Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay
Oliver Goldsmith – The Deserted Village
Throughout the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery, the most commonly discussed measure of misery has been unemployment. But many middle-class and working-class people who are fortunate enough to have work are struggling as well. New York Times
In most situations there is one thing the whole construct depends on or revolves around. I call that thing the “hinge”.
In analysis, finding the hinge is the shortcut to the center of a mass of inchoate information causing its elements to render some coherence.
In action, identifying the hinge is often finding the “fulcrum” with which to move the world and finding it can bring huge rewards with little input of effort.
The world’s latest economic crisis, for example, was brought upon us by very clever people who had discovered that the “hinge” of our financial system was that there was really no meaningful relation between the actual value of assets and what you could charge for them if you transformed them into a gaseous state.
I have been searching for the “hinge” of the absurd impotence of American progressives. Finding it hasn’t been that difficult.
Historically, the left has concerned itself with the suffering and the exploitation of workers. “Workers” being roughly defined as those with nothing to sell but their labor.
The American left has strayed far from that traditional role and has put much more emphasis on issues that only gain importance after the most basic needs of sustenance have been fulfilled. What passes for a left in the USA is obsessed with racial, gender, ecological and identity politics, seemingly oblivious to the fact that a great number of Americans, of all races and all possible sexual preferences, are mercilessly overworked and underpaid. They are being exploited and treated no better than excrement and left to the mercy of right wing demagogues.
The American left appears unable to make any meaningful contact with those who suffer the most from our economic system. It appears unable to unite them, organize them or even create a consciousness among them that transcends questions of class, race or gender.
USDA data released this week shows that the number of Americans receiving food aid from the Supplemental Nutrional Assistance Program (SNAP) hit another all-time high in August. 45.8 million people — almost 15% of the country — were enrolled in the program, which replaced Food Stamps in 2008. This is only a slight increase from July, when 45.3 million Americans were receiving SNAP help — but a massive 31% jump since June 2009, when the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the most recent recession over. Huffington Post
I think that I may have found said hinge contemplating a simple technical phrase that keeps bouncing off my neural walls: “working poor”. The contradiction between working and simultaneously being poor in the world’s richest country.
Here is how Wikipedia defines the term “working poor”:
Working poor is a term used to describe individuals and families who maintain regular employment but remain in relative poverty due to low levels of pay and dependent expenses.
Barbara Ehrenreich, the writer who has probably done more than anyone to put a face on working poverty, has this to say in her book, “Nickel and Dimed“:
When someone works for less pay than she can live on … she has made a great sacrifice for you … The “working poor” … are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone.
The reality is that millions of working Americans, both black and white, men and women, gay and straight, are being treated like shit every day of their lives and being treated like shit plays a greater part in their suffering than their race, gender or sexual preferences.
“Treated like shit”: surely an exaggeration?
Check this from the Guardian:
It was July 2007 and Potter, a senior executive at giant US healthcare firm Cigna, was visiting relatives in the poverty-ridden mountain districts of northeast Tennessee. He saw an advert in a local paper for a touring free medical clinic at a fairground just across the state border in Wise County, Virginia.
Potter, who had worked at Cigna for 15 years, decided to check it out. What he saw appalled him. Hundreds of desperate people, most without any medical insurance, descended on the clinic from out of the hills. People queued in long lines to have the most basic medical procedures carried out free of charge. Some had driven more than 200 miles from Georgia. Many were treated in the open air. Potter took pictures of patients lying on trolleys on rain-soaked pavements.
For Potter it was a dreadful realization that healthcare in America had failed millions of poor, sick people and that he, and the industry he worked for, did not care about the human cost of their relentless search for profits. “It was over-powering. It was just more than I could possibly have imagined could be happening in America,” he told the Observer.
The Canadian National Post newspaper writes:
The U. S. Congress, corrupted by a failure to impose campaign finance reform on special interests, from unions to wealthy entities, appears to be unable to pass laws to provide even a modicum of fair, universal health-care coverage for its populace.
In short: the American left has spent several generations merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while the band plays requests.
Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com



116 Comments

Why Is The American Left So Useless?
Maybe because it allows itself to be led by people like Obama and Pelosi and all the Veal Penners?
Check that. Change that to:
Maybe because it follows people like Obama and Pelosi and all the Veal Penners?
Same idea, better wording.
Putting economic concerns before the environment is a mistake.
A functional bio-sphere is where all basic sustenance ultimately comes from.
The mantra on individualism, and all that follows, combined with wedge propaganda, shatters the ability for solidarity of the poor.
They do not perceive they need solidarity, and thus are not unified.
It’s also easier, requires less actual work and you don’t have to actually be involved with poor people.
“Working poor” has been an effective newspeak word for quite sometime.
Working poor=under compensated labor or persons who have little chance of any prosperity in their own or children’s lifetime.
I really like the quote you used over in your FOOD STRIKE ! diary :
http://my.firedoglake.com/cmaukonen/2012/06/19/food-strike-starve-the-rich-occupy-the-pantry/
That is very relevant to the point I wanted to make here.
Tell that to a single mother with two jobs and two kids without medical coverage. This is what the “left” has been about since the industrial revolution. Biosphere issues are neither left or right, everyone breathes and drinks water… Not everyone is underpaid and exploited.
I never said that those sorts of things were not important. But a single mother with a good job, and medical coverage for her kinds, will still not be able to survive if she’s living in a toxic waste-land.
I think it’s has a lot to do who makes up the so called Left these days. Or rather who cooped the banner.
With all do respect to you and your contemporaries, it’s no longer made up of working stiffs and blue collar people.
More like those in academia and the professional classes who cannot relate to those below them well at all.
In fact I would say there is a great schism that had developed over the years between the original Left of the union days and people like Woody Guthry and Pete Seeger and the rest. It began with civil rights and the Vietnam war and has increased since. With both sides at the very least suspicious of each other.
OWS has been attempting to bridge this gap and animosity but it’s a rough road since it goes very deep and the professional left/academic left still has a tendency to treat the lower working people with less than the respect they deserve.
These new Left do not understand that when you are continuously scraping by and do not know if you can feed your family another day, you really do not give a wet slap about global warming or over population or Wall Street economics. Your immediate concerns are a lot more basic than that.
David Seaton–
I concur. And it’s only going to get worse during, or after, the lame duck session. If you already haven’t, please read the PDF version of the bi-partisan The Moment of Truth, Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Committee recommendations.
The Moment of Truth, December 2010.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Thanks–
Blue
Geithner: Get Ready For Bowles-Simpson
Let’s see if I can provide a reasonably coherent response to the question as to why the “left” is demoralized?
The short answer is simply stated as “if you’ve been marginalized” being demoralized should be today predominant behavior.
Now, to the long story.
I am safely anchored in the “identity” politics portion that is today’s center-left. Take, for example, a Native American, Chicano, and Military Vet. And by way of bacground, the latest poll sponsored by Gallop shows that “liberals” are at 39% and “moderates” are at 37% among all Democrats. And not lost in all this clutter is that “conservatives” came in at 20%. Thus, is there any measurable nuance that is the Liberal-Progessive, and none according to Gallup since they couldn’t be bothered to utilize any yardstick for comparability? Therefore, are Progressives considered “lefties” or do “lefties” look down on Progressives?
