The origin of the Gadfly
Author’s Note: I have to thank those that participate in the comments section for spurring me on to offer an extended commentary.
I remember reading “The Apology” for the first time in one of my political science classes in college. It was there that Socrates used the term “gadfly.” The term stuck with me and was eventually applied to others in history like Martin Luther King Jr. I can’t speak for anyone else, but the term always took on a special significance after that as it got attached to people that unapologetically spoke their mind even when they did not benefit from doing so.
What I found interesting in the comments was the problem of “bothsidesism” because there are voices on the left and right that consider themselves as gadflies. I suppose that’s true and yet all of the assorted vociferous politicians on the right never seem to actually offer anything of substance. Socrates wanted us to be better. Martin Luther King wanted us to be better. I see AOC in the same light. People like that are rarely appreciated in their own time. Their commentaries become annoying to some and inconvenient to others. Yet, they always have substance.
Those other folks remind me of a beautiful song by John Lennon when he was with the Beatles. In “Across the Universe” he offered these lines back to back: “Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my opened mind…” and then “nothing’s going to change my world.” Lennon is often credited with brilliant irony when in fact he stumbled on it accidentally. I’m positive he probably never grasped the incredible irony of those lines being back to back.
Like Lennon, many of the “luminaries” on the right likely see themselves as gadflies when they are really just a bunch of jackasses. The fortunate difference in this case is that at least Lennon was a jackass with talent. Naturally, people around here know the difference, so belaboring the point is just indulgent. For any outsider that might stumble in, the difference is subtle. It basically comes down to the purpose behind the annoyance. One wants us to be better while the other just wants to be noticed.
It doesn’t change the fact that both can be irritating in the moment. Any challenging person can be irritating. The question is whether we ever move on from the irritation. If the motive behind the irritation is to provoke thought then we have to. If the motive behind the irritation is attention then we can’t.
I’d suggest that motivation is the difference between a gadfly and an attention-seeker. Challenging dogma meaningfully is important – doing so because it gets attention is simply throwing a tantrum.
1Nick, not sure that one should compare Alexandria with Cassandra much less a gadfly. Reaching back to Socrates is good for an intellectual stretch, although Plato was always my go to guy when struggling between “military duty” and being prepared to distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders.
Granted conservatives are gadflies by either dictionary definition. Although to a rancher they more resemble “a fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or botfly.” Or maybe it’s just flies feasting on the rotten corpses of their was and economic policies seems to fit.
But the future, if we are to have one, will be brighter with AOC and The Squad taking on all the issues to make it so. What is either annoying or irritating about that?
2Apologies! Last sentence, second paragraph would have made somewhat better sense without the typo (was/war). Should be: Or maybe it’s just flies feasting on the rotten corpses of their war and economic policies seems to fit.
3Beto just tossed in his Stetson. Does he go all out or just get his toes wet again??
4Thank you for your comments Jane and PKM. They are always thought provoking. To answer your question, I think most people don’t want to grow or be bothered, so when people are outgoing with their commentary as AOC and the Squad are then they get annoyed. This is particularly true for people that consider themselves left of center but are then told they aren’t doing enough. It’s a message that needs to be heard, but many will experience an immediate feeling of irritation before forcing themselves to stretch their minds.
5Lennon was not a jackass! He had lots of substance and purpose including “Give Peace a Chance.”
6People fighting for justice and compassion are not the same as people fighting to maintain their unacknowledged privilege. We will be better off with the former, even if you think they aren’t fighting wisely or “hard enough” then we will if the latter have their way.
7I think you misunderstood Lennon’s lyric. Perhaps he was referencing a Buddhist concept. You can choose to be unaffected by the crap flying all around you. Internal peace.
Look what being a gadfly got Socrates. We ain’t changed much since then with people that rock the boat.
8I suppose that depends on the definition of a jackass. I call Lennon that because while he seemed to preach a message of peace and love he certainly was the opposite in his own personal life. He treated his first wife and son like crap and seemed to filled with anger and resentment when dealing with the media and many fans. In many instances, while preaching love and peace he seemed to be the antithesis of love and peace. Of course, one could behave like that if they acknowledged their own shortcomings, but he didn’t seem to have that level of self-awareness.
Lennon wasn’t the same level of jackass as Gaetz, Greene, Boebert et al, but they are similar in that they seem to be overwhelmingly guilty of what they preach against. This is particularly true of those that seem to hover around the Q stuff while also participating in predatory behavior like Gaetz. So, while it seems crude to compare Lennon to those folks they are only different in the message being preached. Lennon’s message was a positive one, but I still consider him a jackass for the unintentional irony of behaving in such a way that was contrary to peace to love.
9lol Need a shovel, Nick. Yesterday was gadfly, today it’s jackass.
For example: jackass and a few more pejoratives would define Ted Nugent while gadfly certainly encompasses Matt Gaetz and more than a few of his Qcumber mates in the House. To be fair in your efforts to be fair you may be parsing a fine line along the precipice of the dreaded both siderism. But again in fairness if we want to throw a Democrat into the gadfly mix, perhaps Manchin and Sinema would be better candidates of late. Music? lol Once entered a music forum and was nearly beheaded for suggesting the Stones were better as a band than the Beatles.
10I remember hearing a call from a fan on a radio show that just about made me pull over to bust a gut. He said, “the top three bands of all-time. Number three, the Rolling Stones. Number two, the Beatles. Number one, Poison.” Obviously he was joking, but the set up was just perfect.
Obviously, everyone has a picture in their head of what a gadfly and jackass look and sound like and each person has their own definition. My reading of “The Apology” instructed me that Socrates fit the bill not because he was an obstructionist but because he reminded people of what they weren’t. So, I see AOC in that vain. I see her as someone that has lived the experience of the working poor, succeeded through her own hard work and natural ability, and used her platform to continue to fight for those that have little voice in society.
I can’t consider Manchin or Sinema as that because while they do obstruct, I’m not sure to what end. They are irritating not because they challenge any of us to be more than we are but because there seems to be no sense of what they are after beyond attention. In that sense they are virtually the same as the attention seekers on the GOP side.
Therein lies the difference. I suppose one could claim AOC is seeking attention for attention’s sake, but I don’t get that sense. I get the sense that she wants positive change like others on the squad and other progressive politicians. I just don’t see anyone on the right with the same level of seriousness to actually accomplish something. They seek attention for attention sake. That makes Manchin and Sinema more like a jackass in my book.
11“Lennon was not a jackass!”
yes, he was. while it’s true he had substance, he was still, per pretty much everyone who knew him personally, a jackass.
I don’t see MLK, or AOC, as gadflies, not in the commonly accepted definition of the term, which is decidedly negative. both have contributed substantively to the social/political discourse, not merely throwing out critical soundbites, which is what a gadfly traditionally does.
12@Nick,
AOC may or may not be vain, but in the second paragraph of reply #11, I think you meant to say “So, I see AOC in that vein.”
13You are correct. Autocorrect strikes again.
14Gadfly was a term often used by the late Molly Ivins. God, I miss her insights.
15