Catherine Russell The Cinema of Barbara Stanwyck University of Illinois 2023.
Thank you, NetGalley , for this uncorrected proof for review.
Barbara Stanwyck was not one of my favourite actresses, she seemed too pushy somehow, and her films did not appeal – nor did the characters she played. With this in mind, I thought it was time to understand this actress and her roles from the perspective of years of feminist study, writing and activism. It seemed to me that my prejudices could have been those of a young woman who knew very little about feminism, certainly not the sort of feminism that Barbara Stanwyck might have been portraying. I was not disappointed. Catherine Russell opened a whole new perspective to this multi-talented and courageous actress. Her collection covers such a wide range of the ideas and activities that Stanwyck represents. An exciting read indeed. Books: Reviews
After the Covid update for Canberra: Church Crawl – London, and reference to Barbara Pym novels/commentary on the novels; Tom Watson – Spider-Man 2 and Ramsay MacDonald Government; Heather Cox Richardson- disinformation and competing claims; Tom Nichols, The Atlantic – threat to democracy.
Covid Update Canberra
There were 582 new cases this week, with 15 cases hopitalised. The total of Covid-19 cases since March 2020 is 248,904.
The Chief Medical Officer has announced that Covid-19 is no longer a Communicable Disease Incident of National Significance.
Church Crawl
Barbara Pym used this phrase – church crawl – in Quartet in Autumn. The novel was short listed for the booker Prize in 1975, a triumph after the hiatus in publishing Pym’s novels when An Unsuitable Attachment was rejected by her usual publishers. The proponent of the church crawl is Edwin, one of the four office workers who spend their time undertaking unnamed clerical tasks, and, in the women’s case, close to retirement. Edwin’s commitment to the church includes his friendship with Father G., regular attendance at his church, researching religious matters in the library, and ‘his usual church crawl’ at lunchtimes as the weather improves. After all, ‘that season of the year was stiff with festivals and churches in the area had a rich and varied programme to offer’.
My church crawl was organised by a friend from Wallingford, she and another Wallingford companion spending the day in London for this purpose. We walked around the area around St Pauls, taking in the church Mayor Dick Whittington attended, St Vedast’s garden where Max Mallowan (Agatha Christie’s second husband) donated a tablet with cuneiform writing that he found on a ziggurat in Iraq in 1950. This is an area I would be pleased to revisit as the architecture is so varied, mingling the very old with the new.
Some excerpts from my approach to Quartet in Autumn in The Reality behind Barbara Pym’s Excellent Women The Troublesome Woman Revealed
‘When gauging Pym’s astute assessment of the relationships between women and men, and women and the world in which they had every right to expect to thrive, her writing compares well with that of acknowledged feminists. Her feminist approach culminates in her own 1970s novels, An Academic Question and Quartet in Autumn.
‘Quartet in Autumn reverts to depicting women in unidentified clerical work, but also observable in an office with work accoutrements of desks, papers, and staff peripheral to the central characters…
‘In the later novels, social workers and the welfare system partially replaced the clergy and church charitable activities. This change is fully realised in Quartet in Autumn with the creation of Janice Brabner, a social worker utterly unconscious of her own fallibility. The rise of the ostensibly heroic surgeon, exemplified by Mr Strong in the same novel, is another replacement for clerical intercession. In Quartet in Autumn the clergy are demoted, with one of the bachelors who, in a further ironic gesture by Pym, is described as going on a ‘church crawl’. …Hilary Pym’s comments on her sister’s religious interests suggest that Pym was attracted, but not committed to High-Church practise. In keeping with this observation is Pym’s readiness to speculate, ‘In that play The Making of Mao it is pointed out how violent and bloody the beginning of religion is and then it all peters out and deteriorates, is watered down, to tea and cakes in a church hall – and yet what would you have – martinis and caviar perhaps? Impossible to keep it all up at the same high level, like when a love affair settles down into a cosier less exciting level.’
Tom Watson’s Newsletters
I find Tom Watson’s newsletters an interesting source of information about the Labour Party, but also the source of both controversial and quirky stories.
