
Margaret Atwood, a Prophet of Dystopia - lermontov
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/margaret-atwood-the-prophet-of-dystopia
======
devindotcom
I only recently read The Handmaid's Tale, and it hit pretty hard. Especially
because it, like any good story of that type, is not nearly so outlandish as
it seems. Things that might have seemed absurd at the time in Brave New World
and 1984 have come to pass and been accepted as the way things are, with
people even clamoring for the next step.

The dimly illuminated cultural regression from Atwood's novel is far from
absurd on modern reading, and in fact we've seen such hyper-conservative
cultural shifts play out. It's not that far-fetched to substitute isolationist
nationalism for regressive theocracy, when both have the same ultimate goals:
reconcentration of power in an oligarchy, just like in the "good old days."
Not that we've ever strayed _that_ far from the concept, but still...

~~~
Banthum
It is fairly absurd to suggest that the mainstream American right has the goal
of "reconcentration of power in an oligarchy".

Even the furthest of the alt-right take their goal as the exact opposite: to
break the control of the "cathedral" of left-globalist interests, who are
embodied in the now-unified elites of academia, entertainment, high finance,
big tech, wealthy industrialists, Democrats, journalists and media, and the
unelected deep state.

The term "reconcentration" also makes it sounds like power was concentrated
before. Except it wasn't. In decades past, several of the factions listed
above were at ideological odds. Their unification under the shaming-enforced
dogma of social justice and identitarian victimology is a new thing and is
part of what people are fighting against.

Also consider government powers are ever-expanding over new domains of life,
and being ever-concentrated upwards towards the federal level. Being against
concentration of power is firmly a right-wing position at this point.

On the other hand, leftists - like the people who laud Atwood's book in your
way - always want concentration of power because they're utopians who think
that all you need to make a great society is more control given to the
correct, enlightened technocrats (who always happen to be people resembling
themselves in values, outlook, and opinions).

The sad thing is that an outcome like Atwood paints in her book is definitely
possible from all this. But it won't happen after the free-speech and power-
deconcentrating right succeeds; it'll happen after they fail, because the next
reaction will be much much worse.

~~~
lsiebert
How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it
works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote
democratic (young people, poor people, counties where people who aren't white
are a majority), as well as to gerrymander districts?

There are many ways to concentrate power: The federal government is one, but
it can also act as a check on states concentrating power, like states passing
voter ID laws, closing DMVs to prevent state ids from being obtained, etc.

Ultimately all political power should be derived from informed American
citizens. Whenever any political group works to undermine the ability of
Americans to choose their representatives by disenfranchising them or
misleading them, and when it works on concentrating their votes using
gerrymandering such that legislative bodies are not representational of their
constituents, they undermine our system of democracy.

edits: typos and added an "and" for clarification.

~~~
bzbarsky
Unfortunately, both sides work to systematically limit voting by their
opponents, albeit using different tactics because the targets of suppression
are different.

See [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-
suppress-...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-
vote/) for some details.

~~~
chillwaves
The two are no where near equivalent.

~~~
bzbarsky
Why not?

Note that I personally don't think "equivalent" is even a useful category to
consider here: the methods of voter suppression are different enough that
comparing them in any meaningful way is a serious research project at best.
But apparently people keep feeling like we can place an agreed-on linear
ordering of some sort on the horribleness of political party behavior. For
people who think that, I would like to know why they think that and why they
think that their particular ordering is the "right" one.

My preferred outcome, obviously, would be if people made decisions about this
stuff in terms of actual reasons other than "it's better for my chosen party".
At least then there would be a basis for discussion and perhaps a possibility
to change minds... I'm not holding my breath.

------
jack9
I literally eyerolled at this. The irrational leaps down these non-existent
slipper-slopes, is absurd.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Yea its clear this is a puff piece to hype the show.

------
douche
I couldn't struggle through this tripe. There's too much science fiction
that's actually interesting to waste time on the Handmaid's Tale and it's
bizarrely nonsensical kinky society.

------
golemotron
Michel Houellebecq is a true prophet. From his novel Atomised to The
Possibility of an Island (metaphor for social media) to Soumission, he's been
years ahead re zeitgeist and social climate since the 90s.

