The Left Must Remain in the Conversation

Are Americans more open to left-wing ideas than the mainstream media admit? For ideas about war, health care, and a shriveling standard of living, the left could at least expand the range of possible solutions.

By “left” I don’t mean simply “loathed by the right,” as in “Hillary Clinton’s far left agenda.”

I mean the left that’s left out.

For example, take syndicated columnists. According to a September report in MediaMatters.org, conservative commentators far out-ink “progressives” on America’s op-ed pages, measured both in numbers of papers that carry them and in circulation. A ranking of the top 100 columnists is heavily skewed in favor of conservatives. Note: Media Matter’s “progressives” are predominately liberals. Only one that I know of — Amy Goodman (number 85) — is left wing.

Liberals want capitalism to fulfill its promises of fairness, liberty, and abundance, but they will only go so far. The sacred cows of capitalism trump serious tinkering.

So, what do Americans lose, lacking the left in the mainstream? Often, it is the truth, at least until reality trumps illusion. For example:

NAFTA degrades standards of living at both ends of the siphon. Insurance companies shrink health care to grow profit. Iraq is about oil.

Too often, mainstream pundits get a free ride on key issues, unchallenged by anyone whose bread is not buttered by roughly five corporations dominating news, television, entertainment, and publishing.

Pieces occasionally emerge by writers like Katrina vanden Heuvel of the The Nation, a mag that’s earned its billet with a 142-year pedigree and writing that’s inoffensively high-brow while right-on.

The left is accessible on-line. DemocracyNow.org features Amy Goodman’s War and Peace Report. CommonDreams.org, Alternet.org, and BlackCommentator.com provide reporters and analysts from liberal reformers to radical socialists. Read them and you’ll wonder why you rarely find such insightful and well-informed voices alongside the monotonous rehearsing of center-right wisdom in America’s op-eds.

Where are Manning Marable, Bill Fletcher, Naomi Klein, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Scheer, Dahr Jamail, or Robert Fisk? Where’s Noam Chomsky, the most famous American intellectual in the world? Where are they even heard of, except in the dismissals of the liberals and the curses of the right?

Are we so unsure of our intellectual underpinnings we can’t brook one modern adherent of old Dr. Marx like John Bellamy Foster, editor of the Monthly Review? Some recall how in its 1949 inaugural issue, MR featured another doctor — Einstein, that is — writing “Why Socialism.”

Indeed, back in the day, Americans read a lot more socialists in the mainstream: Michael Harrington, perennial Socialist Party candidate for President Norman Thomas, UAW President Walter Reuther, and AFL-CIO Vice President A. Philip Randolph all published regularly in major magazines and newspapers.

Featuring left voices again would finally bust the myth of the left-wing media. We’d all see what die-hard capitalists they really are.

Even when the left is far left or wrong, it offers contrarian views that keep the debate honest and make us consider broader consequences.

In the Balkans, I saw a book called NATO, published by the Workers World Party — a true “far left” organization that condemned the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia and the demonization of the Serbian Socialist Party

Like many others, I believed that Serbian ethnic cleansing in breakaway republics had compelled the world to act, and that the WWP was perhaps overly sympathetic to a fallen socialist regime. However, in 2003, I crossed the Krajina District of Croatia and saw countless terra-cotta roofs smashed in by shelling in deserted village after village. On the doors of abandoned churches were Cyrillic characters, and I realized that these were Serb villages. Some 200,000 Serbs were brutalized and driven out in 1995. The causes of and solutions to the Yugoslav civil wars were more complex than I had assumed. It took a far-left group to point this out.

Maybe the mainstream media just doesn’t know about the real lefties, but their fellow citizens deserve to hear them.

Phillip Bannowsky is a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

46 Comments so far

sevenpointman October 21st, 2007 12:06 pm

Let’s face it the Left has always been right.

militantliberal October 21st, 2007 12:16 pm

I’m not convinced NAFTA did much either way. Mexico is a lousy business environment with bad roads, high violent crime and political corruption. Mexicans are coming here to look for the jobs that didn’t move to their country. China and India are the places that have attractive business zones with massive reserve armies of labor willing to work for slightly more than dirt. Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” has been coming from over the Pacific.

I like the idea of free trade but it only works well for most when the countries involved have a rough parity of income and wealth. Even then it produces losers, a fact chirpy economists love to ignore.

pdf October 21st, 2007 12:18 pm

If the Far Left has always been right; why is it left out of mainstream politics? I’m just saying that in the total number of votes cast for the progressive/socialist national candidates in my lifetime, it only reflects a minute fraction of the populous. It seems to me that if the ideals and policies of these folks passed the reasonableness test, it would be more accepted than we see. Perhaps I’m looking at this wrong, and it should be just an intellectual exercise instead of a reality-based concept.

Jaded Prole October 21st, 2007 12:18 pm

I think that if Americans had access to left-wing (anti-capitalist) ideas and information, they would be widely accepted. The Corporate press know this and lock out the left in order to support their own interests. Fortunately we have more access to various kinds of media than ever before. As Marx pointed out, Capitalists dig their own grave by their actions creating the radicalized class that will replace them. They have been doing a great job recently and people are more than ready for a change. We should turn up the pressure on getting left voices on the air but we also need to support the left press.

SHANTI October 21st, 2007 12:20 pm

Follow the $. The super, wealthy, elite for the most part, own the media and they are almost always without exception conservative to protect their vested interests. THE MOST EGREGIOUS LIE: THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL!

since1492 October 21st, 2007 12:57 pm

Jack London wrote about the media a hundred years ago in IRON HEEL: “You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”
Hoa binh

RichM October 21st, 2007 1:43 pm

pdf (12:18 pm) writes, “If the Far Left has always been right; why is it left out of mainstream politics? …if the ideals and policies of these folks passed the reasonableness test, it would be more accepted than we see….”
- Nope, that’s not how society actually works. Implicitly, in your conceptual model, you are assuming that what makes ideas accepted is their quality & “reasonableness.” You are suggesting that there is a merit system, in which the best ideas eventually are recognized, rewarded, & filter up to the top.
But that’s not an accurate model of social dynamics. What makes ideas “accepted” is the extent to which they serve ruling class interests. As Marx himself wrote, “in any epoch, the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class…” He meant that the ruling class is in position to keep the volume of certain ideas turned way up; to keep them taught in schools & constantly echoed in the media, so that eventually the populace becomes unable even to conceive of alternative ideas.
The very fact that most Americans don’t even know what “socialism” really is, or that phrases like “far left” are bandied about to discredit certain ideas without any coherent explanation of what’s actually wrong with the idea — such things are illustrations of the control exercised by the ruling class over society’s “thought processes.”

locust October 21st, 2007 2:42 pm

Change the framing–

Not anti-war. Pro-peace. Make the other side defend the negative.
Not left-wing. Progressive. Allowing the other side to be ‘the Right’ gives away home-field advantage. Call them regressives (or something equally backwards-looking. I’m open for suggestions).
Use positive terms and images.
That will help.

halrivers October 21st, 2007 2:46 pm

As the author of this article, I appreciate pdf’s remark that precisely describes the assumed rationale for leaving the left out, and I appreciate RichM’s reply which so precisely describes the left’s view of why we are left out.
Pdf reveals a tendency to select the hyperbolic comment rather than my position, however, when he/she asks, “if the Far Left has always been right,” when I only said “what do Americans lose, lacking the left in the mainstream? Often, it is the truth.” Big gap between “always” and “often.” Still, I’d like to know if the editors (gatekeepers?) of America’s op-eds agree with pdf.
In response to locust, isn’t part of the problem the negative associations of “progressive” with “left” and “socialist?” How long do we go on retreating to denser and denser euphemisms?
Thanks to you all.
www.phillipbannowsky.com

ezeflyer October 21st, 2007 2:50 pm

In real democracies like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands and other countries, left wing ideas are frequently and freely discussed. If you try to do so here, you will usually feel like the Lone Ranger.

zoya October 21st, 2007 3:09 pm

In a nation where Ronald Reagan is canonized, what do you expect?