“Tom Watson’s newsletter on Substack.” The following link will get you to the very interesting newsletter in which Tom Watson writes about David Cameron’s accession to Foreign Secretary in the British Government. He ends a controversial article as follows:
‘Final Thought
All of these issues will be live, whoever wins the next general election. If Cameron was smart, he’d keep David Lammy, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary in the loop on his thinking.
Lammy is clever enough not to use this politically, but the national interest requires both parties to work as closely as they can to maintain a consistent and cogent position with China in the years ahead. As an ex-PM with no skin in the game of the next parliament, he’s better placed to do this than most.’
Newsletter 19 NOV 2023
And now a quirky story:
The story about gaming resonated with me as I recall my daughter’s and my disappointment when a computer ‘guru’ made my old computer faster and all of a sudden Space Invaders did not work. I don’t feel so disappointed that I’ll try Spider- Man 2, but I still feel wary of experts who do not take into consideration all aspects of the grand new computer they are devising for me.
The best video game in history?
Plus: The development of free personalities in a democratic community
A Swing back Into Gaming with Spider-Man 2: 🎮
After a two-year break, I’ve returned to gaming with Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 on PlayStation. This experience rivals the joy I felt playing Space Invader for the first time at the silver blades ice rink in Birmingham circa 1978.
The game’s narrative depth is remarkable, following Peter Parker and Miles Morales through personal struggles in a lively New York City. The gameplay has evolved significantly, with fluid web-swinging and a revamped combat system, including a tactical parry mechanic.
🕷Visually, the game is a treat with stunning detail and immersive audio. The expanded New York City, while impressive, doesn’t always translate to more engaging gameplay. Some side missions, though improved, still feel like missed opportunities.
A delightful surprise is the brief inclusion of Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” during a reunion scene at Midtown High School, adding a humorous and nostalgic touch.
🌟 Spider-Man 2 is a further evolution of gaming. It masterfully combines narrative depth, gameplay innovation, and technical prowess. This game is a must-play for veterans and newcomers alike, offering a glimpse into the future of video games as a storytelling medium. As someone who’s seen the industry evolve over four decades, this game doesn’t just mark my return to gaming; it represents the culmination of years of progress in the genre.
Spider-Man 2 isn’t just a game; it’s an adventure that reignites my passion for this art form. It’s a thrilling, enjoyable, and deeply satisfying experience. It reminds me why I fell in love with video games in the first place. 🎉🕸
Happy gaming. 🎮🕸🏙
And a serious one:
Labour’s Century of Government: Reflecting on a Historic Milestone*
January 2024 marks the centenary of the first Labour government in the United Kingdom, a pivotal moment in British political history.
The MacDonald Government: Pioneering Change
The first Labour government in the United Kingdom, formed under the leadership of Ramsay MacDonald in January 1924, was a significant milestone. Labour’s ascendance to power marked the first time a party with roots in the working-class movement and trade unionism had gained sufficient parliamentary strength to form a government.
This was a watershed moment, reflecting a shift in the political landscape from a predominantly two-party system dominated Conservatives and Liberals. The government was a minority administration, reliant on the support of Liberal MPs, and its tenure was marked by moderate policies, partly due to its precarious position in the House of Commons.
MacDonald’s government, though short-lived, lasting only until October of the same year, embarked on several notable initiatives. It faced significant economic challenges, including high unemployment and the lingering effects of the post-World War I economic downturn. Despite these challenges, the MacDonald government laid the groundwork for future Labour administrations, particularly in its emphasis on social justice and its advocacy for working-class people, setting a precedent for the party’s future policy directions.
Labour’s Formative Years: Building a Vision for Education
In the two decades before Labour formed the government, Labour MPs advocated for crucial educational reforms. Their efforts aimed to free elementary education, improve academic standards, and ensure school infrastructure met the necessary criteria. This period also began discussions on adult education and continuous learning opportunities. Yet progress was piecemeal, and Labour had a bigger vision.
Challenging Philanthropic Conservatism
Margaret McMillan, a significant figure in education and the early Labour movement critiqued the limited scope of philanthropic conservatism with these words:
“Was there any real precedent for Baby Welfare Centres till, appalled by the wastage of infant life, certain women of the leisured class entered the arena, and brought down the infant death-rate at the run? They had an easy task, owing to the lack of precedent! So that, whereas in some places the death-rate was 200 per thousand and more, they quickly brought it down to 70. Congratulations and delight from all England and the Press showering praise. There is nothing so swift as beautiful as action! The Press and Nation forget the black past in the first chill pallor of the East.”
