Naïve cynicism and Illinois
Monday, May 2, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Rebecca Solnit’s brilliant piece in the current issue of Harper’s…
Cynicism is first of all a style of presenting oneself, and it takes pride more than anything in not being fooled and not being foolish. But in the forms in which I encounter it, cynicism is frequently both these things. That the attitude that prides itself on world-weary experience is often so naïve says much about the triumph of style over substance, attitude over analysis.
Maybe it also says something about the tendency to oversimplify. If simplification means reducing things to their essentials, oversimplification tosses aside the essential as well. It is a relentless pursuit of certainty and clarity in a world that generally offers neither, a desire to shove nuances and complexities into clear-cut binaries. Naïve cynicism concerns me because it flattens out the past and the future, and because it reduces the motivation to participate in public life, public discourse, and even intelligent conversation that distinguishes shades of gray, ambiguities and ambivalences, uncertainties, unknowns, and opportunities. Instead, we conduct our conversations like wars, and the heavy artillery of grim confidence is the weapon many reach for.
Naïve cynics shoot down possibilities, including the possibility of exploring the full complexity of any situation. They take aim at the less cynical, so that cynicism becomes a defensive posture and an avoidance of dissent. They recruit through brutality. If you set purity and perfection as your goals, you have an almost foolproof system according to which everything will necessarily fall short. But expecting perfection is naïve; failing to perceive value by using an impossible standard of measure is even more so. Cynics are often disappointed idealists and upholders of unrealistic standards. They are uncomfortable with victories, because victories are almost always temporary, incomplete, and compromised — but also because the openness of hope is dangerous, and in war, self-defense comes first. Naïve cynicism is absolutist; its practitioners assume that anything you don’t deplore you wholeheartedly endorse. But denouncing anything less than perfection as morally compromising means pursuing aggrandizement of the self, not engagement with a place or system or community, as the highest priority.
We are seeing this play out right before our very eyes. Criticize Gov. Rauner and you’re Speaker Madigan’s toady, and vice versa. Compromise is either “destruction of the middle class” or a refusal to stop Illinois’ “status quo death spiral.”
* Her conclusion…
What is the alternative to naïve cynicism? An active response to what arises, a recognition that we often don’t know what is going to happen ahead of time, and an acceptance that whatever takes place will usually be a mixture of blessings and curses. Such an attitude is bolstered by historical memory, by accounts of indirect consequences, unanticipated cataclysms and victories, cumulative effects, and long timelines. Naïve cynicism loves itself more than the world; it defends itself in lieu of the world. I’m interested in the people who love the world more, and in what they have to tell us, which varies from day to day, subject to subject. Because what we do begins with what we believe we can do. It begins with being open to the possibilities and interested in the complexities.
Agreed.
Go read the whole thing.
- Demoralized - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:09 am:
==Naïve cynicism is absolutist; its practitioners assume that anything you don’t deplore you wholeheartedly endorse. ==
That sums things up perfectly. Everyone needs to read and re-read that statement. This current crisis has been created by a bunch of absolutists (and by their absolutist supporters). These people view not getting their way as a loss and therefore are unwilling to have any sort of meaningful discussion.
- AlfondoGonz - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:14 am:
Measured responses are so last century.
Strike that. TWO centuries ago.
- illinoised - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:16 am:
But today’s politicians are absolutists. Dark money assures that environment. It will remain that way until true campaign finance reform occurs. And I am not a cynic, I am a pragmatist.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:26 am:
===It will remain that way until true campaign finance reform occurs. And I am not a cynic, I am a pragmatist.===
LOL
No, you’re a classical naive cynic, which you might realize if you read the whole piece above.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:28 am:
==- illinoised - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:16 am:==
The money here isn’t dark at all. It’s all out in the open: Rauner, Rauner, Rauner.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:33 am:
Precinct Captain +1.
Again, illinoised, you fit the above profile to perfection. It’s your way or nothing changes, even though dark money isn’t much of an issue in state races here.
- Honeybear - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:35 am:
Maybe I’m an absolutist. I’m absolutely sure that if Rauner wins in his fight with AFSCME I will pay 100% more for my health insurance which will cause total financial insecurity. I am absolutely certain that I just deleted the income off of foodstamp case because the woman and 26 others were just laid off from a private social service agency in East St. Louis (Emerson Park Dev Corp). I am absolutely certain that if the institute that my friend runs at SIUE doesn’t get funding by June, it shuts down and she loses her job. I am absolutely certain that my union which protects me will collapse if impasse is declared by the ILRB. I am absolutely sure that many jobs will be outsourced and privatized if Rauner wins his battle against Labor.
Do I take this position out of choice? Do I have agency in this?
I believe, no, I have no choice, no agency. I was forced to either fight or accept whatever punishment and horror was visited on me. The only choice I have had has been to fight or accept.
Let me be perfectly clear, unclouded by the Gnosticism of the article, I hate what is being done to me and MANY MANY others. I did not want this or chose it. But now that we are here I will engage in this fight with all I can muster.
Madigan is not the one attacking my union, or social services, or educators.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 10:51 am:
It’s the 60/30, or if we really want to press the issue 71/36, that will drive conpromise from the legislative bodies, both chambers, that bipartisan “60/30″ will allow governing to begin, and make absolutism fall away.