Regardless, I have for years advocated a variety of “Ideas” that doesn’t garner, much if any support from “moderates” or “liberals” or even support from “progressives” and “lefties.” Iconically, one Idea is predicated on the Academic-Military Draft” and which does, if emplemented, would achieve a considerable high level for Egalitarianism.
Another seminal achievement from this “draft” would lead to the destruction of the Republican base and which is non-college-educated white dude, and for becoming placed on the SuperHighway to a Qualitative and Quantitative Education.
Therefore, I am currently crafting a book with the ‘working title’ of “Progressive Politics: A Guide for the Companeros” and one of these days, I will post a diary that starts with the current Introduction.
In the meantime, I look forward to what others have to say on this thread.
Jaango
“What passes for a left in the USA is obsessed with racial, gender, ecological and identity politics, …”
Throughout most of my lifetime the “left” has been a broad ranging and diverse coalition as described above. Most of those with the means to devote time to those causes are solidly middle class and do not identify readily with the working poor or the truly poverty stricken.
As the coalition grew broader, union support of the “left ” began to diminish. The democrats were tarred with the label of the party of “special interests” where special interests was largely code for minority interests. This lead to the exodus of the “unionized working class” once labeled “Reagan Democrats” which reduced the power and influence of organized labor.
Today, we are left with a democratic party that appears to represent nothing. There is no plank of the party platform ( i think they have one but I’m not really sure)that is inviolate. There is no ideal or principle that is not readily thrown into the blender of bi-partisan compromise while the other side offers nothing.
Elsewhere on FDL is an article describing the defection of 7 democrats from party line on the Bush tax cuts. This simply would not be tolerated in the Republican Party and it makes the democrats appear weak, ineffectual and rudderless.
BINGO !
Good diary David, but allow me to address the topic question.
As many here are aware, I’m part of an effort to help what I no longer call “the American Left” to get a clue. I won’t mention its name lest I be chastized as promoting the effort, and while I’ll shamlessly admit that is often my intent here, this is not one of those times.
I’ll let it suffice to say that in the two plus years of that effort, I have discovered something few have: there is no “American Left.” And if there were, we’d be stupid to admit it.
The biggest reason we don’t see real progress that transcends generations in this country is exactly because we ALLOW ourselves to the characterized as Left or Right, This or That, blah or blech. THAT’S “the hinge,” the pivot point on which our elites depend in keeping us the Divided, rather than United States of America.
There was a golden age, between about 1850 and 1917, when Americans saw the things that were happening – things distressing akin to those happening today – and didn’t need polls or pundits or any other verification to get their asses in to the streets and do somthing about it. Haymarket Square was a key rallying point. It’s no coincidence that then as now, it is workers who were getting fisted – and who rose up.
In many ways Haymarket ushered in the Progressive Era. That’s not to be confused with (small p) “progressive,” the term neolibs have hidden behind since Ronald Reagan shamed them away from “the L word.” These people – the MoveOn, PDA, and DFA crowds – are neither Liberal – at least not in the time-honored, radical, “Buuuullshit, we’ll never get the eight-hour day!” sense – nor Progressive (capital P). They are sheep. Compromising apologists who couldn’t find a worthy cause in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.
The good news is, that’s okay. Because now, as in the Progressive Era, it is going to take people of all political labels uniting around issues which touch each and every one of us – equality for all, public investment, workers’ rights, social security, universal health care – before power can be wrested back from our oppressors and returned to its rightful owners: Us.
It takes turning off the TV and forgetting what you hear. It takes critical thinking, not bandwagon jumping. It takes, in short, the basic ideal upon which this country was founded, and against which the political establishment will toil at all costs: Independence.
“Compromising apologists who couldn’t find a worthy cause in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.”
Great turn of phrase.
And I think you are correct that contemporary partisan politics offers no solutions.
I don’t disagree with that.
But the short sighted focus is itself a problem. We have a modern society which is capable of destroying the planet’s bio-sphere, in the hands of large numbers of voters who can’t see further than the end of their noses, or look past the crumbs on their plates. People like that don’t have the time or patience to understand the complexities of the situation, and will fall for any BS lines that the MSM wants to spin for them.
The Left will always lose out in that situation because the corporate class has more money to pay for more air-time, and people are too stupid to see their BS message for what it is.
The left has been coopted by professional shills whose job it is to make sure that America never ever has the Glasnost it so desperately needs. It was one thing for Obama to reject a Truth Commission. It is quite another for all the people that one isn’t allowed to criticize on this site to reject a Truth Commission. Oh sure, if pressed in a book salon, everybody will hold their breath while lip service is paid. But take your favorite “progressive” icon and ask yourself honestly when was the last time he or she so much as mentioned a Truth Commission? But the charade goes on and everybody pretends like we have the truth. But of course we don’t, or the whole matter of a Truth Commission never been raised and rejected in those early months of 09. So, to answer the question: Why is the American left so useless? Because those who take leadership positions clearly do not want a Truth Commission. That’s the only issue one needs to look at. All the other issues are secondary. If there were a Truth Commission, then the American Left would be instantly reinvigorated. Those who never talk about it except when forced are either cowards or idiots or shills. Unfortunately, the vast majority of “progressive” icons never talk about. Say it. Truth Commission. Say it again. Truth Commission.
But to fight the corporate class requires numbers and those numbers are more in the working class and labor. These are the ones you need to be on your side.
If even one Republican defected on any issue (especially tax cuts), the GOP leaders would ostracise them immediately. In the Democratic Party, defections are not only tolerated, but encouraged. And in the end, it does make them look weak and like they believe in nothing.
Truth Commission Truth Commission Truth Commission !
I was always for it. Hold their feet to the fire. Pull their hair out…slowly.
“But the short sighted focus is itself a problem.”
But what is the solution?
Certainly education is a part of it and shared affluence would also help.
But I don’t see the “left” offering up palatable or workable solutions that a majority will ever buy into.
And i don’t find a totalitarian left any more appealing than a totalitarian right.
You didn’t mention reproductive issues but I suspect you would relegate abortion and contraception rights to one of those “identity politics” things that should be dealt with only after The Very Big Important Economic Matters are addressed. If my assumption is correct, allow me to point out that when women can’t control their reproduction, the economic ramifications are huge. Republicans know this, which is why they are hellbent on rolling back women’s basic right to bodily autonomy. The comfort of the rich depends upon an unlimited supply of serfs and cannon fodder.
And really, leave it to a privileged white dude to be so oblivious to how the social issues ARE economic issues for everyone, but especially those who are targeted by the right wing in their crusade to return us to the Dark Ages.
” But take your favorite “progressive” icon …’
Don’t have one.
Can’t name anyone deserving of “progressive icon” status.
What passes for a left in the USA is obsessed with racial, gender, ecological and identity politics, seemingly oblivious to the fact that a great number of Americans, of all races and all possible sexual preferences, are mercilessly overworked and underpaid.
Could you please explain why social and economic issues are mutually exclusive?
And they should already be on our side.
when women can’t control their reproduction, the economic ramifications are huge.
And so are the ecological ramifications. By the way, a deteriorating environment will cause much more suffering to the poor than the well-off. What’s happening in drought-stricken areas of Africa are a preview of things to come.
I don’t have an easy answer for that, other than the 12 Monkeys solution.