Her remarks highlight the progress made in reducing infant mortality but also underscore the limitations of these efforts in addressing systemic inequalities. Remember that David Cameron rebadged philanthropic conservativism as ‘the big society’. As theories of conservatism go, it’s not bad compared to Stella Braverman’s worldview, but it’s still limited.
Integrating Education with Social Policy
Labour legendary MP Arthur Greenwood articulated the party’s educational ideals in the context of its broader social vision. He said,
“Labour’s educational ideal is implicit in its general social ideal. It is concerned with the development of free personalities in a democratic community. But this end cannot be reached solely through educational institutions, however excellent they may be. Educational policy is inevitably linked with social and economic policy. Poverty, bad housing, drab and dreary surroundings, and disease conspire to undo the good wrought in schools.”
Greenwood’s statement highlights the interconnectedness of education, social conditions, and economic policies. Its ambition was more significant than the social welfare model offered by philanthropic conservatives. In this sense, there are parallels with today’s national debate.
A challenge to philanthropic conservatism
The ‘Big Society’ was David Cameron’s strategic rebranding to align conservative values with contemporary societal expectations. Cameron broadened the appeal of conservative ideology, making it more palatable in an era increasingly focused on social responsibility and community engagement. However, the practical implementation of the ‘Big Society’ was patchy. Though it didn’t need to, it served as a veneer for budget cuts and reduced state welfare provisions.
The ‘Big Society’ thus represents a significant case study in the evolution of conservative thought, highlighting the ongoing negotiation between traditional conservative principles and the demands of modern governance. Arguably, it failed in the last century’s first quarter like it did in the previous decade and a half.
Current Challenges: Confronting Child Poverty
As Labour approaches the centenary of its first government, the failure of Cameron’s philanthropic conservatism means a labour government still faces the daunting challenge of child poverty. Recent statistics are alarming: In 2021-2022, 4.2 million children, or 29% of all children in England and Wales, were living in poverty. This stark reality underscores the urgent need for policies that address the root causes of poverty and ensure equitable access to resources and opportunities for all children.
Revisiting Labour’s Core Mission: A Path Forward
What am I driving at with this historical reflection? As I ponder, it becomes clear that Labour must return to its foundational ethos, much like the social and political pioneers of a century ago.
Adapting to a Changing World
Life’s essence lies in our ability to grow, learn, and adapt. In an imminent future where automation and AI have transformed the job landscape, the remaining work will predominantly require emotional intelligence and creative problem-solving skills. For individuals to thrive in this new world of robots and automated systems, they need healthy bodies and minds open to continuous learning and cognitive engagement, especially in an era increasingly influenced by AI.
The Struggle of the Marginalised
Maintaining an open and adaptive mindset is challenging when basic needs are unmet. Focusing on personal growth and learning is difficult when one’s primary concerns are securing the next meal or staying warm. This reality underscores the importance of addressing fundamental needs as a precursor to educational and intellectual development.
Labour’s Role in Shaping the Future
Labour must articulate its vision as effectively as its forebears did a century ago. This involves bridging the gap between health and education policies and asserting access to information as a fundamental right, not a privilege. As we march towards a future shaped by technological advances, Labour’s commitment should be to ensure that every individual, irrespective of their background, has the opportunity to participate meaningfully in this evolving landscape.
*Jocelynne Scutt’s Brilliant and Bold monthly zoom meeting on 13 November 2023 anticipated Tom Watson’s article on Ramsay MacDonald’s government. Yvonne Finlay made a presentation on the film she is making about MacDonald’s government. Of particular interest is Margaret Bondfield JP (17 March 1873 – 16 June 1953) who became the first female cabinet minister, and the first woman to be a privy counsellor in the UK, when she was appointed Minister of Labour in the Labour Government.
Heather Cox Richardson Newsletter 17 October 2023
Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com>
In an NPR piece yesterday, Bill Chappell noted that “the war between Israel and Hamas is being fought, in part, through disinformation and competing claims.”
Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s leadership team currently in Qatar, told Ben Hubbard and Maria Abi-Habib of the New York Times that Hamas’s goal in their attack of October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists crossed from Gaza into Israel and tortured and killed about 1,200 people, taking another 240 hostage, was to make sure the region did not settle into a status quo that excluded the Palestinians.
In 2020 the Palestinians were excluded from discussions about the Abraham Accords negotiated by then-president Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner that normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (and later Morocco). More recently, Saudi Arabia and Israel were in talks with the United States about normalizing relations.
Al-Hayya told the reporters that in order to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Hamas leaders intended to commit “a great act” that Israel would respond to with fury. “[W]ithout a doubt, it was known that the reaction to this great act would be big,” al-Hayya said, but “[w]e had to tell people that the Palestinian cause would not die.”
“Hamas’s goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such,” al-Hayya said. “This battle was not because we wanted fuel or laborers,” he added. “It did not seek to improve the situation in Gaza. This battle is to completely overthrow the situation.”
Hamas media adviser Taher El-Nounou told the reporters: “I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us.”
Hamas could be pretty certain that Israel would retaliate with a heavy hand. The governing coalition that took power at the end of 2022 is a far-right coalition, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to hold that coalition together to stay in power, not least because he faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.
Once it took power, Netanyahu’s government announced that expanding Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank was a priority, vowing to annex the occupied territory. It also endorsed discrimination against LGBTQ people and called for generous payments to ultra-Orthodox men so they could engage in religious study rather than work. It also tried to push through changes to the judicial system to give far more power to the government.
From January 7 until October 7, 2023, protesters turned out in the streets in huge numbers. With the attack, Israelis have come together until the crisis is resolved.
Netanyahu’s ability to stay in power depended in large part on his promises that he would keep Israelis safe. The events of October 7 on his watch—the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust—shattered that guarantee. Polls show that Israelis blame his government, and three quarters of them think he should resign. Sixty-four percent think the country should hold an election immediately after the war.
Immediately after the attack, on October 7, Netanyahu vowed “mighty vengeance” against Hamas, and Israeli airstrikes began to pound Gaza. On October 8, Israel formally declared war. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said the country’s retaliation would “change the reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years,” and on October 9 he announced “a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed…. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
Israel and the U.S. have strong historic and economic ties: as Nicole Narea points out in Vox in a review of their history together, the U.S. has also traditionally seen Israel as an important strategic ally as it stabilizes the Middle East, helping to maintain the supply of Middle Eastern oil that the global economy needs. That strategic importance has only grown as the U.S. seeks to normalize ties around the region to form a united front against Iran.
For Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and other envoys, then, it appeared the first priority after the October 7 attack was to keep the conflict from spreading. Biden made it very clear that the U.S. would stand behind Israel should Iran, which backs Hamas, be considering moving in. He warned: “[T]o any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t.”
The movement of two U.S. carrier groups to the region appears so far to be helping to achieve that goal. While Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon and Yemen’s Houthis have fired missiles and drones at Israel since October 7, Iran’s leaders have said they will not join Hamas’s fight and are hoping only to use the conflict as leverage against the U.S.
Militias have fired at least 55 rocket and drone strikes at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since October 7 without killing any U.S. soldiers. In retaliation, the U.S. has launched three airstrikes against militia installations in Syria, killing up to seven men (the military assesses there were not women or children in the vicinity) in the third strike on Sunday. The U.S. keeps roughly 900 troops in Syria and 2,500 troops in Iraq to work with local forces to prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State.
At the same time that Biden emphasized Israel’s right to respond to Hamas’s attack and demanded the return of the hostages, he also called for humanitarian aid to Gaza through Egypt and warned Netanyahu to stay within the laws of war.
Rounds of diplomacy by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who flew to Israel and Jordan initially on October 11 and has gone back repeatedly, as well as by Biden, who has both visited the region—his second trip to a war zone—and constantly worked the phones, and other envoys, started humanitarian convoys moving into Gaza with a single 20-truck convoy on October 21. By early November, over 100 trucks a day were entering Gaza, the number the United Nations says is the minimum needed. Yesterday the Israeli war cabinet agreed to allow two tankers of fuel a day into Gaza after the U.N. said it couldn’t deliver aid because it had run out of fuel.
