Rational Passion

This weekend, Glen Greenwald wrote a series of posts here on Salon.com that got my attention. I read his columns intermittently but have been a philosophical fan of his since his book How Would a Patriot Act?. That book examined the constitutional assault by key provisions of the Patriot Act and the attempts to marginalize anyone as unpatriotic if they opposed some of the draconian measures enacted under it. Glen is about as liberal/progressive as they come, and is one of the few within my political base who has been willing to lead a public charge against some of Obama’s policies. One of the others in that league is Paul Krugman, a hero of mine.

But on to Glen and some thoughts he triggered in me today. In his post yesterday, Greenwald called the media to account (specifically, David Brooks) over their agenda to preserve the status quo and their special place of influence. A New York Times columnist quickly accused Glen of “shrillness”. In a response to the label, Greenwald wrote:

One is guilty of the sin of "shrillness" if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally -- rather than marginally -- wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is "shrill" if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: "Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe"). One is "shrill" if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: "Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories"), etc. etc.

"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of
demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:

Sure, they've made some mistakes; nobody's perfect. But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about. And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.

By definition, only people who are "shrill" would do that.

Here’s what hit me when I read this: those are the same tactics that are consistently used against women who take any position against the establishment. Men aren’t shrill unless you are trying to feminize them, which instantly discredits them. For still, in 21st century America, one of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to feminize (in a negative way) their opposition to policies or ideas, as “shrill” and irrational. And isn’t this another way of attacking the passionate, the forces for substantive change?

So it got me thinking, are rationality and passion — which is often intense and insistent — opposite forces? Is more accomplished with cool rationality that doesn’t directly take on the issue, or passionate arguments that make it abundantly clear what is wrong and what should be done about it?

My take? Passion is essential to moving humanity forward. Yes, there can be a dark side to passion (Hitler is a prime example), but to negate passion, to label it as “shrill” and female, ensures that society stays stuck in its dysfunctionality. Passion can be rational when the ideas and positions undergirding it are well thought out and logical. A well-honed argument in support of an ideal that is expressed dispassionately may appeal to the intellectual elite, but it won’t do much to mobilize the masses or bring about transformative change. Martin Luther King, Jr. was passionate in holding America accountable for how it lived its ideal of “equality”. As LBJ was said to have told him, enacting legislation to right the wrongs of racism, required a mass revolt against the status quo. You don’t get that kind of movement from a dispassionate argument at a debate lectern.

I’m frankly tired of the bad wrap that passion gets when it is expressed on the Left (interestingly, I don’t hear that epithet hurled at Rush, or Boehner, or Palin). I’m really pissed that it is disloyal and “shrill” to hold Obama or the Democratic leadership accountable for enacting a progressive agenda. If progressives abandon their passion for accountability to progressive ideals, then we are no better than the cult of personality that surrounded the last president. We must develop rational, progressive, supportable positions and then we need to passionately mobilize large blocks of the American people to speak out, to hold their elected officials’ feet to the fire. If we Liberals abandon passionate, outspoken support for our ideals, we are doomed.