Good line of inquiry David and how the deck chairs get lined up matters little when the deck they are on is fast going under some very deep water. Very good MyFDL diary David.Thank you.Stay with it. Recommended.
Humans not in top five percent of measured wealth holders in the current national,international and global economic scheme are the component that provide labor when machines are not able to compete to do tasks Earth Inc. needs done to create excess value from labor. Hence coal mining has moved from human intensive labor to intensive machine usage or simply blowing mountain tops off in USA to get at it as this is cheaper,easier way to use coal extraction machines for Big Coal Inc.. The same set of fill in the box choices have descended on American agriculture which is now very dependent on machines/chemicals/(GMO’s?) to cover large areas of cultivated soil to till,plant,tend and harvest. Compare a typical late 19th century American grain harvesting approach with one from 2012. Lots of humans have been taken out of farm work. We were told this was good for decades. Perhaps it was in some ways but we all need jobs and taking out jobs for humans means there are less jobs for humans. Which then comes full circle back to humans being the component Earth Inc. has repeatedly wanted to take out of what Earth Inc. does to make and increase profits. Moving the jobs to where humans are just starting out with Earth Inc. globalism economic quests for a while assures cheap labor,easy to ignore,abuse and game environmental policies and often corrupt,ill run national governments run too often by humans who would sell their mother to make some money or are quite willing to be paid off if the politics can be fixed for a price. This all leaves a debris field of other shortfalls as Earth Inc. takes out the big money and leaves the local human population perhaps marginally better off but with unseen,unpaid costs that will remain.
Americans have been had some good “Leftist” efforts in fighting those who seek to exploit labor,abuse politics and ruin Earth to make a buck or a billion bucks. Americans have also been beaten down harshly for doing so. The late 19th century saw more than a few Americans fighting for better working conditions,better politics and a stronger public commons. We know Americans were killed for doing so. The eight hour day or concept of a 40 hour work week did not show up because Earth Inc. wanted to be nice. Both showed up because Earth Inc. was forced to move in that direction by Americans. Lots of Americsns did not want to enter into The Great War from 1914 onwards but when the Russian Czar was pulled down it gave American Left opponents a very useful tool to paint the American Left with as being radical bolsheviks. The American Left was then kept out of big American politics and governance by the Rs and Ds who during the course of the 1920′s,1930′s and 1940′s mainly were about keeping the Corps. solvent,the top 10 percent of Americans in “spending money” and keeping American malcontents down where they belonged which was not in the U.S.Congress and certainly not is the 50 state Capitols or in the WH in WashingtonDC. FDR was not a communist and he did Earth Inc. some big favors to smooth over the massive economic hardship and misery of Capitalist Run America during the 1930′s ( Oddly Barack Obama chooses to ignore FDR while dressing up with Ronald Reagan BS ) with some tinkering around the edges to soften it all for the worst off Americans. After having fought WW2 to stop the Fascists from doing Empire we Americans got The Red Menace,The Red Scare and the origins of Greater Still American Empire building on what the British Empire was leaving behind as it imploded post WW2. Americans got the M-I-C-C which now after some sixty years plus has drained the United States of trillions of dollars of wealth to do what it does and wants to keep doing.
This new TPP “trade agreement” is all about moving the human labor needs to where humans can be more easily abused to create excess labor value and consumers on the early side of consumerism. Lots of humans who will work cheap and want to buy lots of consumerism. Better that than communism right? Right… They make Apples in China because no American would work like the Chinese have been for what the Chinese get paid. Pretty simple. But now the Chinese are maybe catching on to this so it is time to move the jobs again maybe? Hence TPP shows up? We shall see.
It did not have to be this way. Nothing has to be the way it is here in this early 21st century. Choices were made along the way by some humans to support the choices already made by these or other humans. Trying to change it will require humanbeings insisting,demanding and fighting for and over being treated like humanbeings. Not part of a Earth Inc. spread sheet on labor costs and profits. Or is this too radical?
Imagine if Ronald Reagan and the thinking he flew a flag for had run into the thicket of suppression in the 1960′s and 1970′s similar to what the IWW did in the early 1900′s instead of Reagan being made into an American Towering Presence? It was one of those “choices” made by someone somewhere. Choices have consequences. Just like not voting Barack Obama out of the WH in 2012 will have consequences for many Americans who already have had four years of this Post 2008 Obama/Earth Inc. Depression. But lets elect Barack Obama again because that is the Less Evil to do. Less for who? Not me. How about you?
A good book to check out was written by E.F.Schumacher and first published in 1973. The title of this book — “small is beautiful” gives first indication that it is not a book Earth Inc. would likely keep on the shelf but more importantly on the copy of the book that I have are these words as well — ” Economics As If People Mattered “. It is a worthy book to seek out and read. On the back cover of my copy of “small is beautiful” this is the last paragraph written by Paul Hawken in his overview of E.F.Schumachers “small is beautiful” –
” … I once had a Buddhist teacher who did not think much of spending one’s life reading books. When asked which books I should read,he replied, “Read the books that save you from reading others.”
Small Is Beautiful is and has always been one of those rare books — a book that can inform a lifetime.
— Paul Hawken
I would concur with Paul Hawken.
“Could you please explain why social and economic issues are mutually exclusive?”
In a class long ago, I was taught that Marx described society using the metaphor of a ship. The hull, the basic structure, was economics and every thing else, was superstructure: politics, religion all of it, rested on an economic foundation.
Marx was wrong. The basic structure, or foundation, is spirituality. And by spirituality, I do not mean religion. I mean values that grow out of one’s basic worldview.
We are a house divided by foundational spiritual values. And the essence of that disagreement is in the appropriate relationship between society and the individual. In the words of Mr Spock, “ Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one?”
That is the essential question we are struggling with and one to which we must develop a broadly accepted answer.
How about does the good of ALL species outweigh the good of one single species? (in this case, the human species)
I shall let Jonas Salk answer for me:
“It’s interesting to reflect that if all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within fifty years, all other forms of life would end. But if all human beings were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all other forms of life would flourish. “
Jonas Salk
Probably quicker than that.
I think additionally too that beginning in the 1970s we started to generations of people who were graduating from college and walking right into today’s equivalent of 80k a year jobs and more.
Not having to work their way up or spend any time searching. Even people with tech experience and no college degree.
These are a lot of the people who have become the Left.
Ironically though a lot of them are also the the extreme right as well.
But now a lot of those jobs have been out sourced and/or just disappeared. And the children have little hope of seeing anything like that again.
Excellent Observation!
And I’ll add that I no more support the “master species” than I support the “master economic class.”
Humans are the one-percenters of the bio-sphere.
Yes, “Small is Beautiful” is essential.
Anytime the elites and privileged set the goal posts of freedom and democracy, there is no freedom and no democracy-just servitude.
The great unwashed masses think they are free, but are so blind that they can’t see their chains and forget who their masters really are.
Freedom is an illusion; democracy is a sucker’s game; and the only political party in the country is unbridled greed and corrupt political power.
And what of the inheritors of the ‘Age of Enlightenment’?
They have no leaders, they have no party; and their hope for a better life for themselves and their children is an illusion perpetuated by the gate keepers to keep the rabble in their place.
A real sea change in the lot of the people is not served up to them by the wealthy on a silver platter.
It must be taken by force of will.
I agree with Coach Bill. Great turn of a phrase. (Jealous; wish I’d thought of that!)
