G.S. Bobroff thinks there is a damaging shadow side to Russell Brand’s righteous political outcry.
—-
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” ~ Plato
Here’s a challenge to everyone who’s been getting high on Russell Brand’s New Statesman editorial and BBC interview. I agree with Russell that we need a revolution to save the planet and ourselves, but he’s missing a piece of the puzzle.
I applaud Russell for his courage in putting his truly felt concern for the planet and for the disparity between rich and poor on display. The world needs more folks like Russell Brand—a celebrity who’s willing to risk his coolness for saying something meaningful. That’s what makes his statement worth challenging, because his cause is true and his heart is in the right place. He’s speaking to the problem that the powerful in the world would like to continue to make unpalatable, but fighting back means more than just having the right set of words–it means sticking your neck out (as he did) and proposing a course of action (as he did not).
Saying that “there’s no difference” between the political choices might seem like a shrewd insight and while it’s also socially convenient (no uncomfortable political discussions necessary), it is even more psychologically convenient. The danger is that the kind of disengagement Brand is advocating stems not from passion for change, but for the desire to simply remain above it all.
Brand mentions the moral superiority of the Left and how their “seeking traitors” left him victimized, but he fails to see he epitomizes that superiority in doing what he’s doing—building a pillar for himself to stand on that keeps him from having to get his hands dirty in the mucky moral compromise of political choice. There is no more self-righteous a stance than the one that says “I’m too good for this whole thing, see ya later!”
You don’t end up with a revolution by walking away from the world, you end up with a conveniently packaged pill for complete self-satisfaction.
|
It is a common psychological trait of Left-leaning folks to put together a platform of perfect ideas and then look down upon everyone else. Imagined moral impunity offers a false sense of accomplishment. The psychological term for this move is spiritual bypass: avoiding the world’s reality for the sake of your comfortable preconceptions. You don’t end up with a revolution by walking away from the world, you end up with a conveniently packaged pill for complete self-satisfaction: “Ah good now I can go back to my . . . [insert hipster pastime / white-people-problem here].”
Living in a democracy requires opening your eyes to seeing there’s a bunch of folks out there who want the exact opposite of what you want. What does one pro-Left young person not-voting accomplish? It ensures that there’s one Right (old person) vote that will count. Every time a pro-corporate party wins an election their agenda is (quite rightly) given the stamp of approval. So please don’t tell me that there’s no difference between Texas Republicans that make it harder for women to vote and having Sen. Elizabeth Warren asking why we don’t allow students the same borrowing rates as banks.
♦◊♦
Revolution sounds great and might be the only thing that will save the planet, but around the world the Left regularly loses elections by simply failing to show up for the fight. Might the cleverness of Brand’s wit hide the archetypal shadow of the Left: an allergy to the kind of strategy-making required for winning elections and gaining power? If the youth of the Western world were engaged in the political process, the issues that Brand puts forward would certainly be more on the table than they are now. His solution–non-involvement is part of what is keeping the corporatist agenda going forward full steam.
Perhaps Marianne Williamson’s new candidacy for congress will epitomize the kind of revolution that Brand is seeking—a kind of Occupy party led by independents. But these type of candidacies, that push a center-Left party to the progressive edge, are only beneficial if they don’t come at the expense of power. In 2012, 47% of Americans (who voted) voted for Mitt Romney. You could have Superman-Einstein-Baby Jesus on the other side and if he was a Democrat they’d be against him. In other words, given the best and brightest person imaginable with all the solutions to every problem in the world almost half the voters would still disapprove. Figures like that should make it clear that politics is psychological not rational. Elections are a psychological struggle both personally and collectively, and moving the moral ball forward requires every possible voter to do their best with what is in front of them. Give me a hundred Bernie Sanders and a path to victory and I’m with you, but in the meantime the barn is on fire and half of the country thinks that’s a good thing! Put Revolution on the ballot and I’m there but only if its polling numbers are good enough—I’d like to actually try and change reality.