Siouxrose October 21st, 2007 3:29 pm

Rich M: I totally agree. The only thing I’d add is that caveat of propaganda, that LIES told often enough are presumed as true. The entire media functions as an advertising agent for corporate products and policies. They shape (and/of frame) their agendas, hire pundits and or the Dr-Phil style “programmers” to reinforce the “normalcy” implicit in their positions. What percentage of a population is strong enough to rebel against what’s taken for community standards? Who wants to be shut out from the “in” group? The need to conform so as to be part of something is a huge motivation for many people, and explains the unenviable sheep phenomenon so pervasive in America today, particularly as witnessed in its evangelical churches.

Free thought, progressive thought, directing debates towards real costs to societies and individuals are RARE; but as my father said when I turned my nose up at exotic food on the table, “you have to develop a taste for it.” Minds can be educated. A media that was not under thrall to big business might instead invision itself as a tool for raising collective consciousness. Which is more cost effective, to have film and TV shows that demonstrate the benefits of idealized behavior, or normalize the worst aspects of human nature and then go about hiring every kind of policing agency or health care first responder to meet the exigencies that result?

In other words, what would a sane society do, invest in, and report about?

restive October 21st, 2007 3:37 pm

“In a nation where Ronald Reagan is canonized, what do you expect?”

Indeed. If I burned every half mast flag that was flown for that formerly-decrepit-now-thankfully-dead war criminal, I’d be in jail for at least 40,000 years. ;-D

As is cited by the above author, we’re far from the minuscule fringe movement that the MSM portrays us as. The answer to this imo is more independent media, with clear vision and goals, and a high degree of tenacity and intrepidness. Also, bug your local press to carry journalists such as the ones mentioned in this article! If there’s enough bugging, the fear of diminished profits may eventually override their ideological conservatism and/or centrism.

Nader2000 October 21st, 2007 4:02 pm

The “far Left” or, we may simply say, “The Left” if we don’t mean everyone not to the right of Hillary Clinton, is marginal BY DEFINITION.

Got it? Saying that The Left is marginal (whether this is the fault of the Media or of the People or of the Left itself) is a TAUTOLOGY.

Now, I happen to agree that intelligent, responsible, articulate progressive commentators tend to be excluded from media forums, whereas many boorish, uninformed, aggressive and rude Right-wingers have personal control of corporate-provided microphones, and that this is really unfair and unequal (and boring).

But the notion that there is some huge silent majority of proletarian radicals just waiting for someone to organize them into a revolutionary movement of some kind is a self-falsifying delusion.

Too many would-be leaders of The Left pride themselves on the fact that they disagree with almost all their fellow countrymen. I’m not saying go along with what’s wrong, but you do need to be realistic about how many people are in agreement with you or are ready to accept your analysis in the terms you choose.

I think the truth is that about a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media as the “mainstream” discourse. But that makes them potential supporters of a smart progressive movement, not of some maximalist Left orthodoxy.

It’s all fine for radical intellectuals to say what they really think and even wear their feelings openly with punk haircuts and black T-shirts. But the leadership of any successful political movement is going to need to say less than it really thinks, in terms chosen to avoid needless offense, and accept progress in steps that are smaller than it really wants.

locust October 21st, 2007 4:06 pm

halrivers-

left- “left out” “out of left field” - negative connotations.
“Contempt for the left hand as compared with the right is found in most cultures,…” (Oxford Univ. Press).

right- “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper” (Merriam-Webster), “the object of justice” (Catholic Encyl.), “equal rights”

progress- “Movement, as toward a goal; advance”, “To advance toward a higher or better stage” (Answers.com)

The left-right dichotomy leaves us with an uphill struggle. It also divides, whereas progress can be all-inclusive.

“Left” is also static (except as in “gone”, hardly a good thing).
“Progress” indicates movement.

And that’s what we’re looking for, ‘right’? A popular movement?

halrivers October 21st, 2007 5:07 pm

Nader,
I think we both agree that there is not much of a “silent majority of proletarian radicals just waiting for someone to organize them into a revolutionary movement,” but, as you said, “a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media,” but you seem to caricature the marginalized left as “wear[ing] their feelings openly with punk haircuts and black T-shirts” (not that there is anything wrong with that), in pusuit of some “maximalist Left orthodoxy,” which I suspect is how many blog responses appear.
So, we represent an orientation that dare not speak its sinister (see locust, above) name and is expected to act like an ahistorical phenomenon, without a past or foundation, one that talks in some Aesopean or Lakoffian code.
Still, I agree that leftists need to do some audience analysis before they speak, and they should aim carefully to bridge the gap between the fearful canards cultivated by the MSM and the solutions America and the world need.

Betsy October 21st, 2007 5:09 pm

halrivers, what’s surprised me is how easy re-branding sometimes is. “Yellow” meant “chicken, wuss” until suddenly in 1991 yellow ribbons meant “we support the he-men troops.”

Now, by a fluke of msn graphics, in the US “red” no longer means “communist.” Having grown up as a red-diaper baby, I’m having to adjust to “blue = good guys/us, red = bad/them.”

Even the msn has shifted toward “occupation of Iraq,” thanks to the bloggers.

I don’t find “left” and “right” particularly helpful (the French Parliament or whatever not being relevant here and now). “Progressive” is a wonderful word, used to refer to Old Lefties, so let’s just keep using it. Maybe we can even resurrect “Popular Front”?

restive October 21st, 2007 5:43 pm

“I think the truth is that about a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media as the “mainstream” discourse. But that makes them potential supporters of a smart progressive movement, not of some maximalist Left orthodoxy.”

Just because one’s politics are outside the mainstream does not equal a lack of common ground. Also, I find the idea that just because someone represents a sub-culture in their appearance, or has (oh the horror) engaged in critical thought that is outside of the US mainstream (but well in accord with the left, both internationally and historically), that one is arguing for a “maximalist Left orthodoxy”.

Further, don’t underestimate the degree to which people are willing to think in radical terms - while tangible radicalism seems to be cyclic rather than perpetual in the US, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Moments of rupture, as well of economic downturn, give rise to radicalism, not liberalism (which it sounds like what you’re arguing for, to be honest).

Lastly, there’s also the nature of Empire itself, which is anything but linear in its machinations; but for that, I would refer you to the appropriately named book “Empire,” by Hardt and Negri. Of course, this is presuming that you don’t think books are outside the mainstream to the point of being elitist. heh.