Rcc’d but I’d hardly call the inner city children and those of Appalachia, The Sonoran Desert, and across our country in every city, hamlet, township, and village less screwed than the workers of our country.
I don’t think the left has deserted anyone, it’s just ineffective and repressed and lacks the courage to stand up and take a bullet to the brain, which is what awaits dissenters . . . moreso now, than ever. Metophoically, like.
The means of repression, including loss or withholding of jobs, are so incredible, they pervade every facet of our lives.
N still, children starve, die, at ages and rates FAR worse than much of all the civilized world.
I like the rest of the thoughts, but the one about workers being the hardest hit, is laughable, to me.
Still, rcc’d, great read.
Pretty much.
However, the jig is up, more and more are catching on every year, as the repression and poverty dig deeper and deeper into all our lives.
I guess someone could comment on the head of steam required to implement change, and the methods involved, over periods of time?
For me, the frustration is the danged ball is rolling danged slow.
N it’s going backwards, too . . .
Ah well. Collapse is inevitable, all empires fall when they fail to care for the needs of the masses.
Rapidly melting ice caps would just kinda sorta lend credence to that posit, methinks . . .
;-)
For many, sadly, that’s not a big enough whack in the head, along with loss of civil rights, jobs, housing, worsening food and water depletion issues . . .
You make an incredibly poignant and solid point there, Sy.
Too few realize, we are all in this together . . . united we stand, divided we hang separately . . . and yet, knowing this, I will not hang my hat with others I am in opposition to on many issues.
Even if it’s only one issue.
;-)
Very true. Reproduction needs to stop being treated like a secondary issue because it is most certainly not.
IT’s only labels, but I just can’t include the academe in the Left configuration, because of exactly what you say.
They got jobs, they got lives, and they shudder at the right as much as they shudder at radically changing the status quo which they have invested themselves and their families into with great effort, expense, and dedication.
Many professional people fall into this catagory, despite being professed DIMS or proggy’s.
Much like the Kucinich’s, Sanders, Grayson’s, Pelosi’s, Feinstein’s, and all the other erected offals, they serve the corporate fascist overlords and themselves, not the dirty unwashed masses who erected them and helped them create their personal wealth within a fully corrupted system (at the expense of the masses).
So, The Left? The Real Left, it’s much, much smaller than any MSM would have anyone believe.
Sadly, the masses ARE fairly hip to the fact that things are NOT going out way . . . n in terms of progressive, that’s a huge turn of the worm and it covers MANY more than can be ascribed only to The Left.
However, so far, the masses are not revolting. Repression hurts, really, really hurts.
That pain threshold the masses have yet to cross, and the PTB know this, implicitly they know it, cuz they CREATED it.
*G*
Oh, exactly.
The real problem is that the American left no longer has any money. The conservatives and Republicans have worked quite diligently since the 1950s to destroy the left’s old power bases, and have largely succeeded. (Of course, one can argue, as the diarist likely would, that the Republicans used identity politics and environmental issues as “wedge issues” to divide the left, splitting the unions apart from the gays and the nonwhites and the treehuggers.)
Yer as proggy as they get, hoss . . . and it is with great compadredly affection that I say that.
The vernacular, non Hispanic, might be, fucking right on.
*G*
Guess that should read Non Hispanic/Native American/Vet like maybe, but I think my gist is evidenced.
*G*
Which is precisely why the whole “Let ‘em have four years of Reagan/Bush/Romney and THEN they’ll come around” won’t work. It didn’t work in 1980 with Reagan, it certainly didn’t work in 2000 with Bush after nearly twenty years of Limbaugh and other hatemeisters clogging the drive-time radio frequencies, and it won’t work in 2012, not when FOX News has had nearly twenty years itself to do to TV what Limbaugh did to radio.
In the 1930s, we had strong unions and a really strong set of parties to the left of the Democrats, parties and unions with the ability to hold their members together and get the word out to counter the worst Father Coughlin and Hearst could fling. That doesn’t exist now.
In fact, at this point, I would rather that the masses didn’t rise up in revolt, because they would be looking towards a strongman to restore order and stability, and that sort of authoritarian type is the conservatives’ specialty. There is no FDR alternative, but there are lots of Hitler wannabees.
End of story, well encapsulated.
Indeed.
It ain’t the parties of our parents, hasn’t been since the MIC in post WW2 . . . course, the roots of our lost bliss are in the class war, a struggle that is thousands of years old . . .
Ok what I was referring to was what the common belief of the Left is.
But you are correct the “Real Left” – the socialists and communists – were demonized since WWII. Along with their support for civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam war. Combine that with generations of people whose parents were white collar workers and professionals, and they themselves being white collar workers and professionals who are at best apathetic to blue collar workers and laborers and unions. And in some instances hostile to them.
At face value, love your thots . . .
Sadly, it won’t fly them thots, wrt to the Native Tribes we slaughterd, the Hispanics we displaced in the SW and CA, and of course, African Americans . . . at times the Irish, Chinese, Italians, the Eastern Europeans and SE Asians all came here to find a lack of prgressivism . . .
But it’s like debating angels on pin heads, so I digressed and apologize for my muses . . . on to the topic, which you address well.
Of course they don’t, that’s the premise one must have for BEING a leftist and progressive.
The present systems, political, social, economical, legal . . . all are corrupted and no longer represent the needs of the masses.
So I’ll go one further, well, I already did.
Compromised social, economic, and legal and political fabric is corrupted, and does not serve the masses, it loots and destroy the masses.
End of story. We proggy’s all know this, yes?
Yes, simple and we all know this.
How does this get changed?
MY POV is:
1) People have enough, and revolt (not likely, repression is at an all time high, things are not bad enough yet to overcome that pain and act).
2) Financial collapse, break up of USA, USSR style. Close, and very possible.
3) Inadvertent nuke releases, end of story, over oh, Iran/Israel. Too close, really too close for comfort. And very possible given the insane nature of those who ARE in control of the planet.
4) Mama Nature. We run out of food, water, air, ice caps melt, oceans rise. Hit by meteor. Violent storms converge, perfect event wipes out 50% or more of the population. Unpredictable, but as temps rise, so is the weather, more than ever.
N that’s that.
In the meantime, I live every day as best as I can, try and not let my sadness ruin the time on this rock I have left.
On we trudge.
You want the answer. The 1946 election.
The Left is still hunkered down, looking over their shoulders, what few of them are left. That might change once some of the younger folks get over their romantic 1848 visions of a quick revolution.
And both parties are still doing what they did in the 20th century (minus 1940-1945)–talking down the left. No, talking down the issues about politics and economics that the left raises.
“Professional Left” was a cheap shot. The intersection of the Left with those who pursue it as a paying profession is close to a null set.
Also, the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists of the early 20th century never were expected to support a Democratic Party that comprised Southern segregation-above-all folks and big-city corrupt machines. And that continued even as FDR was implementing the New Deal. And even as Truman was architecting the Cold War and pre-emptively cracking down on the Left. And even as the scion of a bootlegger was elected President of the United States. And even as the Democratic National Convention saw a police riot instigated by a Democratic mayor.
It was only with the McGovern candidacy that the Democratic Party began to be seen by some as the last refuge of the Left. By then even the New Left of the 1960s has pretty much spent its popular force.
