Petulance is Alive and Well

http://www.istockphoto.com/

Since when has rude behavior and knee-jerk reactions to perceived wrongs pass for legitimate forms of protest or dissent? “Family Values” is a celebration of such behavior- physical assault replaces reasoned dialog, and generalized, ad-hominem attacks are par the course in the author's family. Selfishness and a misplaced sense of pride in being “rebellious” is somehow equated with being genuine and honest.

I found the tone of this essay to be conceited and disingenuous, as though Ehrenreich was trying to convince herself that her familial generations of “blue-eyed, Scotch-Irish Democrats” gave her the impetus to live up to their asinine social reputations that they enjoyed in their respective communities. Ehrenreich is quick to vilify “organized religion” (she never offers a decent definition of what that may be) and political organizations (“phonies”), yet her evidence consists of little more than spotlighting the transgressions of a few select individuals, then broad-brushing entire groups of people associated with those individuals. She offers no compelling analysis of the foundational ideas of certain political parties or religions to ascertain whether the actions taken by those who represent them actually reflect the teachings of such organizations. A well-thought criticism this does not make.

Fortunately for Ehrenreich- and her readers- her aim is not to dissect the failures of a particular organization, but rather to emphasize the type of values she has inherited from her ancestors. Ehrenreich takes pride that her family has always questioned the status quo and have never been afraid to “take it to the Man”, as it were. Let it be know that I agree wholeheartedly with our 1^st Amendment right to free speech, and the right of man to question authority, which I'm sure Ehrenreich would agree with. That is where the agreement would likely end between us. Ehrenreichs recollection of a physical assault of a priest over a personal slight takes on heroic proportions as her great-grandfather commits one last act of defiance before “heading West”. Regardless of whatever position an individual holds, there is no excuse in our society to “settle the score” by attacking another individual outside the legal boundaries of self-defense. Ehrenreich makes the case that such behavior is “traditional” in the American experience, as is blatant name calling and mockery; she evokes the Founding Fathers and civil-rights movement as examples of what she considers the “true duty of patriots”- “dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell raising”.

Ehrenreich's comparison is misguided, though she triumphantly equates her family's response to injustice to that of our national figures, she fails to note that in Rosa Parks act of defiance, she did not yell, name call, or assault anyone. She was confident, self-assured, and graciously firm. The same cannot be said for the Ehrenreichs. And those American revolutionaries of the Boston Tea Party? It is often overlooked, but those same revolutionaries who sparked the birth of a nation ensured that they swept the decks clean of tea leaves and refrained from damaging any property aboard the ship, save a solitary padlock, which they replaced. Respect in the face of oppression or injustice, as Rosa Parks and the Tea Party exercised, is a dying virtue; selfishness, disrespect, and impulsiveness are the new tools of the “revolution”. Ehrenreich does no favors to the image of the dissenter, or her family, by romanticizing such lack of virtue.