. Being a leftist of the ‘superior’ type, it’s a continual puzzle for me why people do not rush to adapt our policies. So many things we try to stand for are basic human decency: No war, no hatred, no starvation. Poll after poll suggests that large majorities support the basic tenets of the Left way of thought, even if that doesn’t directly extend to establishing Socialism or something like it. At the very least, a good welfare system would ensure everyone enough to eat and a roof over their heads. So what’s the problem?
Asking himself the same question, our good friend George Orwell says:
Anything is relevant which helps to make clear why Socialism is not accepted. And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer “I don’t really object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists.” Logically, it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people.OK, so what is it about leftists in general that the fence-sitting majority finds so repellent? Again, Orwell has the answer:
- ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’
One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, birth-control advocate, vegetarian, pacifist, and feminist in England.In other words, hippies.
Most of those things can be excused with little or no compunction at all. Fruit juice is a wholesome and delicious drink; sandals are comfortable in summertime; most people find sex enjoyable; the Quakers are a fine and noble group of people; birth control is necessary to a fulfilling and uncomplicated sex life; there is nothing wrong with avoiding meat for health reasons or out of compassion for animals; war is horrible; and most feminists would simply like women to be on an equal footing with men. I’d say a majority of people in the United States fall into at least one of the categories listed above.
Nowadays, Orwell would probably amend his list to include ‘every latter-sipper, herbal-tea swiller, vegan, tree-hugger, tattooed, pierced, Goth, punk, homosexual, and transsexual in America’ - all basically harmless.
But the fact remains that the widespread antipathy towards such people is a visceral reaction, not a rational one. That is, people do not support the Left as a matter of taste, even if they would be inclined to strictly on matters of policy.
People tend to underestimate the importance of such personal inclinations. They say to themselves ‘Politics is too important for petty matters to affect the way I think. It doesn’t matter if a statesman has a bad suit or a funny way of talking; when it comes down to it, I’ll support the best person running.’ In fact, when push comes to shove, we do no such thing. How many people refused to take Dennis Kucinich seriously because he looked like a creepy elf and not because they knew anything about his beliefs? For that matter, how much of the lower-level antipathy against George W. Bush is based on revulsion against his irritating mannerisms and not against his (abominable) policy? Or, at the very least, how much criticism against Bush and Kucinich (and those like them) used their personality foibles as a way to poison people against them before the serious discussion even began?
Why are masses of eccentrics and uncommon people (I mean that as a compliment) drawn to the Left in the first place? Most ‘cranks’ are attracted to left/liberal thought because it has such a strong history of non-discrimination. A good liberal (in theory, anyway) won’t look down on you because you dress differently or have some unusual ideas about society. We’re all free to be you and me, right?
So, what can be done? The Left movement as a whole is in something of a bind: appeal too much to the fringes, and you lose the mainstream. Strive too hard for the middle, and the base becomes alienated and apathetic. If I were Howard Dean, I’d adopt a nationwide policy of aesthetic middle-of-the-road sensibilities (middle-class clothes and language) and political Leftism in regards to social and economics policies. There are untold millions in this country who largely agree with the hippies but don’t know it.
14 comments:
L.A.
"So many things we try to stand for are basic human decency: No war, no hatred, no starvation."
It sounds like you have the faith and value system of a religous person.
And speaking of faith, what gives you the hope that war and hatred can be eradicated? Given what you know about human nature over the span all of recorded history, how can this be attained?
As I see it, the only Liberal answer is through the State.
I see well-meaning Liberals thinking that regulating behavior is the way to go; that a benevolent State can meet our needs if only we empower it enough with our money and energy.
Here is a central reason why I reject Liberalism in general - all people crave power.
The larger the state, the more the more that State will seek control over your life.
A small personal example - anti-smoking laws. Someone who is not my mom decided that I shouldn't smoke. Now there are "sin" taxes and bars where I cannot enjoy my occasional cigar. Think it's not a slippery slope? There is a municipality in Maryland (I think) that passed a smoking ban in one's own home.
I'm going to be lazy and not dig around for more. But there are countless other infringments made on our basic liberties.
Back to the point of power. Regardless of the initial good intentions, the larger an agency's coffers get, the shorter the time that someone figures out that dipping in is OK.
That's human nature.
I believe that it is encumbent on us all to work for the bettering of our society.
But I also believe that I want as little government over me as possible.
No offence intended, but I don't necessarily want your (or the extreme Religious Rights) idea of right and wrong imposed on me.
And I suppose that this creates my near-visceral reaction.
I think war isn't nearly as natural an event as people think. Just look at what they have to do to make people warlike - threats, bribes, fear-mongering, idoctrination, and, of course, conscription, usually all together.
And even if hatred and war can't be eradicated, total victory is never the point. The point is whether our system would work better than what we have now.
If Liberals want more power to the state, I guess the Republican party is run by Liberals these days. For all the right-wing talk about 'getting the government off our backs', since Bush came in the power of the state has grown stronger, more intrusive, and more all-encompassing.
The only real difference I can see between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is what kind of expanding government they want - a warfare state, or a welfare state. Guns or butter?
Since you're a neocon, I assume you used to be a liberal or maybe even a socialist. Is neoconservatism really that opposed to State power? When, in their brief history, have they met an act of govenrment intervention they didn't like?
But it doesn't matter - I know you don't like us because we're a bunch of dirty hippies.
Now let's be clear - I never said I don't like you because you're a bunch of hippies.
Judging by the amount of ideological opposites you have as friends and sparring partners, I'm inclined to respect you.
"If Liberals want more power to the state, I guess the Republican party is run by Liberals these days.
...
The only real difference I can see between the GOP and the Democrats at this point is what kind of expanding government they want - a warfare state, or a welfare state. Guns or butter?"
