The Politics of Ressentiment
Conor Friedersdorf pokes some holes in Matt Continettis desperate attempt to paint substantive criticism of Sarah Palins published arguments as some kind of mob persecution. Hes got a fine case on the specifics, but I think misses the mark when he dubs the modern rights obsession with its own supposed victimization an instance of the politics of schadenfreude. If youre going to import hoity-toity foreign terms into your political analysis, you may as well play fully to type and pick a French one, which happens to be more accurate in the instance anyway. Schadenfreude is as ubiquitous in politics as in any other competitive game; you can bet Democrats in the 20s were laughing their asses off over Teapot Dome. The word he wants is ressentiment:
Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of ones frustration, an assignation of blame for ones frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the cause generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of ones frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.
Conservatism is a political philosophy; the farce currently performing under that marquee is an inferiority complex in political philosophy drag. Sure, theres an element of schadenfreude in the sense of we like what annoys our enemies. But the pathology of the current conservative movement is more specific and convoluted. Palin irritates the left, but so would lots of vocal conservatives if they were equally prominent—and some of them are probably even competent to hold office. Palin gets to play sand in the clam precisely because she so obviously isnt. She doesnt just irritate liberals in some generic way: she evokes their contempt. Forget Christian conservative; shes a Christ conservative, strung up on the media cross on behalf of all Gods right-wing children.
Think back to the 2004 RNC—which I happened to be up in New York covering. After witnessing three days of inchoate, spittle-flecked rage from the people who had the run of all three branches of government, some wag (probably Jon Stewart) puzzled over the anger of the enfranchised. And it would be puzzling if the driving force here were a public policy agenda, rather than a set of cultural grievances. Jay Gatsby learned too late that wealth alone wouldnt confer the status he had truly craved all along. What we saw in 04 was fury at the realization that ascendancy to political power had not (post-9/11 Lee Greenwood renaissance notwithstanding) brought parallel cultural power. The secret shame of the conservative base is that theyve internalized the enemys secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.
The pretext for converting this status grievance into a political one is the line that the real issue is the myopic policy bred by all this condescension and arrogance—but the policy problems often feel distinctly secondary. Check out the RNCs new ad on health reform, taking up the Tea Party slogan Listen to Me! Theres almost nothing on the substantive objections to the bill; its fundamentally about peoples sense of powerlessness in a debate that seems driven by wonks. To the extent that Obama enjoyed some initial cross-partisan appeal, I think it owed a lot to his recognition that most people care less about actual policy outcomes than they do about feeling that theyre being heard and respected.
Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners dont merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals. Note two things here. First, this is classic ressentiment: Its not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow embody some set of ideals. Theyre good just because they symbolize an inversion of the anti-American values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.
Since everyones favorite way to excuse indefensible political behavior is to point out that they staaaaaarted it, let me point out that the 70s mantra that the personal is political and some of the the 90s obsession with policing language and attitudes probably exacerbated the blurring of lines between questions of public justice and matters of personal virtue. Hell, we can translate the the basic beef of the Tea Partiers into faddish 90s jargon easily enough: Theyre reacting against a hegemonic discourse in the centers of power that constructs them simultaneously as a bearers of class privilege and as a bestial Other. The elevation of figures like Palin represents an attempt to reappropriate an oppressive stereotype, akin to the way some hip-hop embraces a caricaturish racist vision of violent black masculinity. To be sure, most of what gets cast as oppression here is just the decline of privilege, but the perception is what matters for the social dynamic.
Ultimately, this is a doomed project: Even if conservatives retook power, they wouldnt be able to provide a political solution to a psychological problem, assuming theyre not willing to go the Pol Pot route. At the same time, it signals a resignation to impotence on the cultural front where the real conflict lies. It effectively says: We cede to the bogeyman cultural elites the power of stereotypical definition, so becoming the stereotype more fully and grotesquely is our only means of empowerment.
To see how the difference between ressentiment and simple schadenfreude matters, consider Palin one more time. If the goal is just to antagonize liberals, making her the Republican standard-bearer seems tactically bizarre, since ideally you want someone who isnt so repugnant to independents as to be unelectable. If the animating force is ressentiment, the leader has to be a loser to really deserve the role. Which is to say, expect the craziness to get worse before it gets better.