Postscript
P.S. Paula, I am sorry that you feel that you can’t afford the time for what you call “illusions.” You attribute this to 25 years on the job, so it seems as if your cynicism has something to do with age. How about having tea with the Raging Grannies? One of them spoke quite passionately at yesterday’s General Assembly at the University. Perhaps the Grannies could rejuvenate your faith in the power of political dreaming from the bottom-up.
As for your idea that “democracy” has to do with “being elected,” how about doing some reading on the origins of democracy in ancient Greece (you could start with Aristotle’s Politics) or anything amongst the wealth of literature about direct democracy, which differs radically from representative democracy? I am certainly not going to limit my idea of democracy to the very narrow one to which you are committed, and I wish you could expand yours.
“Screw your courage to the sticking place, and we’ll not fail.”
Seems to me, that as a revolutionary, Lady Macbeth is not exactly the role model you might wish to adopt. As I recall, her little coup didn’t turn out so very well. But would I be “reactionary” to say so?
I’m neither a reactionary nor a cynic. A cynic is merely a disappointed romantic, and I have no time for either cynicism or romanticism. I’m an idealistic pragmatist. I believe in solutions that work. And I have dedicated my entire career to fighting for social justice. civil liberties, and meaningful political change – be it for aboriginal rights, for queer rights, for reproductive rights, for the rights of accused criminals.
You can make me out to be some kind of crabby old elitist right-winger if that’s the paradigm from which you’d prefer to operate. But it’s founded on a serious misapprehension of my personality and my past.
I understand from one of your supporters that you do not read our paper, and are thus not familiar with my writings. That’s your choice, of course. But it does rather invalidate your critique of my body of work and my moral character.
While I don’t have a Stanford PhD, I do at least have a Stanford M.A. And yes, I have read Aristotle. His version of direct democracy, let us recall, involved an elite group of men who had the right to vote – while women and slaves were excluded from debate in the agora.
I’ll take our rough and imperfect version of representative democracy over elitist fascism any day….and I’ll line up with pride behind Edmund Burke to say so.
But this isn’t, and wasn’t, a debate about representative versus direct democracy. Nine self-appointed guardians of the people, squatting on land in such as way as to put others at risk? However lofty the protesters’ goals, they represented only themselves and their cadre of followers. That’s fine. Everyone has a right to speak and a right to be heard. What they don’t have is the right to say that they speak for me.
So please, don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t ascribe dark motives to me, which I do not, in fact, possess.
As for age? Well, I’ve just turned 47. (Or, as I prefer to say, I’m in my mid-40s.) I’ve been a working journalist since the age of 22. Is your implication that since I’m 40-something I’m too old to be allowed to speak? Or that my advanced age and encroaching senility render my views moot? To that, I can offer little rejoinder. Sure, I’m 47. Positively antique. (Yet isn’t ageism such as yours just another cultural construct, just another kind of elitism?)
You close by invoking Lady Macbeth? Let me pick an apt rejoinder of my own.
“Age cannot whither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety.”
Well, a simple girl does the best she can with what she’s got.