Is Russell’s course the right one? Do we get the next socio-political model by abandoning the current one? Or are we simply letting go of the wheel (for whoever else would like to grab it)? The danger is that we’re confusing some truly well-meaning, well-refined psycho-spiritual masturbation with actually doing something. Is Russell right or is he simply fiddling while Rome burns?
Image Courtesty of Flickr Creative Commons
This writer is just another mindless voter, playing into the hands of the elites. Did he even listen to the interview? If so, how can he accuse Russell of non involvement. Russell says when there is genuine alternative, then vote for that. To keep voting for the choices we are given, choices that are only interested in their own gain, at the expense of all that lives, is totally insane. G.S. Bobroff is another mindless voter, who is never going to help change the world for the better because he will keep picking the lesser of two evils, so that… Read more »
“Revolution sounds great and might be the only thing that will save the planet, but around the world the Left regularly loses elections by simply failing to show up for the fight.” I think the operative word here is “fight”. I watched the frustration of President/Professor Obama trying to reason with scared, angry two year olds who only want to say “NO!” and have tantrums. The Left seems to think that the answer to everything is to give everyone a hug. It seems the Left is very guilty of “sparing the rod and spoiling the child!” Lyndon Johnson, who was… Read more »
The only true “Activists” are those actively involved in the political process. They are party members, volunteers, they show up to policy meetings and they make their voices count at the time that it counts. The majority of people who THINK that they are “activists” are really “arm-chair activists” who show up once in a while for a protest or sign internet petitions a few times a week. They don’t actually *do* anything useful and they don’t in any way exercise their potential for political influence as a citizen. They’re just complainers. If everybody who showed up to “occupy” signed… Read more »
I do have respect for people who say the emperor’s not wearing clothes. People who refuse to buy an illusion. Brand’s brand of this is extremely tepid, however, and virtually meaningless. Not voting is easier than voting. Not voting is the easiest thing in the world. It has no negative repercussions on the person who chooses not to vote. Maybe a few online grumps like me say bad things about him, but the naysayers are far outnumbered by his admirers. So, this is totally unimpressive. (There are parts of the world, for example places in Latin America, where voting is… Read more »
From the New Statesman that Brand edited comes this article from Naomi Klein, which makes a case for activism, which I find hard to argue with in any way: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt
Re: the messiah and Russel Brand Just woke up from dream. Being held hostage by a demon. I had to hunt it down. And I impressed a beautiful angel in my bed with a solid kata (seemed Bujinkanish). Upon waking I thought of Russell Brand and how he still had a step to go towards self-realization but how I still wouldn’t mind if the more naïve started acting as if he was the messiah. Then I thought about a friend that said ‘profit is not a dirty word’ and how he didn’t really know what he was talking about but… Read more »
Another somewhat-related article on GMP by me is: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/05/why-enlightenment-might-be-bad-for-you-g-s-bobroff/
There’s nothing “wrong” about this sort of radicalism, because it’s not actually all that radical. The only thing “wrong” is to think that he’s doing something new. Everything seems new and radical to someone with a poor understanding of history. Brand is really much more traditional, less innovative, than most people think. We like to think that “our generation,” however defined, is uniquely cynical, disillusioned, and radical. Generations have been doing that for centuries and centuries. Every generation needs to reassure itself that it’s unique and inventive, even when that’s not true. His comments about how democracy is an illusion… Read more »
G.S. Bobroff: The danger is that the kind of disengagement Brand is advocating stems not from passion for change, but for the desire to simply remain above it all. — I watched that interview, and I strongly disagree with your interpretation of RB’s words. I don’t thing he is trying to remain “above it all” in the least. If he was, he’d be saying (under his breath), “Fuck this shit, it’s hopeless. Let me just enjoy my millions”. But he’s not doing that at all. In fact, he’s putting his career on the line by daring to cross over from… Read more »
Not voting is an action.It is not enabling abuse….Why would I vote for a concept called government that is based on force,violence and abuse..A body who dictates what I can put in my body,forces me to pay taxes so they can what..?..So they can what???.. build up a military complex and murder innocent people…to protect me from the abuse they are perpetuating….Russell admittedly didnt go far enough…by not proposing a stateless society..!!!..We have substituted our parents for a government,or a spiritual guru..The so called by passing is not recognizing the abuse we were subjected to by our parents and call… Read more »
I don’t vote for those crooks and nest featherers. I don’t tar them all with the same brush, there are exceptions. However, to participate in this outmoded form of governance, which continues to have laws for the poor and not the rich, which continues to prop up this terribly crooked system is not for the likes of me. Also, on the whole, you vote for one you vote for them all. There is very little difference usually, although this aristocratic bunch of millionaires and their chums is particularly repellent. They think they have the rights to stop me and many… Read more »
Must agree with Scott on this….Brandt gets to sound controversial ( dare I say… Revolutionary?) while continuing his shtick ….and people like me , who are merely “flexing my religious muscle” by voting for “anybody but the democrat”…more elitist drivel if you ask me. I know I’m not smart enough to wrangle with the likes of you and Brandt, so I’ll just suffer along clinging to {insert the latest epithet here}….