The U.S. has insisted from the start that Israel’s military decisions must not go beyond the laws of war. Israeli officials say they are staying within the law, yet an estimated 11,000 civilians and Hamas fighters (the numbers are not separated out) have died. Gaza has been crushed into rubble by airstrikes, and more than a million people are homeless. That carnage has sparked protests around the world along with calls for a cease-fire, which Israel rejects.
It has also sparked extreme Islamophobia and antisemitism exacerbated by social media. In the immediate aftermath of October 7, Islamophobia inspired a Chicago man to stab a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy to death; more recently, antisemitism has jumped more than 900% on X (formerly Twitter). On Wednesday, Elon Musk agreed with a virulently antisemitic post on X. White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded: “We condemn this abhorrent promotion of Antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans.” Advertisers, including IBM and Apple, announced they would no longer advertise on Musk’s platform.
While calling for humanitarian pauses in the fighting, the Biden administration has continued to focus on getting the hostages out and has rejected calls for a cease-fire, saying such a break would only allow Hamas to regroup. In The Atlantic on November 14, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who negotiated a 2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel only to see Hamas violate that agreement two years later, explained that cease-fires have only kicked the can down the road. “Israel’s policy since 2009 of containing rather than destroying Hamas has failed,” she said.
Clinton called for the destruction of Hamas on the one hand and “a new strategy and new leadership” for Israel on the other. “Instead of the current ultra-right-wing government, it will need a government of national unity that’s rooted in the center of Israeli politics and can make the hard choices ahead,” she wrote.
Central to those choices is the long-neglected two-state solution that would establish a Palestinian state. Biden and Blinken and a number of Arab governments have backed the idea, but to many observers it seems impossible to pull off. Still, at the same time Clinton’s article appeared, King Abdullah II of Jordan published his own op-ed in the Washington Post titled: “A two-state solution would be a victory for our common humanity.”
“[L]et’s start with some basic reality,” he wrote. “The fact is that the thousands of victims across Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have been overwhelmingly civilians…. Leaders everywhere have the responsibility to face the full reality of this crisis, as ugly as it is. Only by anchoring ourselves to the concrete facts that have brought us to this point will we be able to change the increasingly dangerous direction of our world….
“If the status quo continues, the days ahead will be driven by an ongoing war of narratives over who is entitled to hate more and kill more. Sinister political agendas and ideologies will attempt to exploit religion. Extremism, vengeance and persecution will deepen not only in the region but also around the world…. It is up to responsible leaders to deliver results, starting now.”
Notes:
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1212889717/satellite-images-us-israel-gaza
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/history-its-importance-and-irrelevance-plus-some-books
https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/saudi-israel-normalization-agreement-horizon
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/who-takes-over-gaza
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23916266/us-israel-support-ally-gaza-war-aid
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/17/politics/inside-joe-biden-israel-trip-planning/index.html
Diplomatic, by Laura Rozen
Israel agrees to fuel for Gaza after US privately warned of humanitarian catastrophe
A day after the United Nations said it could no longer deliver aid in Gaza because it had run out of fuel and American officials warned Israeli counterparts…
11 hours ago · 7 likes · Laura Rozen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/gaza-rising-death-toll-civilians/
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/apple-twitter-x-advertising-elon-musk-antisemitism-ads
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/king-abdullah-jordan-two-state-solution/
Twitter (X):
Yair_Rosenberg/status/1724883596379349434
TOM NICHOLS
Tom Nichols is a staff writer at The Atlantic and an author of the Atlantic Daily newsletter.
Much of America’s politics has descended into ignorant, juvenile stunts that distract us from the existential danger facing democracy. Citizens must take up the burden of being the adults in the room.
One of the more rewarding parts of a newsletter like The Daily is that it allows writers to have an ongoing conversation with readers, and to return to themes and discussions over time. This is also a nice way of saying that now and then, I’m going to pull up something I wrote a while ago, because I think people near to keep hearing it. (As I said yesterday when examining the word fascist, I am something of a pedant, and the professor in me is always still lurking around here.)
