Victimology Blues Part 2: Privileged White Men as the New England Patriots
Posted by gordon gartrelle at 7:41 PM Thursday, February 7, 2008
Throughout their great run over the last seven years, the New England Patriots have sounded like a broken record: “We get no respect…Nobody believed in us…It’s us against the world.” All successful sports teams spout these clichés, but the Patriots have perfected them. The Patriots continued to play the put-upon underdog role, even as they became the first team in NFL history to complete a 16-0 regular season, and won two additional playoff games before being upset by what turned out to be the better team in the Superbowl.
Anybody with a lick of football sense knows that the Patriots’ underdog shtick is laughable. It’s clear that New England has been by far the most successful organization in the NFL this decade. They have the best offense, the best coach, the best front office, and the best QB. They also have one of the best defenses—maybe not statistically, but when the game is on the line, the Patriots’ D usually comes up with a big play. This year, the Pats were favored in every single game they played, often by more than two touchdowns. Before they lost the big game, sports pundits [ http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neel/071219&source=eric_neel ] were talking about The 2007 Patriots’ place in history. Chauncey will disagree, but I think that the referees exhibit a subtle bias toward The Patriots. The Pats’ only credible claim is that, outside of New England, public opinion is largely against them because they win (they believe that Spygate [ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sports/football/11patriots.html ] is just the excuse). On the surface, this football talk might seem to be unrelated to victimology; however, I submit that the Patriots are like the “traditional” white American male: successful and privileged, especially in relative [ http://youtube.com/watch?v=2aKtw1Mle4M ] terms [ http://youtube.com/watch?v=3eOO3xXoUIQ ], yet committed to a narrative of victimhood. [1]
This mindset of victimology isn’t limited to the current generation of privileged white men. Throughout this country’s history, in fact, the most successful purveyors and beneficiaries of victim mentality have been elite Christian white males. Consider the American Revolution: our nation asks us to extol people who framed their taxation at the hands of the British as the greatest injustice in history (while they owned and raped other human beings and excluded from participation the vast majority of its residents.[2] Consider the “threats” posed by Bloodthirsty Injuns, Black Brutes [ http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/ ], the Yellow Peril [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_peril ], the Red Scare, and more recently, Middle-Eastern terrorists (internationally) and Mexican immigrants (domestically). I don’t wish to single out white men—many people have partaken in these various forms of fear mongering[3]—but elite white males have benefited most from them.
The strategic rationale for fashioning one’s group as victims is clear: the public sympathy gained from victimhood can mean the difference between political support and indifference or opposition. Victimology allows activists to rally the troops, to build solidarity by conceiving an existential threat from outside. This strategy is often effective in the short run. Over the long term, though, emphasizing such a strategy can only be detrimental to the less privileged and to those concerned with social progress. But this strategy has different implications depending on the status of those wielding it.
When it comes from the privileged, victimology signals one of two things about the privileged victimologists: 1) that they have no respect for the intelligence of their adversaries and the public at large, or 2) that they have a tenuous grasp on facts and common sense. Either way, their victimology both reflects and contributes to a stunning disconnect from reality. It’s both disheartening and scary to know that there are people in positions of power and authority who think that elite white men are disadvantaged. Because it helps to reinforce privilege, this kind of victimology, by default, has an adverse effect on the less privileged. To return to the original analogy, not only have the Patriots played the victim; they’ve used this perceived victimhood to fuel their dominance, as their “everyone’s against us” attitude bolsters their intensity in walloping opponents.
When it comes from those who aren’t as privileged, victimology has a more insidious result: crippling political discourse and collective action. An emphasis on victimhood leaves people ill-equipped to deal with problems that do not fit the convenient “one of them wronged one of us” narrative. Because of the lure of victimology, discussions about practical strategies to put a dent in a serious problem—such as crime, low academic achievement, teen pregnancy, and fatherless children—too often turn to slavery. Victimology leads otherwise sensible people perpetuate batshit [ http://www.blackgenocide.org/ ] conspiracy theories. Victimology does not simply prompt political actors to exploit symbolic victims who have been harmed by those from other groups; victimology encourages actors to crave victimhood. Every year, a few bleeding-hearts stage “hate crimes,” usually on college campuses. These actions are obviously aberrant, but the mindset isn’t. Hate crime hoaxers aren’t insane; they are merely expressing pathological victimology politics taken to the logical extreme. Relying on fear and demonization of the other in order to define and build political communities is the only mode that a number of less privileged people know.
