The Politics of Victimhood
Once upon a time, political leaders used their positions to inspire those they led to greatness. Whether it was King David, reminding the Israelites that God was with them, or Winston Churchill's famous declaration that surrender was never an option, people who we refer to as great leaders usually shared that trait in common.
Unfortunately, today, political leaders choose to convince their people that they are victims and should react based on that identity. This trend knows no racial, geographic, or socio-political bounds. Here are some examples.
Yassar Arafat: Many are familiar with the corruption and scandal that plagued his leadership, but his connection with the Palestinian people was often one of victimization. He would tell the Palestinians that they were at the mercy of Israel, that all ills that existed in Palestinian society were due to the occupation, and that the United States, Europe, and even (occassionally) Arab nations were complicit in victimizing Palestinians for their own purposes.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Not the only Israeli PM to resort to the politics of victimhood, but the one with whom I am most familiar. He often referred to Israel as existing in a sea of Arabs all bent on their destruction. He reminded Israeli's of how Jewish people had been poorly treated throughout the world after the Diaspora, and used this victim mentality to advance his political agenda.
George W. Bush: I'm sure that most of you (if anyone is reading this, that is) have heard President Bush refer to the idea that if we were not fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we would be fighting them in our own streets. This is a clear attempt to link his policies with the memory of 9-11 and the feeling of victimization that most Americans felt at that time.
Both Ends of the US Political Spectrum: You may have to take my word on it in this case, but both the right and the left consider themselves to be oppressed and victimized minorities, a position which their leaders mention often. When I was a card carrying member of the GOP right-wing, I often heard complaints from the leaders of the movement about the "liberal, secular press," the "liberal, secular courts," and the "liberal, secular justabouteveryoneandeverythinginpower." Now that I have moved leftward, I hear the same (albeit with different adjectives complaints about the exact same institutions. My efforts to point this out to people on either the right or left are rarely fruitful.
Now to clarify, many of the above people and parties have legitimate complaints. Most often, the politics of victimhood is used when their really are victims to represent. My quarrel is not with the facts, but with the way the facts are manipulated to turn people from the real issues and toward an emotive response. If I am discussing with you what is the right course of action to take now, and you bring up a past hurt that you feel will tug at my heartstrings, you are not engaging in open, honest dialogue. What you are doing is committing a non-sequiter, and avoiding the real issue.
When an animal is injured, it's behavior is often irrational, violent, and often counterproductive. People react the same way when they think they have been injured. It is this violent, irrational reaction that many politicians rely on for their power. By capturing the sentiment of a sub-group, they can harness their fear and anger into power, fame, and (of course) money for themselves.
In the US, when political parties and factions resort to the politics of victimhood, it is often laughable as extremists who are upset they did not achieve everything they wanted to. However, when the politics of victimhood takes over an entire people (or two entire countries who are at war with one another) the results are not quite as humorous. Obviously there is more at play in the Middle-East than the politics of victimhood, but they, as much as any other single thing, are preventing real peace from happening.
When you hear someone using the politics of victimhood, I encourage you to think about what argument they are making, and if the vicitm argument doesn't hold water. Let 'em know.
Basem
Unfortunately, today, political leaders choose to convince their people that they are victims and should react based on that identity. This trend knows no racial, geographic, or socio-political bounds. Here are some examples.
Yassar Arafat: Many are familiar with the corruption and scandal that plagued his leadership, but his connection with the Palestinian people was often one of victimization. He would tell the Palestinians that they were at the mercy of Israel, that all ills that existed in Palestinian society were due to the occupation, and that the United States, Europe, and even (occassionally) Arab nations were complicit in victimizing Palestinians for their own purposes.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Not the only Israeli PM to resort to the politics of victimhood, but the one with whom I am most familiar. He often referred to Israel as existing in a sea of Arabs all bent on their destruction. He reminded Israeli's of how Jewish people had been poorly treated throughout the world after the Diaspora, and used this victim mentality to advance his political agenda.
George W. Bush: I'm sure that most of you (if anyone is reading this, that is) have heard President Bush refer to the idea that if we were not fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we would be fighting them in our own streets. This is a clear attempt to link his policies with the memory of 9-11 and the feeling of victimization that most Americans felt at that time.
Both Ends of the US Political Spectrum: You may have to take my word on it in this case, but both the right and the left consider themselves to be oppressed and victimized minorities, a position which their leaders mention often. When I was a card carrying member of the GOP right-wing, I often heard complaints from the leaders of the movement about the "liberal, secular press," the "liberal, secular courts," and the "liberal, secular justabouteveryoneandeverythinginpower." Now that I have moved leftward, I hear the same (albeit with different adjectives complaints about the exact same institutions. My efforts to point this out to people on either the right or left are rarely fruitful.
Now to clarify, many of the above people and parties have legitimate complaints. Most often, the politics of victimhood is used when their really are victims to represent. My quarrel is not with the facts, but with the way the facts are manipulated to turn people from the real issues and toward an emotive response. If I am discussing with you what is the right course of action to take now, and you bring up a past hurt that you feel will tug at my heartstrings, you are not engaging in open, honest dialogue. What you are doing is committing a non-sequiter, and avoiding the real issue.
When an animal is injured, it's behavior is often irrational, violent, and often counterproductive. People react the same way when they think they have been injured. It is this violent, irrational reaction that many politicians rely on for their power. By capturing the sentiment of a sub-group, they can harness their fear and anger into power, fame, and (of course) money for themselves.
In the US, when political parties and factions resort to the politics of victimhood, it is often laughable as extremists who are upset they did not achieve everything they wanted to. However, when the politics of victimhood takes over an entire people (or two entire countries who are at war with one another) the results are not quite as humorous. Obviously there is more at play in the Middle-East than the politics of victimhood, but they, as much as any other single thing, are preventing real peace from happening.
When you hear someone using the politics of victimhood, I encourage you to think about what argument they are making, and if the vicitm argument doesn't hold water. Let 'em know.
Basem
posted by Basem at 7:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home