Conpromise IS governing, and is especially important in governing with divided government.
It’s both sides, in the GA, looking for those Magic Numbers that will get everyone out of their absolutism. Period.
Doing the doable will always run up more points on a scoreboard that hoping for one big score by any side that never seems to come.
- 47th Ward - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Shorter version:
“Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes’.”
―-Stephen Colbert
- Allen D - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:19 am:
—What is the alternative to naïve cynicism? An active response to what arises, a recognition that we often don’t know what is going to happen ahead of time, and an acceptance that whatever takes place will usually be a mixture of blessings and curses.—
So this could be taken that everyone opposed to the Turnaround agenda are naive cynics, because Rauner and the turnaround agenda could be the Active Response to years of GA Naive Cynicism…
Hrmm…
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:21 am:
- Allen D -,
I think you missing the whole point of this Post is proving the Post right.
Thank you.
- Joe Biden Was Here - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:22 am:
Rayner is an absolutist in his policy on public employee unions. How do you deal with him and not be cynical??
- Demoralized - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:23 am:
Wow Allen. The story went WAY over your head.
Let’s walk through it slowly for you. The story was admonishing everyone as naive cynics? Why? Perhaps you should focus on this statement in the story:
“Naïve cynicism is absolutist; its practitioners assume that anything you don’t deplore you wholeheartedly endorse”
Instead of focusing on the point of the story, which is that everyone involved in this fiasco is being absolutist (which they absolutely are), you choose to play the cynic the story describes, lamenting that someone has criticized what is going on. You turn on the victim mentality.
Go back and read the story again. Slowly. Understand it. Because you clearly failed to grasp what was being said.
- Allen D - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:24 am:
not necessarily OW… but there are two sides to every story.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:26 am:
===…but there are two sides to every story.===
If you read with comprehension the Post, again, you would know where you are missing the point. Again.
- Demoralized - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:31 am:
==but there are two sides to every story.==
Again Allen, read the story again and work on your reading comprehension.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:34 am:
I came in to post about how much I agree with the article, but everybody here seems to want to admonish everybody else for not understanding it. I feel like you can agree with this particular article and still feel that ‘problem A’ has exactly one cause, and be on sure footing on both accounts.
Anyway, I wanted to comment that similar things have been said in other forms, and that working toward a solution so often involves unilaterally disarming. Being the reasonable person in the room is all well and good if the people you’re trying to convince are also reasonable. If not, well, sometimes the guy with the bullhorn wins no matter what you do.
- jeffinginchicago - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:39 am:
No matter how cynical I get, I just cant keep up. Lily Tomlin 1969(?)
- lake county democrat - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:44 am:
–Compromise is either “destruction of the middle class” or a refusal to stop Illinois’ “status quo death spiral.”–
My favorites: Compromise = “validating hostage taking” and “giving in to the terrorists” Betraying the state constitution (if/because the compromise would mean Rauner wouldn’t have to submit a budget prior to negotiations) is a good one too.
- Qui Tam - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:54 am:
The all or nothing TA advocates are definitely good examples of such cynicism described in the article.
There is also a naive / disingenuous cynicism pervasive in state and local government. For example, those who recognize and stand up to wrongdoing are attacked as crackpots or “ridiculous”. These absolutist attacks appear to be based on the fact that if you are a given a position of responsibility such as deputy director or bureau chief at a state agency, that a management employee you is incapable of wrongdoing by virtue of the perpetrator’s position. This type of cynicism turns public offices into cabals while undermining the lawful duties of such offices. This cynical dysfunction cheats taxpayers, trashes honest employees, and harms those who rely on properly functioning institutions in Illinois.
- Liberty - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:54 am:
Great article. It is easy to identify in your political opponents. Look at all the “hate” accusations spewed from the left.
- Name Withheld - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 11:59 am:
One of the best lines in the article, and maybe it’s underlying theme:
“When a corporation writes something off, it accepts the cost. When we write off corporations as inherently corrupt, we accept the cost, too. Doing so paves the way for passivity and defeat. ”
This applies equally if not more so to our view of politicians in Illinois.
- illinoised - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 12:30 pm:
Nope, I read it and speak from the perspective of someone whose livelihood doesn’t depend on the political games continuing.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 12:34 pm:
I side with illinoised here. Saying we need to ditch naive cynicism is one thing. trying to understand where it comes from is another. I believe it comes in large part from the money that funds extreme viewpoints. The money is the bullhorn that screams absolutist rhetoric that makes compromise look like surrender.
- walker - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
Often tough to self-criticize.
- walker - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
Allen D: Gotta give you credit for jiu jitsu.
You cleverly practiced naive cynicism on the concept “naive cynicism.”
- Keyser Soze - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 12:49 pm:
The absolutists are calling the cynics black. This is pretty deep stuff for a Monday morning; a little like Ayn Rand translating Nostradamus. Suffice to say that the gap between left and right has widened in recent years.
- Boone's is Back - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 1:35 pm:
Definitely interesting analysis, and not a point of view you read every day
- Mama - Monday, May 2, 16 @ 9:01 pm:
Rich, thank you bringing Rebecca Solnit’s piece to our attention.