Not afraid to think, but more than glad to share - does that make me orthodox, or merely mutualist in my line of reasoning? One has to wonder,

Restive

PS: In terms of core beliefs, Proudhon had far more in common with the so-called “average American” than either Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney; or for that matter, Ralph Nader…

Jack37 October 21st, 2007 6:34 pm

Look up “liberal” in The Oxford English Dictionary (the dictionary from which all others in English derive)—Its meaning began to emerge after Shakespeare’s time as used in the phrase “liberal arts”; meaning, how do you exercise the freedom you have (to develop yourself) when all your basic existential needs (food, clothing, shelter) have been filled? In short, then, a “liberal” is a person who believes and lives as if LIFE IS MORE THAN WORK. From the exercise of that freedom comes PROGRESS, hence “progressive”; meaning, one who spends his/her time increasing other people’s opportunities to develop themselves. Let’s clean the heaps of hate and manure piled onto those words by people who believe in stagnation, regression, and hate the very word “human evolution”….

PJD October 21st, 2007 6:43 pm

When the left’s agenda - particularly on domestic issues - is put on an unbiased opinion poll, they nearly always comes out on top. In polls taken over the past couple decades, a large majority of Americans polled support single payer healthcare, higher minimum wages, stronger environmental and workplace protections.

In the 2000 (or ‘96?) election, I recall a poll that allowed those polled to pick opinions on listed issues and the results matched to the platforms of the various candidates. The winner - the candidate whose platform most closely matches the views of the random sample of Americans, was Dave McReynolds and the Socialist Party, USA.

Also, I heard that in recent Democratic candidate debates, Dennis Kucinich has been coming out on top of informal internet polls - but CNN and others reportedly quickly pulled the polls off the website when this became apparent.

The media is very aware of this. So, per Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” (if you haven’t read it, please do) they provide strict filters on the spectrum of allowable discourse.

DOWN WITH THE CORPORATE MEDIA - ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY!

restive October 21st, 2007 6:44 pm

“In short, then, a “liberal” is a person who believes and lives as if LIFE IS MORE THAN WORK.”

Wow, that’s what left anarchists believe as well imagine that maybe we should spend more time getting to know each other and less time fighting. *winks*

sevenpointman October 21st, 2007 7:04 pm

The left was right on defeating authoritarian fascist regimes.
The left was right on defining nationalism as a detrimental sick joke of a pseudo-left collectivism.
The left was right on it’s depiction of racism as a construct of legalistic capital manipulating divisions of labor.
The left was right in opposing all wars for profit.
The left was right in defending women as human beings.
The left was right in exposing state terrorism and corporatist torture through consumer enslavement.
The left was right in calling for the immediate end to the killing of our planet.
The left is right to go against the forces of conservatism that stop the progress of human invention and creativity.

holaraphi October 21st, 2007 7:04 pm

Socialists, the LEFT, are indeed left out. The Socialist Party USA just nominated Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander for Vice President at its National Convention in St. Louis this past weekend, and no blip was even heard in the media.

I’m proud to be a Socialist…the real meaning of “red” state.

Visit www.votebrianmoore.com for more information about the Moore/Alexander 2008 campaign as it gets underway.

Now there’s a choice!

annabelle October 21st, 2007 10:24 pm

In school, in government/civics class the teacher made us read three newpapers a day on current events. These newspapers were provided for us, one being the Christian Science Monitor. On Fridays we held debates and you never knew which side you would be on of the given topic for the day. His point was that you needed more than one source of information and that you needed to absorb different view points before reaching your own conclusion. It was great learning tool and today if I were to read ten newspapers I still wouldn’t know what was going on. I rely only on the wonderful websites like this one to keep me informed. I am grateful, not only for the information that is available to me, but for the input from so many posters who are knowledgeable and informative and give freely of their opinions. It is invaluable input in reaching my own conclusions.

Kernel October 21st, 2007 10:26 pm

LOCUST___You are 100% right that the terms have to changed so that the negative is used on the other side also. Too many people are swayed by nice sounding words and phrases or put down expressions. For instance the Repubs are conservative–good, patriotic-good, Christian-good, etc. The Democrats are liberal-bad, defeatists-bad, Godless-bad,etc. These labels are lies and should be challenged every day. Look how the homosexuals gained when the derogatory terms were changed to Gays. Words have a terrific impact with people and this should be stopped. I liked your idea of progressive versus regressive for example. The progressives need to be out on the playing field instead of in the bleachers watching the wrong team lose the game.

Daniel David October 21st, 2007 10:37 pm

The reason conservative columnists are in vogue at newspapers has to do with who owns the papers, who reads the papers, who buys advertising in the papers, and who is in The White House.

When and if you have President Hillary Clinton, you’ll see a subtle shift in commentary to the left, to pander to the population of voters who put her there (IF, in fact, she is elected.) Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell will never, ever change tone. Others will and would gladly adapt their views just to be popular. We need a pendulum swing, just as occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower.

redjeff October 21st, 2007 10:50 pm

Bannowsky is right about the left; we are severely underrepresented in public opinion. If almost all opinion outlets are under corporate control, why on earth would they put on people who, first of all, oppose corporate domination? The shutout of Leftist opinion is also due to residual affects of the Cold War.
See Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?” for more on this subject. I will say that we can be as right or as wrong as anybody else, but we rarely get the chance to put our ideas into practice, even after everything else has failed.
One other somewhat related thought– I think broadcast news could do its job better if it was made exempt from the ratings game.

lupita October 21st, 2007 11:21 pm

All empires are right wing. Are the populations of the 1st world willing to vote out the system that permits them to live beyond their means, that favors them as individuals and nations, that makes them feel superior and safe and free? It would be naive to think so.

The empire will collapse as all have: military overextension and debt. Only when Americans lose their pension funds, their jobs with private health insurance, their McMansions and SUVs, will they see the wisdom of socialized pensions and health care, public transportation, labor unions, and social solidarity.

The Crash will produce many more socialists that any op-ed article. The loss of imperial privileges will convince more than Chomsky.

Ohioan October 22nd, 2007 2:19 am

By “left” I don’t mean simply “loathed by the right,” as in “Hillary Clinton’s far left agenda.”

I mean the left that’s left out.

Phillip I would add that the “left out” really is the We the People”.

Wasn’t the form of established government supposed to be FOR/OF/BY the PEOPLE.

We just seem to have a government, chosen by elections, where the popular choices reside only in “brought to you by these sponsors” types of candidates. No matter who the chosen 2 sides are, they were brought to us as the only choices, by the sponsors who bought and paid for the choice.

Our elections are just shows to choose those that were already chosen.

We need to stop and decide, should we vote for our sponsors, or for those who will represent the WE in WE the People? Vote for what we need and not what we are told to buy in the commercials, Brought to you, from the following sponsors…….

restive October 22nd, 2007 2:22 am

I said to Nader2000…

“In terms of core beliefs, Proudhon had far more in common with the so-called “average American” than either Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney; or for that matter, Ralph Nader…”

OK, on second thought, perhaps using Nader in the same breath as Cheney was a bit hyperbolic, at the least. FWIW, I still stand by what I was saying, though - saying that people who have left beliefs are somehow out to lunch or whatever is preposterous. It’s just the same old manufacture of consent that’s been going on for decades now.

Paul from Texas October 22nd, 2007 6:23 am

The zeitgeist of this century is restoration of political freedom, not Marx. What passes for “capitalism” in western societies is actually statism.
There is no free market. There is little individual freedom.

The Left could experience a grand resurgence if–instead of hitching its wagon to statist tyranny, as conservatism did–it could meld its social philosophies to a model that embraces individuality, instead of constant exploitation of hive collectivism. There was once a time, I believe, when the Left celebrated “nonconformity”.