What has been going on since the 2000 election has been the gradual rebuilding of a leftist conversation about politics. Bringing out a lot of folks who were previously isolated and hunkered down, having given up banging their heads on the wall as the sea of red and wall-to-wall Rush engulfed the minds of their neighbors.
Which left are you talking about as being useless?
Lengthy, but it had to be to encompass all you did.
Well done, highly rcc’d for a history lesson . . . or life lesson.
I like that you DO highlight proggy efforts from other times.
Lotta people died to get this species to this point, and it’s STILL t risk of doing itself in.
LeSigh.
Well done, STA . . . well done.
I have not the patience for that length of detail, or recap, but it IS needed and essential reading and I appreciate YOU took the time to post it. I assume we all know these things, but it’s good to see it all at some length.
*clinks*
I would easily concur that the spirituality or ‘conscience’ for regard of others of our species is paramount in our existence, far beyond the material world.
Sadly, the lot of our species has proven that too many of us exist or grow materially at the expense of others.
N that appears endemic to our species.
Will we ever outgrow that, out learn that, eliminate the exploitative and combative nature of our existence? The very thing that kept us alive when were prey for millions of years?
I don’t know, back to angels on pin heads on that one.
;-)
Agreed. What would become the immediate dominant life form, in the first 100 years? Barring nature wiping this out due to our interference . . . humans, the gift that kept on giving to Planet Earth. lol
Fully concur.
Other than yer last line, only because the implemented repression is SO much greater than the will of the masses at this point (in the USA, much different outside our borders).
I continue to espouse it’s a crap shoot what happens first, revolt, collapse financially, collapse politically, global collapse militarily (nukes), or mama nature collapses us in any number of ways.
So far, the final cards are not dealt, the jury has not reconvened in the courtroom of life, it’s all still, up for fuckin grabs.
N so far, the fattest, meanest, and biggest hands got it all over our jugulars.
On we trudge, but change is inevitable.
Fully agreed.
As I’ve said, the repression cards are fully dealt, and any revolt will be bloody, deadly, and beyond anything we’ve ever seen (other than what we did to the Native Tribes and Mexican Land Owners).
That Manifest Destiny, it’s like Catch 22.
IT don’t matter how we play it, it’s played, and the end ain’t gonna be pretty . . .
“That’s some Destiny, that Manifest Destiny.”
“The best there ever was.”
Apologies to Joesph Heller . . . . ;-)
“We have met the enemy and he is US.” Walt Kelly
Dude, they were demonized in the 20′s n 30′s as Russia got bloody over Lenin/Trotsky and Red/White armies. Millions were demonized, there and then.
Not so many here, admittedly, but that revolution scared the SHIT out of US leaders and they then scared the shit out of our populous.
By labeling unions and working groups as commies.
My grandfather I never knew was a victim of this in the early 19 teens, my father too, in his youth as a cement plant worker, in the 30′s.
We also know what they did to the coal miners from 1880 thru 1930 or more. Shot them, ravaged and killed union organizers.
Wobbly!
So yeah, demonizing the opposition, it’s how the heavy hands of despotism roll, in dictatorships or democracies.
Demonizing is a tool, used by all to get the upper hand, debase opposition, eliminate opposition, and of course, rouse the masses.
Nowadays, the massed ain’t that roused tho.
N they are better educated about the past than ever before.
Who knows?
I’ll stick to my postulates, revolt (no), nukes (likely), financial collapse (oh yeah), mama nature (#2 on my list for how empires die).
*G*
*G*
History, it’s what comes before what we live in!
Mother nature has been responsible – either directly or indirectly – for the collapse of many an empire through out history.
Amazing how that works, isn’t it?
*G*
Species wide, that applies, don’t it.
*G*
Indeed.
LMAO! Hope u r 2 . . .
*G*
The most common measure of misery is still the most important measure of misery. If you have a job, you usually have health care; or at least can pay for minimal health care.
The latest economic crisis was caused by corrupt politicians who were for sale. This crisis has very little to do with any normal economic crisis.
The American left is not at fault for where we are. We elected someone we thought would rectify the crimes of the last administration. We did everything right. After all, who would have more empathy for the working class than an African American president. When someone makes the best decision possible with the information they have at hand, that’s all anyone can do.
In regard to those povery ridden people in Northeast Tennessee, that could be in any state in the USA with all of this high unemployment; which is probably twice higher than anyone is telling us.
The left should return it’s focus to the workers if that focus has strayed.
The working poor are much poorer than they have ever been in the history of this country, and that’s because food and gas is higher than it’s ever been in the history of this country, and that’s what my diary is about but food and gas is not interesting enough to get anyone’s attention. Please go to this website, and tell me whether or not you think it’s important.
http://wp.me/p2vRlu-4
The whole business though reminds me of some silly ass town feud where the two biggest and most powerful families are only interested in who ins this round of the feud.
To hell with the town or it’s residents, they have to win this round of the feud.
Actually, my final line was ‘It must be taken by force.’
But, you know, wouldn’t want any one to get bent over it and my comment bounced.
And once again, I didn’t say what I said above, but if I were free to say such a thing, that is what I would have said, if I would have said it at all.
I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel yet, do you?
Lack of strictness within the ranks. If there’s one thing that the left can learn from the right, it is enforcing strictness within the ranks.
The right views desertion from within as a greater threat than opposition from a known enemy (and they’re correct). When daddy Bush backed up on his “Read my lips, no new taxes” shtick, the right made an example out of him. They didn’t give a shit if a “womanizer librul demagogue” (Clinton) won the white house or not, they were intent on chunking their ”traitor” (daddy Bush) overboard, so that the next one would know better than to try that “tax-raisin’” shit.
The left continues to put up with (and support) shit like torture, indefinite detention etc., mainly because of a “lesser of two evils” mindfuck, which has been exercised over and over, yet still produces the same results (see definition of insanity). I know that it’s harder to herd cats than pigs, but torture, indefinite detention etc. should be enough to get the left to enforce some strictness within the ranks.
Dear, we are so far apart on this.
Our elected representation has been fully corrupted, from the bottom to the top.
Our political system, our financial system, our social services systems, our educational systems, our military systems, are all fully corrupted for the benefit of the few.
I’m sure you know this, and I wonder why you level your thots to those in your comment.
This country, has become a means of doling out, meagerly, any needs the masses might have, and it’s rapidly working on eliminating all of the helping means of doling out anything to the needy.
So, bless ya n yers, we’re all dyin here . . . let’s all die with a better quality of life together.
N that don’t include anyone inside the present system, they are all fey, ya know?
That’s a rather militaristic approach and ideology, Mike.
Just sayin.
No, not with or without violence, Dore . . . not at all.
I was thinking about this. In the Russian revolution and even in the French revolution violence was not the initial response of the people.
The Russian revolution – which actually began in 1905 – began with masses of people that just wanted some help from the Tzar. it was the Tzar’s troupes the began it by firing on the groups with out provocation.
Even after that in 1921 it was a group of Soviet leaders and military people who told the Tzar – mainly because the war they were in was going very badly – to abdicate and get lost. Take a powder. Amscray.
It was much later that the Tzar and family were disposed of to paranoid reasons.
And the real violence in France happened much after the King had already given up his power.
“Will we ever outgrow that, …”
Simply put, we have no choice.
We will grow or we will perish. it is not an if question, it is a when question.