In short, I am troubled by the extent to which victimology is embedded in our culture.[4] One need not be a Nietzschean to argue that victim mentality exemplifies rhetorical (if not psychological) weakness. While there is certainly virtue in overcoming hardship and victimhood (as the history and resilience of scores of oppressed people attests), there is no inherent virtue in victimhood. Sometimes, victimhood, while life-changing for the victim, has no broader social import beyond the person involved; sometimes, claims of victimhood are absurd, and sometimes, “victims” are idiots or miscreants who deserve neither sympathy [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21824930/ ] nor millions of dollars [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21151938/ ] for making the bad decisions that allowed them to be victimized. But the issue is not whether victims exist (of course they do) or whether certain figures warrant the victim label; the issue is what role victims should play in the narratives (both backward-looking and forward-looking ones) that construct our political identities and frame our political action.
--------------
[1] The analogy breaks down once we move beyond perceptions and outcomes—more specifically, beyond the success to cries of victimhood ratio. Because the best, most deserving teams almost always win, especially in big games, the NFL is closer to a true meritocracy than America (or any other country) will ever be. But the meritocracy only applies to athletes on the field. There’s still a notable racial disparity in coaching [ http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060815/SPORTS/608150338/-1/a_special20 ] and front office positions.
[2] This does not, however, absolve those who refuse to acknowledge the brilliance, or at least the effectiveness of the rhetoric and institutions that these elitist, racist slave owners crafted.
[4] But this isn’t an American phenomenon either. Pick an issue locally, nationally, globally—immigration, multicultural education, The West Bank, secularism vs. public religious expression—each side of every major conflict deals in the politics of victimhood. Victim mentality pervades all societies, garroting political discourse and identity.
copyright 2008 gordon gartrelle (emphasis in original)
The predominant attribute of the right-wing movement is self-victimizing petulance over the unfair treatment to which they are endlessly and mercilessly subjected. Last week, C-SPAN broadcast a Commentary Magazine event [ http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-16832 ] that almost certainly set a record for most tough-guy/warrior nepotism ever stuffed onto a single panel, as it featured William Kristol (son of Irv and Gertrude), John Podhoretz (son of Norm and Midge), and Jonah Goldberg (son of Lucianne). Jihadis around the world are undoubtedly still trembling at the sight of this brigade of Churchillian toughness.
Exemplifying the deeply self-pitying theme of the entire discussion, Jonah continuously insisted that conservative magazines are so very, very important to the political landscape -- indispensably so -- because conservative voices are frozen out of mainstream media venues by The Liberal Media, so that poor, lonely, stigmatized conservatives can only get right-wing opinion in places like Weekly Standard and National Review. In between Jonah's petulant laments about how conservative opinion cannot be heard in The Mainstream Media, Bill Kristol talked about his New York Times column and his Washington Post column, John Podhoretz told stories about his tenure editing The New York Post Editorial Page and Charles Krauthammer's years of writing a column for Time and The New Republic, and Jonah referenced his Los Angeles Times column. None of them ever recognized the gaping disparity between those facts and their woe-is-us whining about conservative voices like theirs being shut out of The Liberal Media. So important in conservative mythology is self-victimization that they maintain it even as they themselves unwittingly provide the facts which disprove it.
Here's Something You Don't See In the New York Times Everyday [Andy McCarthy]
Namely, my opinion — on the controversy over the Uighur detainees at Gitmo.
He can't just say that he has a contribution in the Times today. Everything has to be accompanied by a self-pitying grievance lest the victimization be undermined. Thus: it's such a shock when one encounters a strong conservative voice like McCarthy's in The Liberal Media. The leftist censoring editors at the NYT must have been out sick yesterday, as only that could explain how they let such a brave right-wing voice slip through. Something like that basically never happens because conservatives are treated so unfairly in the media and are excluded from those venues, and it's specifically shocking and rare that opinions from someone like McCarthy would ever, ever be found in a place like The New York Times:
“Of all the clubs I’ve ever been in, it’s the best one to be in,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a 1990s terrorism prosecutor who is now a commentator for National Review, but who leapt to the defense of his Southern District colleague Patrick J. Fitzgerald when he was attacked by conservatives for prosecuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.
