Number 9… Number 9… Number 9…
Published by Quin October 2nd, 2008 in A million ways to mortgage the future, Liberal Democrats, PoliticsIn a recent thread I’ve been finding very stimulating, Amanda wrote:
I was swept up in Naderite thinking in my wayward youth, and for me, it was an impatience. I just knew there had to be a tool to force Democrats to move to the left in one, swift blow. But then I came around to realizing that if I wanted to learn effective politics, I needed to be willing to look at who practices them, and what they do right. You know who has? The far right in America. And did they take over the Republican party by declaring that they were no different than Democrats, and threatening them and taking symbolic but ultimately useless stands like 3rd party voting? Nope.
What they did was they changed the public, and that changed the party. They built think tanks and worked their asses off taking over and creating a non-profit and opinion-making infrastructure. They worked on getting their candidates elected into smaller offices, slowly moving up the chain of leadership. They pushed forward slowly but surely. And the tortoise won that race. Now John McCain can’t wipe his ass without phoning Grover Norquist first and then James Dobson.
If you want to be a Norquist/Dobson to the Democrats, then I highly recommend looking at what they did right.
I’m not sure that I would want to be a Norquist/Dobson to the Democrats; I’ve been starting to feel like the Democrats are too calcified in their institutionalized anti-progressivism to change any more. Yes, yes, I know, “But what other options do we HAVE???”
I actually never was a Naderite– not now, either– but I’m impressed that Amanda was. I wish I had had the same strength of conviction when I was younger.
Nonetheless, by chance I recently happened to come across a wonderful speech given by Peter Camejo (Nader’s running mate in 2004) way back in 1969, called “How to Make A Revolution in the United States”. (via) Here’s one short clip:
The key to victory is moving the masses. Any concept, any struggle that eliminates this will only end in disaster. Unfortunately, the ultraleft idea that you can go around the masses, or make the revolution without them, is one that is creeping into the thinking of many students and young people today. But there will be a reaction to this. One of the troubles with ultraleftism is, of course, that when people react against it, they sometimes react against militancy in general, and flip over to become opportunists. In fact, you’re going to see people who were opportunists yesterday going over to being ultraleft today, and the ultralefts of today flipping over to become opportunists. Because all of them are looking for the same thing — a shortcut. And there is no shortcut to change the system.
It takes a long time. You have to have a perspective of fighting for 10, 20 or even more years. Just like the Vietnamese say they will fight 10, 20, or 40 years — whatever is necessary. You can’t walk into the YSA and say: “I want a guarantee that the revolution will happen in five years because after that I have other plans.” The revolution doesn’t work that way.
Does this sound at all familiar? He’s talking about building a people’s movement to enact a progressive agenda. The left has been trying all along to build a long-term movement. The right wingers weren’t the only ones with this plan. So why, 40 years on, have they had more success than the left?
A variety of factors, of course. But I think a central one is the fact that the “conscience” of the right wasn’t the part spearheading the conservative movement. It was the rich bastards who realized that appeasing the “conscience” with their wacky views on religion and so forth didn’t actually get in their way, and so they could build a broad coalition easily.
The “conscience” of the left, however, is not so lucky. In that our goals often get directly in the way of rich bastards amassing their dough in a rampant fashion. Whether it’s providing health care for all, supporting a robust labor movement, or opposing a Defense Department gone berserk, with all the attendant war (and Star Wars) profiteering… The left’s goals just aren’t compatible with the ruling class’s. And so we haven’t gotten the same bankrolling. That’s one big reason why Peter Camejo’s dream of a leftist American revolution has so far failed.
However, the amazing show by the peasants with their pitchforks over the bankruptcy bill does show that there is life in the proles yet; they just need to feel the immediacy of the threat to rise up.