Because there isn’t an American left.
mfi
And if things keep up the way they are, there WILL be very few Americans left.
As the Tsar had been executed in 1918 and his government overthrown in 1917 how did they do that? Spiritualist seances? Ouija boards? Do tell …
Wrong. See above.
By 1921 the Bolsheviks had won the civil war. Externally World War I had been over for years.
I’d take your historical analysis far more seriously if weren’t for your apparently more than somewhat shakey grasp of basic facts.
mfi
Politically at this point here in early 21st century here in America to continue with the R vs. D talking points and narratives is willfully ignorant of what the D’s have done in the U.S.Congress and the WH since 1992 just to keep the timeline short. Scorning and mocking the R’s here at FDL is easy pleasy site politics. Doing so with the D’s and the current so called Democrat in the WH or the last Democrat POTUS in the WH from 1992-2000 while also doing it to the R’s comes across as being less partisan or simpleminded D Party hack BS.
At this point these Bread and Circus American WH elections are being done by the UniParty to keep up appearance(s) that Americans get to vote and we have a living two-party democracy in the USA that openly selects and votes Americans into the WH and U.S.Congress.
What Barack Obama has done to cover for,protect and advance what G.W.Bush did as POTUS at this point makes Barack Obama a criminal.
Barack Obama is killing innocents to advance American Empire interests and in view of what is happening to Bradley Manning does not want to see how that looks nor wants Americans to see how that looks.
At this point with these overpriced,simpleminded WH contests the first and best available tactic is to vote them out after 4 years and make the UniParty work harder to keep the charade up. Same goes for all 535 in the U.S.Congress. One time around then out. Down the line. There are
millions of Americans who are eligible to be in the Congress.
Don’t like revolution(s)? How do you think the US got started?
I will respect your views PW out of courtesy but I may not agree with them. Romney indeed is no peach but Obama does not walk his talk very much and seems to only do it when he wants to get elected — after getting elected Obama seems to encounter long bouts of political amnesia.
Either way those who vote Obama back into the WH in November 2012 will have coming what follows. The rest of us who did not will not. Obama has not revealed himself to be a great leader and after four years anyone who still wants to think Obama harming/gutting SS/MM instead of
Romney is “better”is not seeing what function the D’s without a D in the WH might serve to screw up a Romney WH SS/MM gut job.
Spineless as the D’s may be it will be forced on them to resist POTUS Romney just to keep the run of the mill Dbots sending in checks.
Barack Obama will go on to a Clinton like post POTUS career and live very well — surely much better than many of the Americans he has betrayed since Jan.20,2009.
Key point they don’t know because they don’t want to know.
mfi
So I got the dates wrong.
http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/russianrevolution.htm
And it was not until 1918 – the Russian civil war, that fighting really started. The October revolution – the Soviets taking control was actually bloodless.
As I said above I’d take your historical analyis more seriously were it not for your shakey grasp of basic facts. Here’s a hint when it comes to history, particularly relatively recent, very well known, and very well documented recent history making fundamental mistakes in the chronology comes under the heading of “shakey grasp of basic facts”. EOD.
mfi
To veer back to the diarists post (not that the comments haven’t made for fascinating reading), but in my opinion the main problem with the left today is criticism without offering a solution. One of the truisms of Science is that scientists will not abandon a flawed theory, even though they know its flawed, without a better theory to replace it. What I see the left mainly doing is complaining about the status quo, or screaming “Revolution!” without a plan for what to do on the day after the revolution.
What is needed is a proactive platform for change that people can understand and get behind. Capitalism is flawed? Fine. What are you going to replace it with? Corporations must be dissolved? O.K. Then how should we organize production? Fossil fuels are warming the planet? Ban them. But how will we stay warm during the winter? This gets back to the diarists point – that most people live prosaic and oppressive lives with little time to contemplate abstract ideals. To engage them, you must offer a concrete plan of action. Otherwise, we’re just tilting at windmills.
So true. Sanctimonious lectures about the “biosphere” are oblivious to the realities of working class life. Tree huggers have a big branding problem – it’s always some shithead like Al Gore or some other technocrat/expert talking down to working people.
Lunch-bucket issues such as universal healthcare, full-employment, public transportation, public education, vacation time etc. Are what matter to working people.
Everything else is just bullshit.
Thanks to everyone for the lively and informative comments
Because most of the American left is a bunch of fucking pussies who are so caught up in being “civil” they forget the objective is to win.
Gotta get down and dirty. Those tactics win. Use them.
It was not until the 18 hundreds that starvation stopped being a regular event in every town and countryside in Europe. Putting bread on the table was so important that other habits – bad habits – were ignored.
Today we still have a fear of having nothing and not eating – and we are told to stop complaining and enjoy life, because no matter how much we have we could have less. Hell of a thought – but sadly it is one that guides the voters and allows the rich to keep their heads (even after the French revolution the survivor rich were able to turn the disgust with the rich into a disgust with the religious, thus giving the rich a free get out of jail card – those old estates never left the local Dukes family ownership.
This diary and discussion make valuable points, and I agree that the inability to harness the disaffection of the exploited is a fulcrum of impotence among “the left,” whatever that is. Also, David’s description of the cause of the global recession is among the sweetest and most succinct I’ve seen:
Still, a text search of the diary and thread up to now yields some disturbing findings.
The word “war” is used almost exclusively in connection with events that occurred nearly a century ago.
“Iraq” and “Afghanistan” do not appear; Larue hits “Iran” briefly.
“Human rights” does not appear. “Imperialism”…nope.
Just because American exploited workers are understandably too preoccupied with subsistence to be able to care, they are not those most harmed by American institutions. That distinction goes to the hundreds of thousands of people (counting just the last decade) we bomb, incinerate, dismember, disfigure, and displace with a sick sense of entitlement and — if it matters — not much in the way of logic.
Moreover, too tight a focus on jobs plays into the hands of the well-funded astroturfing surrogates for the exploitative forces David addresses, making the jobs jobs jobs case for poisoning our water, killing foreign brown people (Google the congressional “drone caucus”), manufacturing crowd-control weaponry to suppress the rabble in Bahrain, Yemen, UC Davis, etc.
The right wing shows no difficulty screwing workers, slaughtering wogs, and fouling the air at the same time; why can’t we be just as dextrous in opposition? OWS is, I hope, pointing the way.
Diversity of urgencies is only a weakness in the absence of solidarity.
Everything you say is true, but not much of it matters to America’s working poor. Who, but right wing demagogs, speaks to them? There is no “left” for them. I believe the left begins with the exploited workers and that defending them, all the other issues will fall into place and in case of a conflict between the exploited workers and any other issue on the progressive menu, the worker’s cause takes precedence. This is the path to credibility.
Count me in! First stop, the cluster munitions factory to demand a living wage for workers stuffing antipersonnel bomblets into shell casings. The path to leftist credibility!
Seriously, the poor and exploited need direct engagement in ways that serve their immediate needs while also drawing the connections between those needs and broader, world-historic priorities. Raining fiery death on Muslim villagers is wrong…and a stupid diversion of resources away from domestic economic development. If Ron Paul can engage a proportion of ordinary people on both these points, why do you see “conflict” in the left doing so?
The working class will hear the left if the left speaks out against those race-baiting and otherwise exploiting racial paranoia whereever that takes place, on the ‘left’ or the ‘right’.