Paul from Texas October 22nd, 2007 6:31 am

Statist tyranny is the system, and the little labels of “left” or “right”, if they can still be believed, are like brand-name product labels one would see in a grocery store.

On a supermarket shelf, ‘Tide’, ‘Gain’, and ‘Cheer’ all pretend to be competing detergents, but they are all owned by Proctor & Gamble. That’s how our political system works, too.

r06ue1 October 22nd, 2007 10:48 am

The left vs right theory in America was created by those in power to Divide et impera (divide and rule). I have many friends who consider themselves on the “right” or “conservative” and we’ve found it amazing how much we really have in common. The reality is that people who belong to the middle and lower classes have a “leftist” view but many don’t even realize it because they are inundated by the rights (the rich Oligarchy) pro-corporate propaganda on a daily basis. The true division in this country is between those who have all of the nations wealth (the top 10% own around 90% of it) and the rest of us. When that bottom 90% wakeup and come to realize this the US will be on its way to a freer and more economically balanced nation.

oceanicpioneer October 22nd, 2007 10:51 am

doesnt matter..left or right..FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS WHAT MATTERS !!WORDS ARE POWER…it is said that even existence,itself..was coaxed into being by words spoken by the almighty…right is not right…left is not right….ONLY TRUTH AND FAITH IN A BETTER TOMORROW IS RIGHT !!

r06ue1 October 22nd, 2007 10:54 am

Nice posts Paul from Texas

PJD October 22nd, 2007 11:41 am

Paul,

By “statist tyranny” do you mean government that las laws to protect the environment, workplace safety, food safety, healthcare as a human right, and measures to prevent the conentration of wealth and power in very few hands?

Give us more of that “tyranny”…

Paul Bramscher October 22nd, 2007 12:15 pm

PJD: In practice and especially today, the State has shown its hand as being the reverse. It is the socialized governing authority in preserving gross inequality. Making the people keep themselves down, bail out corrupt industries (FDIC, SuperFund, S&L and now the mortgage industry, etc.). The EPA is terribly co-opted, the State is the single-biggest stumbling block in getting single-payer health care on this side of the Atlantic, and a large majority of elected politicians in D.C. are millionaires or getting big money from lobbyists.

Now theoretically the State could be an institutionalized Robin Hood. To ease the gross divide between rich & poor, act as check&balance against concentrated power, etc. But I’ve been unable to identify a point in American history such that this was ever the case.

annike October 22nd, 2007 12:49 pm

Wow f-ing genius article here. The left has no voice. The left is constrained to speaking to itself. Which right now is not a terrible thing — but it must organize an effective media campaign or campaigns. Meaning create a new media infrastructure. Perhaps easier said, but easier not tried. Easier to whine and read ridiculous state-the-obvious pieces like this.

restive October 22nd, 2007 2:18 pm

PJD,

“By “statist tyranny” do you mean government that las laws to protect the environment, workplace safety, food safety, healthcare as a human right, and measures to prevent the conentration of wealth and power in very few hands?

Give us more of that “tyranny”…”

If by this you mean New Deal liberalism, read your Howard Zinn. While the WPA did in fact help this country a great deal, it was a way to take the steam out of the radical movements of the time which were demanding for far more.

Paul from Texas,

“The Left could experience a grand resurgence if–instead of hitching its wagon to statist tyranny, as conservatism did–it could meld its social philosophies to a model that embraces individuality, instead of constant exploitation of hive collectivism. There was once a time, I believe, when the Left celebrated “nonconformity”.”

Thanks for this. There has always been a part of the left that embraces both individualism and collectivism, with the collectivism being for the purposes of both resistance to the state, as well as a means of organization that doesn’t trample on the rights of the individual. To truly understand anarchism, the best way I’ve found is *not* to watch propogandistic reports of the protest du jour on Faux News, but instead look at the history of anarchism up to the present, and its interactions with the two forms of statism (one right, one left) that have always tried to crush it.

Left anarchists have always had allies though - they were the ones that genuinely respect “the people,” instead of looking at them as a tool for a larger agenda; for example, Eugene Debs (socialist), George Orwell (socialist), Benjamin Tucker (individualist anarchist), Howard Zinn (Howard Zinn :D), etc. Personally, I think there’s a lot of good that be gained from studying both Marx and Lenin, but definitely not for their theories on the state, let alone their low regard for the individual, post-romantic ideals notwithstanding. Read smart, don’t read blind is my suggestion - do with it what you will.

Suggested reading, in case you or anybody else is interested:

ABCs of Anarchism, Alexander Berkman
Living My Life, Emma Goldman
The Haymarket Tragedy, Paul Avrich
Kronstadt 1921, Paul Avrich
The Spanish Anarchists, Murray Bookchin
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism?, Murray Bookchin

AD October 23rd, 2007 8:58 am

This “far left” group referred to by the author based on what it said, seems to be nothing but mildly left by simply defending the right of a socialist and at the time democratic state to defend itself against being destroyed as Abraham Lincoln did with the USA in the US Civil War. The left begins with socialists, not liberals who are actually in the center. Let’s get this point right now.

NATO was engaged in agression and not at all within its authority, which was to defend Western Europe against attack from Moscow, which was always a damn fraud from the start.

halrivers October 23rd, 2007 9:26 am

AD,
Your are quite correct that liberals are centrist. In lands where the left is a part of the discourse, “far left” refers to communist, which would accurately describe the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite organization. In such countrys, the left generally, even the moderate left, does identify itself as socialist and informed at least in part, usually, by the works of Marx. While one does not have to be a Communist to agree with you about NATO aggression, groups like WWP are willing to stick their necks out. By the way, the book’s title was garbled in the editing process. It’s called “NATO In the Balkans” (International Action Center, 1998).

pdf October 23rd, 2007 10:35 am

Interesting conversation. I am enlightened by some of the viewpoints expressed. If I may, I’d like to ask who would best serve as the “face” of the progressive movement? I’m certain no one person meets all tests, but would there be a potential candidate that would fill out the bell curve as a progressive namesake? Some say Cindy Sheehan, some say Ralph Nader, but I am confused as to what a larger conversation might reveal.

armybrat October 23rd, 2007 6:28 pm

‘Progressive’ avoids the right-left dichotomy completely. Traditional conservatives can also be progressive - it’s just that we don’t want to be jumping off a cliff without looking (Look before you leap) so prefer to go slowly - often far too slowly for the noisy Left. After all, conservatives are supposed to ‘conserve’ the status quo - all the good things that have been achieved. Of course, there would be no good things if there hadn’t been progress in the past, so moving forward (progress) is a given.

I hope everyone recognizes that you can never go back - the ‘good old days’ are just a fantasy. But we also don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater - that’s why moving slowly and carefully is important. (But not when the whole damned ship is sinking fast, of course - as is the case with the US today.) On the other hand, the fantasy la-la-land some Lefties envision has never worked before - so is unlikely to lead to a better future.

I think that honesty is a good starting point - and tolerance, open-mindedness, with a sincere desire to build a better future. On that note, Ron Paul fits the category, as does Mike Gravel - but few others. (And let’s not forget that everyone has warts - that’s where ‘honesty’ comes in - leaders have to be honest with themselves before they can be honest with others.)

Until everyone recognizes that we need the outliers to keep us honest - both from the Left and the Right - we are just spinning our wheels. Tolerance and acceptance are the priorities here - not using any means to gain control. That’s never worked - neither fascism nor communism worked very well, and much of their failure came from the impossibility of setting up an honest government - human frailty prevailed, despite all the rosy rhetoric. It was the same coming from Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, or any other ‘True Beliver’ - we have to deal with real people in the real world, not ideological fantasies.

