I Respect Eliot Cohen but his Recent Piece in the Atlantic Misses a Key Point as I See It
Here’s the piece I am referencing by Cohen:
His basic point is that we need to just wait out T and his minions because the laws of nature point to long term push back and inevitable pendulum swing-backs and states and other local leaders stepping up. (He cites the Supremes as a safe guard but I have my doubts.).
He makes some thoughtful points about playing the long game as we witness T’s government at work. There is an arc to history. And, I suspect Cohen is right in terms of politics and tyrannical reign; things eventually right themselves over time. Even I believe that.
But…that proverbial but…
I am worried about the short term consequences of a cratering nation where hypocrisy rules and people are being damaged in droves. Our moral fiber is eroding and our children are watching. As is the world.
The Short Term Matters
So, ponder these short term consequences, a sampling of a vastly larger set of examples:
- Folks in government are being fired illegally or unnecessarily and relieved of their duties. Others are ripped of their security clearances and security details. This obviously affects the functioning of government (here and abroad) but the detritus does not end there. Families are affected; job loss is disruptive and it is mean spirited. (The irony should not lost since T will want protections he now discards for others when he leaves office and he certainly expected it when he was out of office more recently.)
- History may have a long haul view but life is lived in the now and fear is detrimental to our mental well-being, something already challenged as the data show. Families of a wide ranging sort are feeling at risk of deportation and as a result, school enrollment is declining as schools (and churches I might add) no longer serve as permitted sanctuary spaces. Losing an educated populous harms Democracy (with a capital D), over the near and longer term.
- Nastiness and meanness do take a toll on social norms and when you call a serious religious figure a “so-called Bishop” despite her credentials and you free criminals who harmed law enforcement officers because these violent protesters supported you, life as lived is not the same. And I mean in the near term. Who wants to witness or be the victim of meanness, even if it is seen as “mere” showboating?
A Hypthetical to Guide Us
Here’s the best example I can give you as to why short term living and behaving matter. And, I am sure this will not please some readers but here we go. If you don’t like this hypo (spoiler alert), stop reading.
Consider this a hypothetical grounded in truth.
Suppose there is someone in your neighborhood who is mean spirited and nasty and narcissistic, while taking pride in and wrapping herself within religiosity. Hypocritical to be sure and hurtful to recipients of the meanness and inconvenient and rule breaking and norm busting. But, this behavior, while it should stop, is not profoundly damaging as others can create barriers and boundaries and call out her misbehavior regularly. There are remedies, legal and extra-judicial.
But, suppose that this person’s meanness isn’t the only issue. Suppose this neighborhood person drives but should not be doing so because she risks the wellness of others; assume she is somewhat visually impaired, somewhat hearing impaired and on some sort of reflex relaxing medication as best as one can tell, added to demonstrating some of starting phases of dementia to the extent that can be ascertained.
FYI: Narcissism is not dementia.
Recently, suppose I heard this from another very reliable person in the neighborhood (who is way younger than me and I was NOT a witness), that this elder neighbor was obliviously driving down the wrong side of a street. Read that again. Worse yet, she did not respond to the other driver’s effort to get her in her lane (so to speak). The witness swerved off the road to avoid a crash but the driver remained totally and completely oblivious. She likely remains oblivious, and suppose I know for a fact that she has continued to drive since this incident.
Long term, her behavior will become irrelevant. She will stop driving at some point because she loses her license or her children step up to the proverbial plate. At some point, like all of us who are aging, she will cease to be able act out as she currently does because of her health (either mental or physical). Sure, at some point, we all cease to function well and there are natural consequences. That’s the long haul story. She won’t, then, be driving forever and ever. Nature will intervene if humans do not. That’s Cohen’s point. Time is curative.
But in the short term, this hypothetical person in the neighborhood is a danger to herself but more importantly to others and not just because she is mean and rude and knows no boundaries. She is driving and a car is a dangerous weapon in the hands of someone who is “not all there.” Adults and children as well as cars and property could be hit. Irreparable injury could result to innocent people.
Now, ask yourselves, should we await for natural laws to kick in and play for the long haul or might we just need to step up and intervene in the here and now? That’s my question and that’s the question that goes unanswered in Cohen’s thoughtful article about the benefits of time and nature and physics impacting politics and morals.
Maybe Cohen can wait. And while I do believe in the long game too, I don’t seem to have the “patience” gene where the reality of a tincture of time being curative is enough. Even as I see pendulums swinging, I see risk and feel danger to me and others; I see and feel harm abounding; I see and feel fear.
Now to very concrete, suppose, just suppose, I noticed that I am not willing to be on the road when my bad driving neighbor is on the road. I freeze in my home and await her return. To be clear, I am protecting myself from a certain risk. True, I am NOT protecting others; I am protecting myself only and in a limited way.
To be clear, by not driving when this person is on the road, I am thinking of myself. I think about my need to be around for my work; I am traveling to help schools in remote places and need to be healthy; I have a new book to write and I can’t do that if I am injured in a car accident; I have friends and family who need me. I am giving my “protection” primacy. I am treating this bad driver as if I were asked to visit someone wit the flu or a cough or COVID and I say “wish I could but no.” I am staying away to protect myself.
But, if I am scared of an older incompetent driver, and I can mitigate risk, imagine how scared families are about ICE and losing their homes and their livelihoods. Yes, Reverend Budde has protections when she is brave and bold as a renowned Bishop knocking over the King. Not everyone has those protections. And those of us with more protections can and should not just protect ourselves ( I am preaching to myself); we need to do what Bishop Budde is doing, protect those who cannot protect themselves. And yes, take risks.
Just saying: the consequences from the short game can be grave. And, natural laws do not fend them off. Ponder that. I guess I need to step up my short term game … that’s the least I can do instead of just protecting my own hide.
Postscript: I have been conversing with Cohen about his piece, and he made the point that his viewpoints were designed to curb apathy and passivity; in essence, he observed, we become apathetic when we lose hope. So, a natural restoration of history’s arc shifts our negativity. I, too, believe in the power of hope. Perhaps I am less patient and less disciplined than Professor Cohen is; arcs notwithstanding, I am drawn to activism.