“a celebrity who’s willing to risk his coolness for saying something meaningful” There was ZERO risk here for Brand. None. The audience he talks to, and sells to, eats up his message with a spoon, without any critical thought whatsoever because he sounds good while speaking empty words. “You could have Superman-Einstein-Baby Jesus on the other side and if he was a Democrat they’d be against him. In other words, given the best and brightest person imaginable with all the solutions to every problem in the world almost half the voters would still disapprove.” This EXACT same line goes both… Read more »
You are making a false equivalence. The Left is not “just as bad” as the right. It does not go both ways.
Whether or not the Left is better or worse than the Right is entirely subjective. I could make a whole list of ‘Leftish’ projects and positions that I’m guessing you would not want to have to defend, or would claim aren’t really leftish as a way of avoiding having to defend them.
@ Blake: An earlier version of this article included the famous John Stuart Mill quote, which is paraphrased as: “in all intellectual debates, both sides tend to right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny.” Part of the point about the attitude epitomized by Brand is that in removing himself from the process, he keeps himself from learning important (social and personal) lessons from his opponent (which are often about what he’s denying). I think the Left has a lot to learn from the Right and vice-versa, removing oneself from the moral struggle to decide how to… Read more »
@ Blake: An earlier version of this article included the famous John Stuart Mill quote, which is paraphrased as: “in all intellectual debates, both sides tend to right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny.” Part of the point about the attitude epitomized by Brand is that in removing himself from the process, he opens himself up learning important (social and personal) lessons from his opponent (which are often about what he’s denying). I think the Left has a lot to learn from the Right and vice-versa, removing oneself from the moral struggle to decide how to… Read more »
Quoting John Stuart Mill does not substantiate your misinterpretation of Brand’s message. Passively voting for someone to make believe you’re part of affecting change is what is inherently wrong. His idea of revolution is to upset the entire process and dethrone the self appointed royalty who tricked us into thinking we had a say in who we were voting to represent us. There is no accountability to the lies they tell us, and once voted in they are treated like royalty… for life. this is clearly not what our forefathers desired.
“In 2012, 47% of Americans (who voted) voted for Mitt Romney. You could have Superman-Einstein-Baby Jesus on the other side and if he was a Democrat they’d be against him. In other words, given the best and brightest person imaginable with all the solutions to every problem in the world almost half the voters would still disapprove.” The biggest flaw of the Republican party is a loudmouth congressman who spouts off about some science he doesn’t know anything about or hyperextends his Christian exegetical muscles. The biggest flaw of the Left is your comment above. Sure, the only people who… Read more »
Nice essay, Mr. Bobroff. A couple points to chew on. First, the most important thing Russell Brand has to say is not to drop out, but to engage in political movements and with activists who you believe are helping you, and helping to move the system into positive territory. If you chose not to vote – because you believe the candidates are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb – then you STILL must engage in some form of activism, whether it be supporting organizations like Greenpeace or Common Cause or the Union of Concerned Scientists, or working at a food bank… Read more »