Our government is now so corrupt that the answer cannot come from such a rotten system - honesty and competence will repair the damage, but the question remains: Will we do what is necessary to take back our country? So far, I’m not very optimistic…

halrivers October 23rd, 2007 7:13 pm

pdf
Not that it would ever be left up to me, but if it were, the writers I’d like to see regularly featured on America’s op-ed pages are those who can really connect with everyday people like Barbara Ehrenreich, those who demonstrate real intellectual insight like Patricia Williams, those with a real working-class approach to issues of race like Bill Fletcher, and those with unimpeachable expertise on the Middle East like Robert Fisk, who probably could not be reduced to a left wing label, but would still keep the game honest with his radical independence. Juan Cole could fill that role well, too.
And armybrat,
Being open to the informed views of the left is not some mindless true believing. And Ron Paul is not some neutral outlier. In the name of human liberty he would give the capitalists full rein. I have yet to work in a corporation that believed in any human liberty other than the freedom of the lion to devour the lamb.
www.phillipbannowsky.com

pdf October 24th, 2007 7:19 am

Phillip ~ From my perspective, the best means to move society forward is not a single, static paradigm such as promoted by any single socioeconomic philosophy, but rather an organic and adaptable belief system that gives people the freedom to explore, but also promotes the singular responsibility aspect that discourages dependency. My upbringing led me to this view, as I grew up in a rugged, outdoors area that constantly insisted upon independence and self-reliance as a means to survival. I also witnessed first-hand the birth, growth, failure and destruction of a local commune that tried hard to be a workers paradise, and was doing well for a while until substance abuse and ego/personalities tore it down. That microcosm taught me much about and gave me pause to consider the ways and means to a greater society.

Jim Glover October 24th, 2007 2:41 pm

This is a real good discussion whose time has finally come.

locust October 21st, 2007 2:42 pm
Change the framing–

Locust nailed it and we will better understand our predicament that the Political debate has been already Framed for us with the 2 dimensional map of LEFT Vs Right.

The powerful always knew about the power of words because word association is how humans think and that is the history of political power.

Of course the powerful know that the majority 90 percent is right handed so the Left/Right debate is about as unfair a playing field as anyone could dream of….. Too Late , I have been calling my self “Left” with some pride for it’s outsider quality all my life.

Elections and wars in the end is about getting folks to conform or at least agree or be silent to go along in order to win.
The Irony is the Left is usually right and as we say that we are pointing out the unfairness of the playing field and by Saying “is right” we are putting ourselves back in the old prison frame of Left and Right.

We are also up against all the odds in war because the majority of folks will not want to point to any weakness or wrongdoing by their country in war because they reason “it will help the enemy” so conformist thinking is how the average mind thinks it can be safe from the danger of War…. This puts all us progressives at a huge disadvantage and I am proud of how well we are doin in spite of the odds against us on this rigged framed field.

We all want to be “right” (correct) and every time we repeat that we reinforce our minds and the listeners of the preordained connotation of the psychological history of power politics.

Ideas are expressed with words and words shape the ideas. I wonder what a world would be like if we woke up tomorrow and the majority of the folks were called “Rightist” and the Ruling Classes were called “Leftist”…. In that new Frame of reference, War Profiteers before long might be the new Criminal Class.

See how they make their own reality…. it was already made for them by kings of old.

ForUs, Jim

sevenpointman October 21st, 2007 12:06 pm

Let’s face it the Left has always been right.
militantliberal October 21st, 2007 12:16 pm

I’m not convinced NAFTA did much either way. Mexico is a lousy business environment with bad roads, high violent crime and political corruption. Mexicans are coming here to look for the jobs that didn’t move to their country. China and India are the places that have attractive business zones with massive reserve armies of labor willing to work for slightly more than dirt. Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” has been coming from over the Pacific.

I like the idea of free trade but it only works well for most when the countries involved have a rough parity of income and wealth. Even then it produces losers, a fact chirpy economists love to ignore.
pdf October 21st, 2007 12:18 pm

If the Far Left has always been right; why is it left out of mainstream politics? I’m just saying that in the total number of votes cast for the progressive/socialist national candidates in my lifetime, it only reflects a minute fraction of the populous. It seems to me that if the ideals and policies of these folks passed the reasonableness test, it would be more accepted than we see. Perhaps I’m looking at this wrong, and it should be just an intellectual exercise instead of a reality-based concept.
Jaded Prole October 21st, 2007 12:18 pm

I think that if Americans had access to left-wing (anti-capitalist) ideas and information, they would be widely accepted. The Corporate press know this and lock out the left in order to support their own interests. Fortunately we have more access to various kinds of media than ever before. As Marx pointed out, Capitalists dig their own grave by their actions creating the radicalized class that will replace them. They have been doing a great job recently and people are more than ready for a change. We should turn up the pressure on getting left voices on the air but we also need to support the left press.
SHANTI October 21st, 2007 12:20 pm

Follow the $. The super, wealthy, elite for the most part, own the media and they are almost always without exception conservative to protect their vested interests. THE MOST EGREGIOUS LIE: THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL!
since1492 October 21st, 2007 12:57 pm

Jack London wrote about the media a hundred years ago in IRON HEEL: “You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”
Hoa binh
RichM October 21st, 2007 1:43 pm

pdf (12:18 pm) writes, “If the Far Left has always been right; why is it left out of mainstream politics? …if the ideals and policies of these folks passed the reasonableness test, it would be more accepted than we see….”
- Nope, that’s not how society actually works. Implicitly, in your conceptual model, you are assuming that what makes ideas accepted is their quality & “reasonableness.” You are suggesting that there is a merit system, in which the best ideas eventually are recognized, rewarded, & filter up to the top.
But that’s not an accurate model of social dynamics. What makes ideas “accepted” is the extent to which they serve ruling class interests. As Marx himself wrote, “in any epoch, the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class…” He meant that the ruling class is in position to keep the volume of certain ideas turned way up; to keep them taught in schools & constantly echoed in the media, so that eventually the populace becomes unable even to conceive of alternative ideas.
The very fact that most Americans don’t even know what “socialism” really is, or that phrases like “far left” are bandied about to discredit certain ideas without any coherent explanation of what’s actually wrong with the idea — such things are illustrations of the control exercised by the ruling class over society’s “thought processes.”
locust October 21st, 2007 2:42 pm

Change the framing–

Not anti-war. Pro-peace. Make the other side defend the negative.
Not left-wing. Progressive. Allowing the other side to be ‘the Right’ gives away home-field advantage. Call them regressives (or something equally backwards-looking. I’m open for suggestions).
Use positive terms and images.
That will help.
halrivers October 21st, 2007 2:46 pm

As the author of this article, I appreciate pdf’s remark that precisely describes the assumed rationale for leaving the left out, and I appreciate RichM’s reply which so precisely describes the left’s view of why we are left out.
Pdf reveals a tendency to select the hyperbolic comment rather than my position, however, when he/she asks, “if the Far Left has always been right,” when I only said “what do Americans lose, lacking the left in the mainstream? Often, it is the truth.” Big gap between “always” and “often.” Still, I’d like to know if the editors (gatekeepers?) of America’s op-eds agree with pdf.
In response to locust, isn’t part of the problem the negative associations of “progressive” with “left” and “socialist?” How long do we go on retreating to denser and denser euphemisms?
Thanks to you all.
www.phillipbannowsky.com
ezeflyer October 21st, 2007 2:50 pm

In real democracies like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands and other countries, left wing ideas are frequently and freely discussed. If you try to do so here, you will usually feel like the Lone Ranger.
zoya October 21st, 2007 3:09 pm

In a nation where Ronald Reagan is canonized, what do you expect?
Siouxrose October 21st, 2007 3:29 pm

Rich M: I totally agree. The only thing I’d add is that caveat of propaganda, that LIES told often enough are presumed as true. The entire media functions as an advertising agent for corporate products and policies. They shape (and/of frame) their agendas, hire pundits and or the Dr-Phil style “programmers” to reinforce the “normalcy” implicit in their positions. What percentage of a population is strong enough to rebel against what’s taken for community standards? Who wants to be shut out from the “in” group? The need to conform so as to be part of something is a huge motivation for many people, and explains the unenviable sheep phenomenon so pervasive in America today, particularly as witnessed in its evangelical churches.