Here is what kills me. You're absolutely right. And I am more than a little disillusioned these days. My boys get control of the Senate, House and White House and all they've done so far is help themselves at the trough.
To poorly paraphrase a quote, our current system is inefficent, corrupt and better than any other alternative we've had in history.
'I were Howard Dean, I’d adopt a nationwide policy of aesthetic middle-of-the-road sensibilities (middle-class clothes and language)'
He tried this already.
"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks"
Howard Dean's presence on the scene basically answers your question. Left policies are represented by a party blinded by hatred. A party that drinks its own tea without sugar and wonders why no one else wants any.
Confederate flags are hardly middle-of-the-road, are they? I certainly hope not.
They must be in Dean's mind. It's his quote.
Well then, he wasn't being very smart. I was merely pointing out what I would do if I were him, not that I would repeat his bumblings.
Gordon, don't you find it problematic to try to nail down "human nature" as a constant through history? Think of Captain Bligh landing in Tahiti, separate cultures, races,stages of economic development, geography etc.. They would certainly have appeared to have different natures.Even within one culture it is very hard to winnow out exceptions and come to some reasonable representation of commonality.Even at the level of instinct it would be hard to argue there has not been an evolution,which would show we are capable of adapting to new circumstances and layering over those attributes no longer productive or useful.Does history make sense if it is just humans struggling with their own "nature"?This is a very religious view (original sin for Christians, suffering as the nature of life for Buhddists etc) but for Marx history is determined by the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization which necessarily follows from it.The Orwellian concept of Big Brother, the oppressive State which was Stalinist Russia, had nothing in common with the workers state which socialists which to see.Unfortunately that totalitarian form of state capitalism, labled communism but in practice leaving the workers without ownership of the means of production, has left a legacy which modern socialists must try to explain over and over.
OK, here I go into a gunfight with my switchblade:
I think that beneath cultural differences, the social nature of humans is more or less immutable. From Mafia protection rackets to the Assyrian kings who collected tribute from neighboring states, you see similar behavior.
The strong seeking more power at the expense of people who would frankly, like to be left alone to tend their crops.
"Unfortunately that totalitarian form of state capitalism, labled communism but in practice leaving the workers without ownership of the means of production, has left a legacy which modern socialists must try to explain over and over."
What Socialism stands for is good. (I can't believe I just typed that). The unfortunate reason that Socialists are in the position to constantly defend it's premise is because there are no true believers at the top of the heap. Once there, the same predictable pattern takes place.
Just my two cents.
How Cosmic is that? Gordon ends with the word cents and the next posters name is two cents!
Im just hoping Marx was right Gordon, that intellectually and culturally both the Mafiosa don and the Assyrian King have their social relations determined by class conflict, King to slave is pretty easy,mobster to other mobsters a little less clear, some kind of exploitation still going on though.As Americas founding fathers devised a system (imperfect but a good start) of checks and balances, other processes could be developed to maintain transparancy and guarantee democratic participation but it would extend beyond the polity into decisions regarding production and allocation of commodities and services.
I cant say for sure it wouldnt be corrupted,( im just an old fishing guide) but i for one am willing to give it a try.
Well....
It's no coincidence that George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. He saw the problems of trying to achieve a just society through social legislation and tyrannical control pretty clearly.
The question is, can liberalism free itself from the strains on the left that reject freedom and espouse anti-Semitism? Can liberalism accept an economic system filled with incentives as well as safety nets? Can liberalism find the strength to reject all of the "movements" sheltering their skewed statistics and irrationalism under the left's uncritical umbrella?
I don't believe much of what is hiding itself under the name of the left is truly liberal. That is why I am concerned about our politics right now. As for Kucinich, don't expect me to vote for a politician who understands economics so little as to maintain that there is a Social Security trust fund. Go to Dennis Kucinich's website at http://www.kucinich.us/ and see what he is saying.
Yes, the pieces of paper exist, but that is all they are, paper. When funds have to be "withdrawn" from the "trust fund", Congress will have to raise the money that year (and every such year) from current tax receipts or borrow it. That is precisely what would happen if those pieces of paper didn't exist! Objectively speaking, there is no trust fund.
On this and many points, he is engaging in an obfuscation of reality. This is not a man I would support for president. On the other hand, I approve of some of his positions such as his opposition to the bankruptcy bill. I am glad that his voice is heard.
I believe that if the "left" would return to its liberal roots and truly support civil rights for everyone, free speech, a free exchange of ideas, pragmatic economic solutions, rationalism and a non-deterministic non-proscriptive society that it would thrive. In other words, I think the left needs to return to its liberal roots.
You are right in one sense Mama, it is a house of cards based on our faith and trust in the government, just as printed currency, stock certificates, treasury notes, bonds etc are just representations of the value guaranteed by the issuer.But you forget those IOUs, which is the "trust" ,are actual payroll tax monies which have been re-invested and are in fact earning interest in many different forms,small business loans,college loans, mortgages,improvements to infrastructure,etc.Just as the money you deposit in your neighborhood bank is not actually sitting in the vault, the social security "trust"is out being utilized and keeping the country running.That may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view. (as a liberal I expect you think it is a good thing)
I think liberals need to take a hard look at the long term results of New Deal reform, of Great Society reform and admit that their reforms do little but delay environmental degredation,have done little to end racism, done nothing to end costant war,done nothing to reverse the increasing concentration of wealth or the weakening of all democratic institutions and processes.
the Stalinism decried by Orwell had nothing to do with either socialism or it's advanced stage, communism and lack of freedom and anti-semitism are not intrinsic to a belief in workers owning the means of production.
Hey Troutsky,
I would vote for "totally cosmic."
Thanks for your thoughts. All things being equal, however, I would rather be an old fishing guide than a cranky middle-age programmer.
Post a Comment