Following the ugly and disgusting display of demagoguery, war-mongering and racism by President Trump in his State of the Union Address, a number of rebuttals were made. For their critique of the address, the Democratic Party chose Joseph Kennedy III whom they no doubt hope to hype as a rising star and a fresh young alternative to the “curmudgeonly” Bernie Sanders. Upon hearing what Joseph Kennedy (and therefore the Democrat Party) had to offer in the way of opposition to Trump, I saw that it was still another example of something that I have come to expect from them. In other words, it was McResistance — empty speech peppered with trite platitudes and insincere conviction with a liberal dose of do-nothingness. An excellent critique of his speech is provided in the following video by Emma Vigeland for TYT politics:

As she observes, not only does Kennedy continue to engage in serving up a trite and bland attempt at a pep talk, but he scrupulously avoids anything in the way of substantive policy proposals. One look at the majority of his campaign contributors which include Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, Bank of America and Raytheon helps to elucidate where his true interests lie. Like his fellow Democrats, he may pretend to care for his constituents but his voting record most assuredly does not validate this. Contrasting this pap and propaganda with the powerful and substantive critique offered by Bernie is instructive in showing us what it really means to work for social justice.

Appealing to Emotions is Not Enough

A tried and true strategy employed in propaganda is to stir the emotions of listeners with the intent of manipulating them in some fashion. This strategy relies upon beliefs, images and words that have been inculcated in the audience through the process of socialization into the dominant extant ideology. These same words and images are then used to tap into a range of different emotions connected to them. These can include anything from a warm kind of fuzzy sentimentality to fierce pride to virulent hatred. We witnessed an example of this in Trump’s use of jingoism wherein he employed an appeal to extreme patriotism to advocate for war-like aggression against our so-called enemies. However, Kennedy’s speech was replete with examples as well, each intended stir antipathy toward Trump and Republicans while associating the Democratic Party with mom, baseball and apple pie.

The goal of this sort of sophistry is not to use these emotions as a means of stimulating a deeper and clearer consideration of the problems and challenges in question. Nor is it to stir the passions of the listeners so as to pave the way for meaningful action. Rather it is either to actually stifle their passions by instead cultivating a safe form of tepid sentimentalism (“Gee, isn’t it great to be an American? Aren’t we blessed as a land of freedom? Can’t we bring back the values that always made us special?”) or by inciting extreme feelings that stifle reason and critical reflection (“All who oppose us will be sought out and destroyed!”). True work for social justice requires passion, but that passion must be carefully aligned with something more.

Using Our Heads and Giving Our Ideas Feet

The lack of any substantive content to either Trump’s State of the Union or Kennedy’s limp attempt at an alternative is by no means accidental. The absence of any meaningful policy proposals is not merely because neither has anything practical or important to offer — although given the inept track record of Democrats in opposing Trump one could make a case for this. Both parties clearly have agendas which they scrupulously employ to maintain their grip on power and ensure that their interests are protected. It simply wouldn’t do for any of us to be made aware of this. And so we are kept in the dark by means of various forms of deception and mystification upon which the powerful rely to maintain the status quo. One of the things that we have come to love about Bernie is that he speaks openly and truthfully. He courageously exposes what his fellow politicians work so hard to hide.

In doing so, what Bernie and other true workers for social justice understand is that change only comes first with awareness. Our blinders to what is actually going on must be removed by means of raising consciousness. We must name and put words to the oppression and injustice that is being perpetrated and embrace our experience of suffering at the hands of our exploiters. This only comes when we do not allow our emotions, in particular our fear, to stifle our ability to step back and critically examine the painful circumstances confronting us. We must be able to use our heads and think critically about what is going on.

This process, discussed in a great deal of Marxist literature, is called praxis. The first phase of praxis is reflection in which we come to a clearer appreciation of what forces are at work in creating and maintaining injustice. Often this means examining the realities of our everyday lives and discerning within them the multiple ways in which we concretely experience oppression and exploitation. While this may evoke powerful emotions, we cannot allow those emotions to derail our deconstructing the myths that imprison us and the illusions that misguide us. We must develop clear ideas about not only what is the current state of affairs, but more importantly about how things can be different. What is our alternative vision of a more just society?