The fact is, I couldn’t agree with Amanda more on the importance of building a sturdy long-term, closely-knit progressive movement; that you can’t expect quick fixes through elections. However, this is where I feel we differ: I don’t think that helping the Democratic Party directly will work. Democrats keep on puncturing the progressive movement’s progress by posturing as though they’re Doing Something about the Big Problems. Thus momentarily satiating the progressives in the same way that a child is satiated by cotton candy– and the movement keeps no momentum. I feel that any progressive revolution will not grow large enough to be effective against these insidious “We’re on your side” Democrats until things get much worse here.
Unfortunately, by then, I fear that things will probably be too late.
__________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: For some reason, writing the end of this post reminded me of this old goody from Punkass Marc:
He created this at a time that I was 100% on board with its sentiment. Now, obviously, I would happily keep it all except the last sentence. Still, his urge — to create PR for liberalism — was the right one. The people of this country could use a dose of positive feeling-making leftist propaganda to counteract the constant cloud of spin that the MSM coughs over us. I just disagree as to the utility of promising the Democrats our votes before they ever prove they can actually deliver anything, y’know, liberal.
(NOTE: This is replacing another post of exactly the same name and content, which due to the vagaries of computer technology of which I know nothing, is apparently only appearing on certain computers out there. Like, maybe only mine. Hopefully this one will show up everywhere.)
“Strength of conviction” was “snottiness” and “desire to believe that I’m so incredibly superior”. I’ve become more humble.
Hey, don’t sell yourself short. Strength of conviction is not mutually exclusive from snottiness and superiority complexes!
That was not meant as a subtle slight against you, by the way. I just realized it may have come off that way. (Trying to become more sensitive here…)
Subtle?
anyway, as a Canadian, I am more than familiar with American Television. Hell, I’ve even been to the States once or twice! But I daresay I have about as much familiarity with economics and human motivation as anyone else, and I have to ask:
Why is the fact that Liberal agendas (like expanding the availability of mortgages to encompass more minorities to increase their share of home ownership (a laudable goal, I might add) continually escape the “menu of things responsible for this mess” when I watch TV?
It’s not that I object to the principle….I most certainly don’t. I just don’t understand how Liberal-, or Progressive-thinkers are automatically supposed to be right, 100% of the time, or the sky will fall!
Keep in mind, I live in the very city where nationalized Health Care was born as a concept in Canada. A province which has had an NDP (socialist) government for over 80% of it’s history. A Province widely regarded as Communist, in a country that most Americans view as only slightly removed from a Communist country….. so I think I’m not ill-informed on the effects of Socialism, or Liberalism (given the fact that our (national) Natural Governing Party actually is called the Liberal Party…and lives up to the name).
What I can tell you is this: the vast majority of Socialists would better be described as Socialites, or failing that, Academics. Scratch a Socialist and you’ll find his/her income depends on the Govt in some way, shape or form (in a relatively significant manner).
Most of us are sick and tired of still more tax breaks, and programs for and to help special interest groups, like single Moms, or minorities, or those with bad credit. Because the net result of most of these expensive programs is almost always an even bigger problem, that requires more resources, staff, and taxes (whoah, let me get you a chair, I’m sorry to shock you like that)…a self-perpetuating bureaucracy? Perish the thought.
Frankly, I think the Liberal Agenda of bringing minority families up to “parity” with white families (assuming there is a need, and that this is indeed a priority) would be far better served by…..well, just stop kicking the legs out from under the guys all the time.
Really. How is a minority man supposed to be “responsible” when he’s surrounded by both racist (which we both agree is a bad thing) as well as sexist (and that one belongs to feminism) messages daily? How is he supposed to get ahead when he owes 75% of his take home pay in Child Support? Or worse, is in jail for inability to pay? How is he supposed to avoid these issues when he has no right to decide if he wants to be a parent, and is also afforded the least effective (and numerically sparse) methods of birth control? With an educational system that has decided he doesn’t matter, and even if they did care, the curriculum would put him at a disadvantage by it’s very nature?
More importantly, given the way he is regarded and addressed in society, why would he bother?
All of these are issues that arose due to Liberal politics. All of those Liberal policies likely began with the desire to help these people out, a mindset I can definitely get behind, especially given my economic status. But NONE of them would have happened if any of the enactors had an iota of understanding of human nature.