Free thought, progressive thought, directing debates towards real costs to societies and individuals are RARE; but as my father said when I turned my nose up at exotic food on the table, “you have to develop a taste for it.” Minds can be educated. A media that was not under thrall to big business might instead invision itself as a tool for raising collective consciousness. Which is more cost effective, to have film and TV shows that demonstrate the benefits of idealized behavior, or normalize the worst aspects of human nature and then go about hiring every kind of policing agency or health care first responder to meet the exigencies that result?

In other words, what would a sane society do, invest in, and report about?
restive October 21st, 2007 3:37 pm

“In a nation where Ronald Reagan is canonized, what do you expect?”

Indeed. If I burned every half mast flag that was flown for that formerly-decrepit-now-thankfully-dead war criminal, I’d be in jail for at least 40,000 years. ;-D

As is cited by the above author, we’re far from the minuscule fringe movement that the MSM portrays us as. The answer to this imo is more independent media, with clear vision and goals, and a high degree of tenacity and intrepidness. Also, bug your local press to carry journalists such as the ones mentioned in this article! If there’s enough bugging, the fear of diminished profits may eventually override their ideological conservatism and/or centrism.
Nader2000 October 21st, 2007 4:02 pm

The “far Left” or, we may simply say, “The Left” if we don’t mean everyone not to the right of Hillary Clinton, is marginal BY DEFINITION.

Got it? Saying that The Left is marginal (whether this is the fault of the Media or of the People or of the Left itself) is a TAUTOLOGY.

Now, I happen to agree that intelligent, responsible, articulate progressive commentators tend to be excluded from media forums, whereas many boorish, uninformed, aggressive and rude Right-wingers have personal control of corporate-provided microphones, and that this is really unfair and unequal (and boring).

But the notion that there is some huge silent majority of proletarian radicals just waiting for someone to organize them into a revolutionary movement of some kind is a self-falsifying delusion.

Too many would-be leaders of The Left pride themselves on the fact that they disagree with almost all their fellow countrymen. I’m not saying go along with what’s wrong, but you do need to be realistic about how many people are in agreement with you or are ready to accept your analysis in the terms you choose.

I think the truth is that about a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media as the “mainstream” discourse. But that makes them potential supporters of a smart progressive movement, not of some maximalist Left orthodoxy.

It’s all fine for radical intellectuals to say what they really think and even wear their feelings openly with punk haircuts and black T-shirts. But the leadership of any successful political movement is going to need to say less than it really thinks, in terms chosen to avoid needless offense, and accept progress in steps that are smaller than it really wants.
locust October 21st, 2007 4:06 pm

halrivers-

left- “left out” “out of left field” - negative connotations.
“Contempt for the left hand as compared with the right is found in most cultures,…” (Oxford Univ. Press).

right- “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper” (Merriam-Webster), “the object of justice” (Catholic Encyl.), “equal rights”

progress- “Movement, as toward a goal; advance”, “To advance toward a higher or better stage” (Answers.com)

The left-right dichotomy leaves us with an uphill struggle. It also divides, whereas progress can be all-inclusive.

“Left” is also static (except as in “gone”, hardly a good thing).
“Progress” indicates movement.

And that’s what we’re looking for, ‘right’? A popular movement?
halrivers October 21st, 2007 5:07 pm

Nader,
I think we both agree that there is not much of a “silent majority of proletarian radicals just waiting for someone to organize them into a revolutionary movement,” but, as you said, “a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media,” but you seem to caricature the marginalized left as “wear[ing] their feelings openly with punk haircuts and black T-shirts” (not that there is anything wrong with that), in pusuit of some “maximalist Left orthodoxy,” which I suspect is how many blog responses appear.
So, we represent an orientation that dare not speak its sinister (see locust, above) name and is expected to act like an ahistorical phenomenon, without a past or foundation, one that talks in some Aesopean or Lakoffian code.
Still, I agree that leftists need to do some audience analysis before they speak, and they should aim carefully to bridge the gap between the fearful canards cultivated by the MSM and the solutions America and the world need.
Betsy October 21st, 2007 5:09 pm

halrivers, what’s surprised me is how easy re-branding sometimes is. “Yellow” meant “chicken, wuss” until suddenly in 1991 yellow ribbons meant “we support the he-men troops.”

Now, by a fluke of msn graphics, in the US “red” no longer means “communist.” Having grown up as a red-diaper baby, I’m having to adjust to “blue = good guys/us, red = bad/them.”

Even the msn has shifted toward “occupation of Iraq,” thanks to the bloggers.

I don’t find “left” and “right” particularly helpful (the French Parliament or whatever not being relevant here and now). “Progressive” is a wonderful word, used to refer to Old Lefties, so let’s just keep using it. Maybe we can even resurrect “Popular Front”?
restive October 21st, 2007 5:43 pm

“I think the truth is that about a third of Americans, in their values, views and knowledge, are well to the left of what is presented in the corporate media as the “mainstream” discourse. But that makes them potential supporters of a smart progressive movement, not of some maximalist Left orthodoxy.”

Just because one’s politics are outside the mainstream does not equal a lack of common ground. Also, I find the idea that just because someone represents a sub-culture in their appearance, or has (oh the horror) engaged in critical thought that is outside of the US mainstream (but well in accord with the left, both internationally and historically), that one is arguing for a “maximalist Left orthodoxy”.

Further, don’t underestimate the degree to which people are willing to think in radical terms - while tangible radicalism seems to be cyclic rather than perpetual in the US, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Moments of rupture, as well of economic downturn, give rise to radicalism, not liberalism (which it sounds like what you’re arguing for, to be honest).

Lastly, there’s also the nature of Empire itself, which is anything but linear in its machinations; but for that, I would refer you to the appropriately named book “Empire,” by Hardt and Negri. Of course, this is presuming that you don’t think books are outside the mainstream to the point of being elitist. heh.