What the process of praxis also makes clear is that simply knowing something or thinking about something is not enough to achieve social justice. We must put those ideas into some form of concrete action. Here again we can see where so much of what we ordinarily are exposed to in contemporary rhetoric is meaningless and unhelpful. So many of our politicians don’t put their publicly stated convictions into action. They talk a good game and do nothing. Praxis requires the ongoing interweaving of intellectual reflection with courageous action. In other words, problems need actual policies designed to make meaningful changes aimed at correcting those problems.

It Is Not Enough to Know What We Are Against. What Are We For?

Another way in which resistance fails is by taking an entirely negative form. This is particularly in evidence when it is fueled by a kind of unseeing rage. It is not a question of whether anger has a place in social change. It most definitely does as many a social movement had its roots in a sense of righteous indignation. But that anger must be channeled in a constructive direction and that is not possible unless we know what we are also fighting for. That something is social justice.

The topic of social justice is far too vast to be conveniently encapsulated here. And so for the sake of simplicity as well as clarity, I offer some critical questions that we must ask ourselves in order to work on behalf of social justice. I derive these from the work of some of the contemporary important thinkers on the subject of social justice: John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Marion Young.

1. In what way can we create a more equitable society in which benefits and burdens, rights and responsibilities, are more fairly distributed?

2. How can we ensure that the essential dignity and inherent rights of all members of society are honored and respected?

3. What must we do to put into place social arrangements and practices that respect the ability of individuals to exercise their freedom and autonomy in such ways as to be most conducive to the development of their capabilities?

4. How do we erase the current crime we perpetrate on individuals whose life chances are substantially dictated by the accident of their birth?

5. How do we create a society in which democratic participation and mutual dialogue enables full participation and inclusion of all members in society’s major institutions and enables them to exercise choices to exercise their capabilities?

We Must Take Care to Avoid Attachment to Outcomes

“People say, ‘What is the sense of our small effort?’ They cannot see that we must lay one brick at a time, take one step at a time.” — Dorothy Day

Dorothy Day

History tells us that the fight for justice is often long and arduous. It is filled with defeats and setbacks. It often exacts sacrifice and brings pain and disappointment. Thus, we must ask how we sustain ourselves in this struggle. Those who have engaged in work on behalf of social justice often find themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they expect too much of themselves by adopting a heroic attitude that exaggerates the amount of control they can exercise. Such individuals set themselves up for a disastrous fall when it seems to them that all their efforts have gone for naught. On the other hand, there are those who may be well-intentioned but find themselves overwhelmed before even beginning. How can I as one person do anything about a problem that is so big and complex? And so they find themselves intimidated into a paralyzed inaction.

A way out of this dilemma is offered by important advice offered in Eastern thought which advocates that the focus of work in pursuit of social justice be centered on “right intention”. Purity of heart, humility, devotion to a higher call to duty, a sense of compassion for the downtrodden as well as for oneself — such are the intentions that sustain us in social justice work. But this intention needs to be wedded with one more thing — and that is a detachment from outcomes. There can be no guarantees that our efforts will bring about intended results. We may not actually be in the position of deeming what we or others have done as successful or unsuccessful. The results of our actions may not be readily apparent to us. But if our decision whether or not to act is based upon the likelihood of our success, we will most assuredly ultimately fail. As the Hindu Scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita, teaches, “Work done with anxiety about results is far inferior to work done without such anxiety, in the calm of self-surrender.” The great social reformer, Mahatma Gandhi, found wisdom and inspiration in these words — and we should as well.

Parting Advice

Meaningful work on behalf of social justice is not only possible, but absolutely essential. We must utterly reject McResistance and those who practice and advocate for it. Bernie Sanders stands among great advocates for social justice such as some of those who I mention here. They stand as examples for us to follow. For those who do not know how to begin, I offer this parting advice:

“Choose one social problem that matters to you because you have achieved some clarity about what it is and why it is important. Consider thoughtfully how this situation can be otherwise and what must be done to meet the demands of justice. And then compassionately do one thing in the cause justice, no matter how seemingly minor or inconsequential, about it every day. Relinquish all concern for the outcome of your action, but never give up.”