The Times reports today on the case of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who has emerged as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. . . . We asked these experts — several of whom were in earlier discussions on the legal challenges of closing Guantánamo and on the effects that torture charges have on its closing — for their response to this case. . . . Andrew McCarthy, legal affairs editor at National Review.
We asked these experts what the hardest challenge the new administration will face, and how that might be resolved. . . . Andrew McCarthy, legal affairs editor at National Review.
Still, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who has generally supported the Bush administration’s approach to fighting terrorism, said Mr. Obama’s hands are tied. He cannot, Mr. McCarthy said, continue to maintain that Mr. Marri’s detention is lawful. “I don’t think politically for him that’s a viable option,” Mr. McCarthy said. “Legally, it’s perfectly viable.”
“These guys are smart enough to know that they’re not ever going to see the light of day again,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor who is chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism in Washington. “I think they’re trying to make as big a publicity splash as they can.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling “sharpens a question that needs to be addressed: What is the proper consideration of factors like ethnicity in questions of surveillance?
“The police officers want to know what the rules are. It may turn out to be bad to the American people if it tells them to do something that is counter to common sense.” Common sense, Mr. McCarthy said, dictated that the police should be able to take race and ethnicity into account in surveillance.
But Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor, said the decision highlighted the difficulties of courts’ reviewing wartime decisions about who qualifies as an enemy combatant. Mr. McCarthy said those were decisions “our system of divided powers consigns to military professionals in the executive branch, not judges.”
Some lawyers warn that given the nature of evidence against some Guantánamo detainees, prosecutors may not be able to convict them. “We have lots of information that is reliable, that tells us someone is a threat and that cannot be proved in court,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor who is now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant United States attorney who helped to prosecute the landmarks bomb plot, said the Siddiqui case demonstrated that “we’re actually starting to get to a place where we’re developing some coherent principles about which cases ought to go into which system.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a National Review columnist who has defended the administration’s legal theories, wrote that Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement “implicitly shows Senator McCain’s thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue.”
“The tools we had to charge terrorism were appallingly bad,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, the lead prosecutor. . . .That view, Mr. McCarthy said, has turned out to be naïve, and he has proposed the creation of a new national security court to address the problem. In his Wall Street Journal article last month, Judge Mukasey said Mr. McCarthy’s proposal and similar ones “deserve careful scrutiny.”
In fairness to McCarthy, his whine that his opinion doesn't appear in The New York Times "every day" is, I suppose, technically true. There do appear to be some days -- not many -- that the Times publishes its newspaper without including views from Andy McCarthy (though in January alone, one encountered his opinion in its pages on 4 separate days).
If you subject yourself to the establishment media, there are few things more difficult than avoiding right-wing polemicists (even the supposedly "liberal" cable network, MSNBC, has a 3-hour show hosted by a movement conservative (Joe Scarborough) and only 2 [F6 note - as of today, 3 (Ed Schultz at 6p ET {e.g. http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/MSNBC_gives_Schultz_the_6pm_slot_.html })] one-hour shows hosted by ostensible "liberals"). The Washington Post Op-Ed page is and has long been a veritable museum showcasing neoconservative tripe. And that's to say nothing of overtly right-wing outlets like Fox News and The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page.
But no matter. Their orgy of self-pitying grievances has no end. As they tell it, unless you read The Weekly Standard or National Review, it's basically assured that you never encounter right-wing opinion, because the media hates them, silences them, and shuts them out. Nothing is rarer than Andy McCarthy's opinion being heard in The New York Times. And the American media -- which even Scott McClellan mocked for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration and which is owned by America's largest corporations and richest elites -- is devoted to proselytizing a leftist agenda. Like everything else, it's all so, so unfair to our stalwart right-wing warriors.
* * * * *
On a related note, one of the most notable developments in our political culture is that the person who is rapidly becoming the voice and face of movement conservatism -- Glenn Beck -- is so deranged that it is hard to put into words. While The New York Times danced around that fact in a largely respectful profile last week [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/media/30beck.html ], Stephen Colbert last night captured the inflammatory insanity that Fox News broadcasts on a daily basis:
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