Either that, or this is exactly the desired effect.
(shiver)
http://www.angryharry.com/esFatherGroupsMissTheBigPicture.htm
That’s a good read….and germaine.
Factory, you’re not a Liberal, or a Communist, or a Socialist. I get that. Maybe my use of the word “Liberal” is sloppy, since there are a lot of things associated with traditional ideas of Liberalism that I’m not on board with either. That’s why I was advocating the idea of re-branding Liberalism… it’s time not just to give it a makeover, but to also to seek to redefine it more narrowly.
Maybe it’s a bad strategy. Maybe it’s too late to redefine it. Maybe there’s just too many people out there, like you, who instantly see bright red the instant anyone uses the word “Liberal”. Because even though I’m sure I don’t agree with you on many issues, the fact is that you and I could be fighting for a lot of the same things. I don’t want to alienate you, I want to work with you. If one stupid word gets in the way of this, let’s chuck out the word.
So you’re not a Liberal. Are you a Lefty?
“Personal libertarians aren’t usually anarchists — they believe that government does have some role to play — but they want to keep it out of their hair as much as possible. I suggest to you that this is a fundamentally Left attitude, in a country where large corporations have taken over the government for their own purposes. Just think about the intrusions into your home that government is contemplating, in order to enforce “intellectual property” rights on behalf of movie studios and record labels. Just think of all the surveillance and monitoring that government proposes in the name of “national security” — and who was it that made us insecure, but the corporations who saw opportunities for profit in imperial expansion? In short: where is the biggest threat to individual liberty, autonomy and privacy coming from? Is it not those owners of wealth and power who are the Left’s natural enemy? And so — if you’re a libertarian, how can you not be a Lefty? ”
The Left is about SMALLER gov’t? LESS intrusion? Huh?
The left, via PC-ism, has introduced legislation on everything from whether or not you can restrict access to your business, to what you are allowed to SAY in a public place…….wow, I can’t even think right now. Let’s just say this is the most convoluted twist of logic I’ve ever seen.
The left is about the State. The collective.
It’s about Hate Speech/Crime laws (bad thoughts = crime/more severe crime? WTF??) It’s about increasing levels of intrusion in our lives.
All of the intrusions listed above would have been impossible had government not done them first. As to where the biggest threat to individual liberty, autonomy and privacy is:
“Good intentions” from the government, hands down. They’ve proven that time and again the world over.
Damn, I hate all these soupy ill-defined overlapping words which all mean different things depending on who’s using them. Factory, the “left” that you’re railing against is not the same “left” that Michael J. Smith is writing about. And by the way, the word “right” also suffers from the same abuse in the wrong hands– otherwise, our most recent batch of Republicans (the “party of small government”) wouldn’t have kept on expanding the role of government in people’s lives as much as the Democrats before them.
You now seem pre-disposed to not listen to him– perhaps the idea that “left” could possibly mean anything other than “liberal” is completely foreign to you– but Smith gives a fuller explanation of the difference in here, and perhaps its title alone will entice you: “What’s the Matter With Liberals?”
Hmmm, you don’t “know” me yet so I can understand your assumption that I won’t listen to you or him now. Talk to Lisa, she’ll tell you that even if I think you’ve got your head so far up there that it’s popping out your neck again, I’ll still hear you out and consider your arguments.
This guy is redefining what “left” is then? Cause when I think left I think Communism, Marxism, NAZIism, etc. When I think right I think Islam, Roman Empire, that sort of thing.
Left = state
Right = enterprise
Yes, these are pathetically simplistic definitions. I do live in a country in which your Democratic party is regarded as to the political right of our most right wing party though, keep that in mind. And what I see every day horrifies me. There are actual international conferences that won’t come here now, for fear of being prosecuted under “hate speech” laws.
If my blog or posts are hosted in Canada, I can actually be JAILED for criticising feminism under “hate speech” laws.
That’s the political left for you.
Neither side of the spectrum is lily-white. But the tendency of the left to sermonize is all it takes to make me dislike it intensely.