So before we break for the weekend and start preparing for our Thanksgiving celebrations, I want to revisit an argument I made nearly two years ago—something I think might help make the holiday a bit less stressful around the dinner table. It is a simple recommendation, but one that will be hard for many of us to follow: In a time of clownish, adolescent, and highly dangerous politics, those of us defending American democracy must be the adults in the room. We must be measured, determined, and even a bit stoic.
Let us recall what prodemocracy citizens are up against. Donald Trump and many of his supporters in Republican politics are, in effect, a reality show, an ongoing comedy-drama full of Main Characters and plot twists and silly caricatures of heels and heroes.
Think of Kari Lake, with her soft-focus, super-earnest TV presence. Watch Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin hitch up his pants and offer to duke it out with a Teamster, in a dopey scene that Hollywood would have left on the cutting-room floor. Tune in to Newsmax and chuckle as Representative Tim Burchett complains that Representative Kevin McCarthy gave him an elbow in the kidneys. Smirk along with the anchors as they suggest that Representative Nancy Mace, if McCarthy funds her challengers, might reveal some dirt—wink wink, nudge nudge—on the former speaker.
Trump himself is a man both menacing and ludicrous, one of the most improbable figures ever to be at the center of a cult of personality. His whining, his weird mannerisms, his obsession with personal cosmetics—all make him an easy target for jokes and nicknames.
But none of this should drag us into acting like children ourselves. Trump and his supporters might be inane in many ways, but they are deadly serious about their intentions to take power and destroy democracy. Their cavorting and capering is part of who they are, but it is also bait, a temptation to distraction and an invitation to sink to their level.
As I wrote in 2021:
It’s time to ditch all the coy, immature, and too-precious language … No more GQP, no more Qevin McCarthy, no more Rethuglicans and Repuglicans. No more Drumpf. No more Orange Menace. And no more of The Former Guy, which I know is popular among even many of my friends and colleagues in the media.
In the ensuing years, I’ve suggested often on social media that people also forgo calling the current Florida governor “DeSatan,” “DeathSantis,” and other grade-school epithets. I get it: It’s fun and sometimes funny. But as I warned, it also signals a needless lack of seriousness about the threat to democracy:
When we use silly and childish expressions, we communicate to others that we are silly and childish, while encouraging ourselves to trivialize important matters …
Juvenile nicknames too easily blur the distinction between prodemocracy voters and the people they’re trying to defeat. If you’ve ever had to endure friends or family who parrot Fox-popular terms like Demonratsand Killaryand other such nonsense, think for a moment how they instantly communicated to you that you never had to take them seriously again.
Now ask yourself if you want to be viewed the same way.
This advice does not mean being quiet or avoiding conflict or engaging in false compromise for the sake of peace during dinner. Rather, it is advice to be steadfast and calm. When Uncle Ned (he regularly appears in my hypothetical family dinners) goes on about Obummer or the Biden Crime Family, nothing is gained by railing back about Cheeto Jesus or Mango Mussolini. Such language just convinces others that your arguments are no less childish than theirs.
Instead, be direct and uncompromising: “You’re wrong. I think you know that you’re wrong, and I think, in your heart, you know you’re making a terrible mistake.” That’s the best you can do in a family setting. Among friends, the approach might be different: “You know that these conspiracy theories are not true. And Donald Trump is a fascist. You’re not. But that’s what you’re supporting.”
Whether to continue that friendship probably depends on what happens next. Unlike some of my gentler friends and colleagues, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ending friendships over deep political divides, but as much as possible, be kind, be patient, be polite—but be unyielding in what you know is right.
When I was in high school, I read Meditations,by the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius. I’ve read it many times since, in the hope that I will fully grasp all of it before I depart the planet. But I’ve kept a few quotes nearby for years, including his admonition that other people, even if they are “meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly,” are no different from any of us and, like you and me, possess “a share of the divine.”
He also warned us, however, not to become like those who might hate us: “Will any man despise me? Let him see to it. But I will see to it that I may not be found doing or saying anything that deserves to be despised.”
This is tough advice, and I fail at it regularly. But the key is that you can’t change other people; you can control only what you do, and what you do will influence other people more than silly nicknames, mug-shaming, and gossiping. Saving democracy sometimes requires flags and marches and dramatic gestures. For most of us, however, democracy is preserved one day, and one conversation, at a time.
Robin's Room 