Not afraid to think, but more than glad to share - does that make me orthodox, or merely mutualist in my line of reasoning? One has to wonder,

Restive

PS: In terms of core beliefs, Proudhon had far more in common with the so-called “average American” than either Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney; or for that matter, Ralph Nader…
Jack37 October 21st, 2007 6:34 pm

Look up “liberal” in The Oxford English Dictionary (the dictionary from which all others in English derive)—Its meaning began to emerge after Shakespeare’s time as used in the phrase “liberal arts”; meaning, how do you exercise the freedom you have (to develop yourself) when all your basic existential needs (food, clothing, shelter) have been filled? In short, then, a “liberal” is a person who believes and lives as if LIFE IS MORE THAN WORK. From the exercise of that freedom comes PROGRESS, hence “progressive”; meaning, one who spends his/her time increasing other people’s opportunities to develop themselves. Let’s clean the heaps of hate and manure piled onto those words by people who believe in stagnation, regression, and hate the very word “human evolution”….
PJD October 21st, 2007 6:43 pm

When the left’s agenda - particularly on domestic issues - is put on an unbiased opinion poll, they nearly always comes out on top. In polls taken over the past couple decades, a large majority of Americans polled support single payer healthcare, higher minimum wages, stronger environmental and workplace protections.

In the 2000 (or ‘96?) election, I recall a poll that allowed those polled to pick opinions on listed issues and the results matched to the platforms of the various candidates. The winner - the candidate whose platform most closely matches the views of the random sample of Americans, was Dave McReynolds and the Socialist Party, USA.

Also, I heard that in recent Democratic candidate debates, Dennis Kucinich has been coming out on top of informal internet polls - but CNN and others reportedly quickly pulled the polls off the website when this became apparent.

The media is very aware of this. So, per Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” (if you haven’t read it, please do) they provide strict filters on the spectrum of allowable discourse.

DOWN WITH THE CORPORATE MEDIA - ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY!
restive October 21st, 2007 6:44 pm

“In short, then, a “liberal” is a person who believes and lives as if LIFE IS MORE THAN WORK.”

Wow, that’s what left anarchists believe as well imagine that maybe we should spend more time getting to know each other and less time fighting. *winks*
sevenpointman October 21st, 2007 7:04 pm

The left was right on defeating authoritarian fascist regimes.
The left was right on defining nationalism as a detrimental sick joke of a pseudo-left collectivism.
The left was right on it’s depiction of racism as a construct of legalistic capital manipulating divisions of labor.
The left was right in opposing all wars for profit.
The left was right in defending women as human beings.
The left was right in exposing state terrorism and corporatist torture through consumer enslavement.
The left was right in calling for the immediate end to the killing of our planet.
The left is right to go against the forces of conservatism that stop the progress of human invention and creativity.
holaraphi October 21st, 2007 7:04 pm

Socialists, the LEFT, are indeed left out. The Socialist Party USA just nominated Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander for Vice President at its National Convention in St. Louis this past weekend, and no blip was even heard in the media.

I’m proud to be a Socialist…the real meaning of “red” state.

Visit www.votebrianmoore.com for more information about the Moore/Alexander 2008 campaign as it gets underway.

Now there’s a choice!
annabelle October 21st, 2007 10:24 pm

In school, in government/civics class the teacher made us read three newpapers a day on current events. These newspapers were provided for us, one being the Christian Science Monitor. On Fridays we held debates and you never knew which side you would be on of the given topic for the day. His point was that you needed more than one source of information and that you needed to absorb different view points before reaching your own conclusion. It was great learning tool and today if I were to read ten newspapers I still wouldn’t know what was going on. I rely only on the wonderful websites like this one to keep me informed. I am grateful, not only for the information that is available to me, but for the input from so many posters who are knowledgeable and informative and give freely of their opinions. It is invaluable input in reaching my own conclusions.
Kernel October 21st, 2007 10:26 pm

LOCUST___You are 100% right that the terms have to changed so that the negative is used on the other side also. Too many people are swayed by nice sounding words and phrases or put down expressions. For instance the Repubs are conservative–good, patriotic-good, Christian-good, etc. The Democrats are liberal-bad, defeatists-bad, Godless-bad,etc. These labels are lies and should be challenged every day. Look how the homosexuals gained when the derogatory terms were changed to Gays. Words have a terrific impact with people and this should be stopped. I liked your idea of progressive versus regressive for example. The progressives need to be out on the playing field instead of in the bleachers watching the wrong team lose the game.
Daniel David October 21st, 2007 10:37 pm

The reason conservative columnists are in vogue at newspapers has to do with who owns the papers, who reads the papers, who buys advertising in the papers, and who is in The White House.

When and if you have President Hillary Clinton, you’ll see a subtle shift in commentary to the left, to pander to the population of voters who put her there (IF, in fact, she is elected.) Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell will never, ever change tone. Others will and would gladly adapt their views just to be popular. We need a pendulum swing, just as occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower.
redjeff October 21st, 2007 10:50 pm

Bannowsky is right about the left; we are severely underrepresented in public opinion. If almost all opinion outlets are under corporate control, why on earth would they put on people who, first of all, oppose corporate domination? The shutout of Leftist opinion is also due to residual affects of the Cold War.
See Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?” for more on this subject. I will say that we can be as right or as wrong as anybody else, but we rarely get the chance to put our ideas into practice, even after everything else has failed.
One other somewhat related thought– I think broadcast news could do its job better if it was made exempt from the ratings game.
lupita October 21st, 2007 11:21 pm

All empires are right wing. Are the populations of the 1st world willing to vote out the system that permits them to live beyond their means, that favors them as individuals and nations, that makes them feel superior and safe and free? It would be naive to think so.

The empire will collapse as all have: military overextension and debt. Only when Americans lose their pension funds, their jobs with private health insurance, their McMansions and SUVs, will they see the wisdom of socialized pensions and health care, public transportation, labor unions, and social solidarity.

The Crash will produce many more socialists that any op-ed article. The loss of imperial privileges will convince more than Chomsky.
Ohioan October 22nd, 2007 2:19 am

By “left” I don’t mean simply “loathed by the right,” as in “Hillary Clinton’s far left agenda.”

I mean the left that’s left out.

Phillip I would add that the “left out” really is the We the People”.

Wasn’t the form of established government supposed to be FOR/OF/BY the PEOPLE.

We just seem to have a government, chosen by elections, where the popular choices reside only in “brought to you by these sponsors” types of candidates. No matter who the chosen 2 sides are, they were brought to us as the only choices, by the sponsors who bought and paid for the choice.

Our elections are just shows to choose those that were already chosen.

We need to stop and decide, should we vote for our sponsors, or for those who will represent the WE in WE the People? Vote for what we need and not what we are told to buy in the commercials, Brought to you, from the following sponsors…….
restive October 22nd, 2007 2:22 am

I said to Nader2000…

“In terms of core beliefs, Proudhon had far more in common with the so-called “average American” than either Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney; or for that matter, Ralph Nader…”

OK, on second thought, perhaps using Nader in the same breath as Cheney was a bit hyperbolic, at the least. FWIW, I still stand by what I was saying, though - saying that people who have left beliefs are somehow out to lunch or whatever is preposterous. It’s just the same old manufacture of consent that’s been going on for decades now.
Paul from Texas October 22nd, 2007 6:23 am

The zeitgeist of this century is restoration of political freedom, not Marx. What passes for “capitalism” in western societies is actually statism.
There is no free market. There is little individual freedom.

The Left could experience a grand resurgence if–instead of hitching its wagon to statist tyranny, as conservatism did–it could meld its social philosophies to a model that embraces individuality, instead of constant exploitation of hive collectivism. There was once a time, I believe, when the Left celebrated “nonconformity”.
Paul from Texas October 22nd, 2007 6:31 am

Statist tyranny is the system, and the little labels of “left” or “right”, if they can still be believed, are like brand-name product labels one would see in a grocery store.