Name names. You can start with Al Sharpton and the tried-and-convicted-in-the-liberal-media George Zimmerman case. The working class has noticed and (except for the black working class) gives a gigantic thumbs down, while looking at both the Democratic Party and ‘the left’.
We all already knew the general truth of what you’re saying, so let me put what I’m saying more strongly: name names or f@#$ off.
Great comment. Fully endorse.
The “Left”?
“We lost the message war. Let’s try this, that stares us in the face!”:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.—Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
Clever, innit, how Obomba’s exploitation of identity politics gave him the cover to hide from us that he was the monster of “crashing bombs” FDR warned us against?
Central tenet of Jiujitsu: Use your enemy’s best moves against him, to throw his balance and reduce his effectiveness.
The United States does not really have a left in the political sense. The two major parties are conservative (in the case of the Democrats) and radical reactionary (in the case of the Republicans.) Neither is left, nor has either one ever been left, no matter the rhetoric coming from the propaganda mills.
Both major parties are corporatist, imperialist and warmongering.
Neither has shown more than languid and exploitative interest in the plight of American workers over the course of many decades.
The Old Line Progressives were not leftist; they were forthrightly “nonpartisan,” though most tended to be nominal Republicans as they were opposed to Democratic populism. FDR was not a leftist. The New Deal was not a leftist program. Even the Great Society was not particularly leftist, yet it was undermined from the first by some Democrats and almsot all Republicans and it was never allowed to be put fully into effect.
What the Radical Republican Party now denounces as “Socialism” is for the most part basic conservatism — slightly mitigated exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
Today’s political “progressives” tend to be more or less libertarian. Many have no more than casual understanding or interest in the plight of the working class. Much like the old-line Progressives, they are more inclined to technocratic solutions to overarching problems rather than focusing on in-the-streets-level solutions to the day-to-day struggles of the many tens of millions of Americans who have been forced out of work and/or into poverty during this Endless Recession, let alone the hundreds of millions of workers who have seen their incomes stagnate or decline (over decades, not solely as a consequence of the financial collapse) and their little bit of savings and wealth evaporate before their eyes.
The Bolshevik promise and slogan was “Peace, Land, Bread!” and that resonated strongly with the workers and peasants of the Russian Empire. Once they had acquired power, the Bolsheviks even set out to fulfill the promise. Say what you will about the result, the impetus was right:
*The People need peace — end the wars now;
*The People need land — everyone to have their own space and to be secure in their own space;
*The People need bread — there should never be want of basic sustenance for all.
That’s as true now as it was in 1917 or any other time in the past.
Except for the tens of millions who have lost their jobs, their homes, their dignity and their future thanks to the casino that is the modern global financial system, most Americans are not struggling at a subsistence or below subsistence level. Yes, there is real privation and even starvation abroad in the land, and there is not nearly enough private charity or government assistance to stem the tide. But most Americans are still convinced they can hold on to what little they have. And they are in many cases more inclined toward rightist responses and solutions than to leftist ones.
Occupy brought Marxian economic analysis out of the shadows and into the light where it belongs, but Occupy is not a Marxist or even particularly leftist movement, though it may become one eventually.
Occupy largely avoids the political goon show, operating outside the rigid confines of politics and government.
The actual leftist parties in this country which participate in politics — the Socialists, Socialist Workers, Socialist Equality, Revolutionary Communists and so forth — have no influence at all.
The Greens are often cited as a leftist political party, but in too many elections they’ve been funded by the Republicans and act as spoilers to help ensure Republican victory.
When we recognize that there is effectively no left in American politics and yet there is a crying need for one, it should be obvious that there is a tremendous opportunity to build a genuine leftist political and social construct that may not have anything to do with current electoral politics or government but rather become a parallel system that actually represents the real needs of the People and sets out to and actually does serve those needs.
We aren’t quite there yet …
You are getting on it.
Almost perfect distillation of our situation CP.
Thank you.
There is no left, but the people are becoming more aware of their ‘real’ situation every day.
One of my co-workers, a person I would have described as a T-bagger, told me yesterday that Romney is obviously the “Monopoly Man”.
I read that statement as evidence of dawning awareness.
When I told my sort-of-reactionary father, just prior to the 2008 election that I had a deep suspicion that Obama would end up being just like Bush, he seemed surprised and asked if I was really saying that it didn’t matter who was elected, and that both parties were responsible for our ‘situation’. I told him that I’d wait to see what Obama did when and if elected.
I think we’re witnessing a growing awareness that both parties are scamming us to the same purpose.
Aren’t you the same person who wrote a multipart series on why we should all trudge in and vote for Obama yet another time-even though this kind of mentality is a significant part of the problem-and you got exactly the response from most of the posters here that you deserved (ie, overwhelmingly hostile)?
Oh, I think faced with the choice between Obama and Romney, one should vote for Obama. This is a two party system and one or the other is going to be the next president and I don’t think the first black president of the USA should be ejected from the White House by someone who organized a gang to harass a homosexual.
Changing the USA in a progressive way is not going to start in the White House. Gore Vidal defined the two parties perfectly. He said there is only one party in the US, the Party of Property and it has two right wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing… This is exactly as the Founding Fathers intended and to change that will require a second American Revolution, which doesn’t have to be bloody, but must be a revolution none the less and this sea change can only be brought about by the people themselves, from the bottom up… our discussions here are part of that revolutionary activity.
Yep, FDR was not a Leftist, but his Second Bill of rights does harmonize with the Bolshevik “Peace, Land, Bread” slogans/ideas you mentioned:
Yep, these are the words of a President of the United States. The finest we’ve ever had, or will have IMO.
True about the Second Bill of Rights. It’s as astonishing a political document as any that has come from a President.
The Great Society was a flawed attempt — but at least it was an attempt — to fulfill some of the promise of Roosevelt’s declaration.
And it was pretty much strangled in the crib.
While I have your attention, here is something you would all be well to read: http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=576
From your mouth to God’s ears, amigo. ;-)
Having said what I just said, I do think that the basic question still needs answering, because many of the responses I’m seeing (which I’ll get) demonstrate the same appalling tendencies that I’m going to criticize.
To summarize, the problems with the American left are somewhat related to the problems with American “liberalism” (such as any remains) and they are ultimately issues of faith in the sense that the faiths that both of them have, which underpin their actions, are basically useless at this point. The latter (American liberalism) is essentially a millstone around the neck of what passes for American leftism and has faith in the constitution, capitalism, and Christianity. The former, in comparison, has too strong a faith in a sort of generalized ‘spiritual’ approach to politics. This is a relic of the successes of the 1960s even though those successes have not been repeated for the most part and have more often than not been rolled back.
These are some of the assumptions of this spirituality and where I think they’ve led American leftism to fail:
1) Suffering brings wisdom/enlightenment.
Look at one of the responses earlier in this thread, which I’ve seen repeated in multiple forms:
“1) People have enough, and revolt (not likely, repression is at an all time high, things are not bad enough yet to overcome that pain and act).”
or, as stated more succinctly by a member of the doomer faction I argued with on another board (and when it comes to actual courses of action, separating from them should be a fairly high priority…):
“What you appear to be missing is that at this point a certain kind of mass despair is actually a prerequisite for healing and growth toward human wholeness”
There are three unspoken assumptions embedded in this that are in dire need of criticism. The first is that if you believe this is true, then you’re not really helping people in the here and now because by doing so, you’re actually setting back the changes that you want to see happen.
