidates invoke, ‘this is the most important election of our lifetime.’ Yeah, just like 2004, 2000, 1984, 1968, etc.
Like most things online, future historians will scratch their heads over the self-important anomy of most people’s Internet obsessions: from poliblogs to Facebook to Wikipedia to chatrooms.
Man, I hate it when someone holds up a mirror right to my face like that. Great article.
Sam, I just wanted to make sure you were still breathing! (Thanks!)
And Cosmoetica, is this the first time you haven’t violently disagreed with me????
Written like a true anarchist. Now I know I may simply be a little perturbed because I too fancy myself a political junkie of sorts, but the reason I fall into a “tizzy” over the guilt or innocence of a man named Scooter is because this man or type of man is part of an elite privileged class that continues to exploit a poor working class. The theme of this post seems to be one of cynicism and apathy, as in we’ve all seen these issues before they always come and go and take care of themselves. But does no one see a problem with this? Why should we stand aside and be apathetic, allowing the same issues to continuously plague our society? If we have the power to do something about it we should.
I will concede one point, however, that cosmoetica raised which I agree with and I believe fits with the theme of this post; that every election is the most important election of our time is simply not the case despite what those running would like you to think. However I still believe that we need this type of thinking to inspire more voter participation.
All in all it was an interesting article that made aware of something I had already known.
Stealth1: I never made a claim that being a political junkie is in and of itself a “bad” thing. I still consider myself one, even if I’ve modified it over the years.
The point isn’t to be apathetic, which isn’t the enevitable consequence of skepticism it is sometimes portrayed as being. The point is that political junkiedom keeps us from being able to sort the truly important from the truly ephemeral.
Iconic Midwest: I understand your point and know that you do still consider yourself a political junkie, but its like you just said you’ve modified it over the years. So when a young person is first exposed to the “joys” of political junkiedom, it is hard not become enthralled by every little political debate out there. However, in time as this is modified and evolves, a budding political junkie can make better decisions as to what is truly important. So while I do understand the point you are making I find it is not completely accurate unless you decide on a new term for political junkies who are able to make the distinction you call for.