THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HANDMAID’S TALE
Who’s Really Likely to Implement a Police State
The Background
I read Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” years ago and subsequently enjoyed the movie. I think we all enjoy the apocalyptic books and movies of doom and gloom, as they give us a break from our real-life worries and cares. Those that portray future possibilities that appear real are even more chilling and interesting. However, a world in which the religious right has taken over multiple areas of the world seemed highly unlikely then and even more so now. The world is increasingly secular, excluding the increase in the Muslim population.
The Mini-Series
Initially intrigued by the idea of a mini-series spawned from the book, I enjoyed having more of the backstory; how did they arrive at this totalitarian state? Sadly, there wasn’t enough “story” to keep it going over the many seasons the producers desired, and the attempt to tie things to present day tropes fell flat for me. And yet, the popularity of the show intrigued me. Did people really fear this end? What parts of our culture indicated that any of this could be possible?
#MeToo
Perhaps I overthink things, but the first thing that occurred to me was the #MeToo movement. Most of us know women who have been raped, but to extend the “rape” accusation to all manner of unwanted or regretted encounters diluted the message. Probably ever woman alive has had someone say something awful or find themselves touched in a way they didn’t like. That simply isn’t as bad as rape. And the problem with turning women back into victims is that this disenfranchises them. For many years, women have struggled to be treated as equal to men. #MeToo represents a step backwards, implying that women lack agency and thus, perhaps, need to be protected. Handmaids were “protected,” in a way. It’s dangerous to pull out the “victim” card when you really want equality. I can hear someone saying, “There, there little woman. We’ll take care of that for you. Don’t bother your pretty head about those matters.” It wasn’t that long ago when you would hear this.
Cancel Culture
As described in the various Handmaid media, language was prescribed and highly censored. The governing bodies insisted on doctrinaire language and penalties for violations were severe.
We might have thought that such a thing couldn’t happen in the US, protected as we are by the First Amendment. But after being the leader in protecting free speech, even speech that some didn’t like, the Left has made deep inroads into this right, claiming that words can harm people. I’ve always believed we have the choice in how we interpret and act on what happens to us, which includes the speech we hear. When someone says something awful—and this happens to EVERYONE—you have a choice? Do you give the speaker credibility and attention? Or do you simply realize that the speaker is an idiot and not worth considering? The latter is the proper way to deal with sexist, racist or other kinds of ignorant speech. You choose not to be “damaged.”
Protecting speech we don’t like protects our right to speak as we wish to. It may be unpleasant to hear some kinds of things, especially if we find our own beliefs challenged, but in fact, this is the only way to grow and expand your understanding of yourself and the world. If no one ever criticized or critiqued you, would you be the fine person you are now? We need to move to even more open and free speech.
Federal Overreach
Our Constitution enumerated the responsibilities of the federal government, limiting it severely in the hopes that most decisions would be made locally or by the people themselves. Over the years, broad interpretations allowed the size of the federal government to grow to its current, unwieldy size. Each President has seized more power, giving more sway to unelected bureaucrats, such as the EPA, DEA, CDC, FDA and more.
Most of us weren’t concerned until we saw what happened under pandemic conditions. Initial over-reaction could be expected and tolerated, but a year-and-a-half later, we can see that the power seized is not likely to be released. Power corrupts and we see the delight of elected officials managing the day-to-day activities of supposedly free citizens, from the allowed vs disallowed lanes in home improvement stores in Michigan to the inconsistency in outside dining between Hollywood catering and local restaurants. The near total closure of churches might have made it seem less Handmaid’s Tale than some activities, but in fact, in socialist/communist societies, the political party becomes the “church,” controlling even the spiritual choices of the populace. See the Falun Gong in China.
Some Answers
What makes some people enjoy power over others is impossible to control, but it is possible for us to make better choices when we vote. The longer people are in office, the more power they seize, so term limits seem a practical choice. Serve your few years, just like a Peace Corps gig, and move on to other employment. Or, failing that, get rid of all post-service benefits. You act as governor, but you don’t get a pension or out-of-office health insurance. Every few years, new people would enter the fray and bring with them their experience in the real world and from holding real jobs.
Without a virtual padlock on these jobs, more parties would spring up and have a voice. Without an incentive to just keep getting re-elected, people would stop wasting time eternally running for office and catering to their wealthy base. Make it more like a volunteer board position, something I know a little about. People volunteering to serve on boards do so to make a positive difference and help the organization survive. That’s what we want to see. And with a constantly changing pool of representatives, a totalitarian state would be far less likely.