The second assumption is that it is acceptable to be callous in this particular way. Essentially, it makes leftism synonymous with despair.
The third assumption is that it is acceptable to ignore the people that are suffering now. It’s not. Furthermore, if you don’t have any plans (the next point) to help us now, why do you think that you’ll suddenly be magically more capable at some later point when there are millions more of us? This makes no sense whatsoever, and its only the whitewash of superior ‘morality’ that conceals its futility.
2) Meaningful political change can come from being a moral exemplar.
This has failed on several different levels. The first is that for the most part, individual effort is insufficient to overcome institutional problems. The second (and this also relates to problems with relating to most people that aren’t already committed) is that with the idea of becoming a moral exemplar often comes an implicit or explicit contempt for people who aren’t moral exemplars. Too many leftists are less interested in figuring out how to get people on their side by helping them or listening to them, and more interested in condemning them over issues that fundamentally, aren’t that central to the problems at hand, and not really understanding about how much of their exemplary behavior is made possible by the privilege they have. This is another fantastically massive turnoff. At best it’s pointlessly preachy; at worst it’s almost as misanthropic as the delusions of the American right wing.
I’ll continue in another followup because I know this is getting long.
Very good! You should work this up as a post.
@David Seaton, #103
“Changing the USA in a progressive way is not going to start in the White House.”
Agreed.
“Oh, I think faced with the choice between Obama and Romney, one should vote for Obama. This is a two party system and one or the other is going to be the next president and I don’t think the first black president of the USA should be ejected from the White House by someone who organized a gang to harass a homosexual.”
Having said that and expanded on it in your previous series of posts, though, you seem to have blown any credibility you may have had remaining with regards to criticizing the American left. (You already didn’t have much with me, to be honest, after I read and responded to your article on Chris Hedges, and I’ll be getting to him in one of the followups). Even though I doubt that you are in any way paid to write what you write, it certainly must have cost you time to write those posts-and the time you spent writing them is time that you didn’t spend convincing people why a second American Revolution is necessary. One way or another, the Democrats are going to become an outright obstacle to such a movement (more than they already are) and you need to be willing to confront that fact.
By the way:
While identity politics has for decades been used by the right wing to split the left apart, it’s losing a lot of its power to do so. Look at how Obama’s poll numbers have gone up after backing both marriage equality and a sort of quasi-DREAM Act for undocumented Latino immigrants. In addition, his approval has also boosted the societal acceptance of both marriage equality and aid for undocumented Latino workers — two issues that up until now were thought to be political suicide for a Democratic president.
The right wing’s last hurrah with identity politics as wedge issue will be, of course, with racial issues. But we’ve gone a long way from the time when FDR balked at addressing civil rights issues because he needed the votes of Southern Dixiecrats to pass the New Deal.
From the bottom up, indeed. And they must happen in ways that the oligarchs running things don’t recognize or think they can control so they redound to their benefit. (Google “karl rove windpower” sometime — he can read the writing on the wall.)
I disconnect the White House with any great changes in America or its system, however, as long as the system exists, there are variations of it to be preferred to others. In this case Obama, with what he symbolizes and represents, is to be preferred to Romney and what he symbolizes and represents. BTW, I’m not paid to write here, but I have earned my living writing.
3) The current state of humanity cannot be improved upon.
This is an assumption that was frequently and directly espoused by Parson “Man is a Cruel Animal” Hedges in his doomer phase as compared to his current “blame the black bloc” phase. It relates quite directly to the Christian concept of sin/original sin, and presents problems in the following ways:
People shouldn’t have to be Christians, or follow Christianity or be ‘spiritual’ to any significant degree, in order to be considered leftists. To hold this as an assumption is to say that you offer little to people, like me, who fled from Christianity as soon as they possibly could and never looked back-despite the fact that people who have done as I have done are, thanks to the unaddressed misdeeds of Christianity in my lifetime, rapidly growing as a block.
This assumption also leaves leftism itself something of a muddled mess. If you don’t think that the problems that people are dealing with can be ameliorated, then why are you protesting? If you think that people are so depraved and morally deranged that they are collectively hopeless (more often than not, exempting the speaker from the epidemic of sinfulness), then what’s the point in attempting to appeal to them with symbolic protest or personal asceticism condemning them when doing so naturally fails, as it must from your own assumption?
4) This relates to several points already made, as well as 3):
Little in the way of a positive vision for the future, much less means of bringing such about.
Look at some of the more respected voices in leftism such as Morris Berman and Chris Hedges. With regards to the peak oil movement, look at Kunstler. Many of the loudest voices among leftism right now aren’t people who have actually solved problems for much of anyone in general-as much as they are people that tell us collectively that our problems are for the most part insoluble and totally hopeless-and yet they are respected for this.
To the extent that certain strains in American leftism do have a what they consider to be a positive vision, it is often somewhat Luddite in its idealism and in its own way, not actually that distinctive from what certain strains of paleoconservatism would actually find appealing. This perspective also ignores that the problem that we have isn’t just which technologies are or aren’t used (which is determined by capitalist elites before implementations)-it’s also the structure of elite rule itself, and without challenging elite rule through capitalism people will continue to suffer just as much, if not more, than they are right now.
5) Pacifism as an exclusionary imperative.
This has also proved devastating in several different ways. First and foremost, it rigidly constrains leftism into forms of protest and dissent that seem to have been completely scoped out and are well prepared against by existing authorities. No matter how often this might fail to achieve any objectives, these same strategies are practiced to the near exclusion of all others. One advocate of such said that he saw dissent as a spiritual imperative. Unfortunately, like many things spiritual, this seems to have meant that it was beyond questioning and his way should be taken as an article of faith.
Pacifism also forces American leftism to rigidly censor itself. At a minimum, most of the time people who question it will be accused of being government plants or of even being outright insane, or of not being spiritually enlightened enough.
Finally, pacifism, the way I’ve frequently seen it advocated, both here and elsewhere, often functions as a way of distancing leftism from the very people who are dissatisfied with the status quo that it should be trying to appeal to. The result isn’t just mangled history; it’s also an increasingly exclusionary leftism because in too many ways, it doesn’t want to hear from people for whom pacifism has never really worked, or who don’t see it working now.
“I disconnect the White House with any great changes in America or its system, however, as long as the system exists, there are variations of it to be preferred to others. In this case Obama, with what he symbolizes and represents, is to be preferred to Romney and what he symbolizes and represents. BTW, I’m not paid to write here, but I have earned my living writing.”
This is how the Democrats continue to suck you in, though. Those variations within the system are just that-variations within the system that are controlled from within the system and ultimately continue to serve the system’s ends.
If any movement that serious threatened the status quo arose under the Obama administration, Obama would end up having to act like Romney would because of the systemic imperatives: namely if he didn’t act that way, he would be replaced by someone who would or he would be forced to let those who support further repression have a free hand. Changing (or maintaining) the symbolism isn’t the same thing as changing what is essentially wrong.
“Yep, these are the words of a President of the United States. The finest we’ve ever had, or will have IMO.”
So if you really think this is true, then doesn’t that indicate that the way the United States is fundamentally put together (especially with regards to the Constitution) is wrong?