On a supermarket shelf, ‘Tide’, ‘Gain’, and ‘Cheer’ all pretend to be competing detergents, but they are all owned by Proctor & Gamble. That’s how our political system works, too.
r06ue1 October 22nd, 2007 10:48 am

The left vs right theory in America was created by those in power to Divide et impera (divide and rule). I have many friends who consider themselves on the “right” or “conservative” and we’ve found it amazing how much we really have in common. The reality is that people who belong to the middle and lower classes have a “leftist” view but many don’t even realize it because they are inundated by the rights (the rich Oligarchy) pro-corporate propaganda on a daily basis. The true division in this country is between those who have all of the nations wealth (the top 10% own around 90% of it) and the rest of us. When that bottom 90% wakeup and come to realize this the US will be on its way to a freer and more economically balanced nation.
oceanicpioneer October 22nd, 2007 10:51 am

doesnt matter..left or right..FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS WHAT MATTERS !!WORDS ARE POWER…it is said that even existence,itself..was coaxed into being by words spoken by the almighty…right is not right…left is not right….ONLY TRUTH AND FAITH IN A BETTER TOMORROW IS RIGHT !!
r06ue1 October 22nd, 2007 10:54 am

Nice posts Paul from Texas
PJD October 22nd, 2007 11:41 am

Paul,

By “statist tyranny” do you mean government that las laws to protect the environment, workplace safety, food safety, healthcare as a human right, and measures to prevent the conentration of wealth and power in very few hands?

Give us more of that “tyranny”…
Paul Bramscher October 22nd, 2007 12:15 pm

PJD: In practice and especially today, the State has shown its hand as being the reverse. It is the socialized governing authority in preserving gross inequality. Making the people keep themselves down, bail out corrupt industries (FDIC, SuperFund, S&L and now the mortgage industry, etc.). The EPA is terribly co-opted, the State is the single-biggest stumbling block in getting single-payer health care on this side of the Atlantic, and a large majority of elected politicians in D.C. are millionaires or getting big money from lobbyists.

Now theoretically the State could be an institutionalized Robin Hood. To ease the gross divide between rich & poor, act as check&balance against concentrated power, etc. But I’ve been unable to identify a point in American history such that this was ever the case.
annike October 22nd, 2007 12:49 pm

Wow f-ing genius article here. The left has no voice. The left is constrained to speaking to itself. Which right now is not a terrible thing — but it must organize an effective media campaign or campaigns. Meaning create a new media infrastructure. Perhaps easier said, but easier not tried. Easier to whine and read ridiculous state-the-obvious pieces like this.
restive October 22nd, 2007 2:18 pm

PJD,

“By “statist tyranny” do you mean government that las laws to protect the environment, workplace safety, food safety, healthcare as a human right, and measures to prevent the conentration of wealth and power in very few hands?

Give us more of that “tyranny”…”

If by this you mean New Deal liberalism, read your Howard Zinn. While the WPA did in fact help this country a great deal, it was a way to take the steam out of the radical movements of the time which were demanding for far more.

Paul from Texas,

“The Left could experience a grand resurgence if–instead of hitching its wagon to statist tyranny, as conservatism did–it could meld its social philosophies to a model that embraces individuality, instead of constant exploitation of hive collectivism. There was once a time, I believe, when the Left celebrated “nonconformity”.”

Thanks for this. There has always been a part of the left that embraces both individualism and collectivism, with the collectivism being for the purposes of both resistance to the state, as well as a means of organization that doesn’t trample on the rights of the individual. To truly understand anarchism, the best way I’ve found is *not* to watch propogandistic reports of the protest du jour on Faux News, but instead look at the history of anarchism up to the present, and its interactions with the two forms of statism (one right, one left) that have always tried to crush it.

Left anarchists have always had allies though - they were the ones that genuinely respect “the people,” instead of looking at them as a tool for a larger agenda; for example, Eugene Debs (socialist), George Orwell (socialist), Benjamin Tucker (individualist anarchist), Howard Zinn (Howard Zinn :D), etc. Personally, I think there’s a lot of good that be gained from studying both Marx and Lenin, but definitely not for their theories on the state, let alone their low regard for the individual, post-romantic ideals notwithstanding. Read smart, don’t read blind is my suggestion - do with it what you will.

Suggested reading, in case you or anybody else is interested:

ABCs of Anarchism, Alexander Berkman
Living My Life, Emma Goldman
The Haymarket Tragedy, Paul Avrich
Kronstadt 1921, Paul Avrich
The Spanish Anarchists, Murray Bookchin
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism?, Murray Bookchin
AD October 23rd, 2007 8:58 am

This “far left” group referred to by the author based on what it said, seems to be nothing but mildly left by simply defending the right of a socialist and at the time democratic state to defend itself against being destroyed as Abraham Lincoln did with the USA in the US Civil War. The left begins with socialists, not liberals who are actually in the center. Let’s get this point right now.

NATO was engaged in agression and not at all within its authority, which was to defend Western Europe against attack from Moscow, which was always a damn fraud from the start.
halrivers October 23rd, 2007 9:26 am

AD,
Your are quite correct that liberals are centrist. In lands where the left is a part of the discourse, “far left” refers to communist, which would accurately describe the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite organization. In such countrys, the left generally, even the moderate left, does identify itself as socialist and informed at least in part, usually, by the works of Marx. While one does not have to be a Communist to agree with you about NATO aggression, groups like WWP are willing to stick their necks out. By the way, the book’s title was garbled in the editing process. It’s called “NATO In the Balkans” (International Action Center, 1998).
pdf October 23rd, 2007 10:35 am

Interesting conversation. I am enlightened by some of the viewpoints expressed. If I may, I’d like to ask who would best serve as the “face” of the progressive movement? I’m certain no one person meets all tests, but would there be a potential candidate that would fill out the bell curve as a progressive namesake? Some say Cindy Sheehan, some say Ralph Nader, but I am confused as to what a larger conversation might reveal.
armybrat October 23rd, 2007 6:28 pm

‘Progressive’ avoids the right-left dichotomy completely. Traditional conservatives can also be progressive - it’s just that we don’t want to be jumping off a cliff without looking (Look before you leap) so prefer to go slowly - often far too slowly for the noisy Left. After all, conservatives are supposed to ‘conserve’ the status quo - all the good things that have been achieved. Of course, there would be no good things if there hadn’t been progress in the past, so moving forward (progress) is a given.

I hope everyone recognizes that you can never go back - the ‘good old days’ are just a fantasy. But we also don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater - that’s why moving slowly and carefully is important. (But not when the whole damned ship is sinking fast, of course - as is the case with the US today.) On the other hand, the fantasy la-la-land some Lefties envision has never worked before - so is unlikely to lead to a better future.

I think that honesty is a good starting point - and tolerance, open-mindedness, with a sincere desire to build a better future. On that note, Ron Paul fits the category, as does Mike Gravel - but few others. (And let’s not forget that everyone has warts - that’s where ‘honesty’ comes in - leaders have to be honest with themselves before they can be honest with others.)

Until everyone recognizes that we need the outliers to keep us honest - both from the Left and the Right - we are just spinning our wheels. Tolerance and acceptance are the priorities here - not using any means to gain control. That’s never worked - neither fascism nor communism worked very well, and much of their failure came from the impossibility of setting up an honest government - human frailty prevailed, despite all the rosy rhetoric. It was the same coming from Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, or any other ‘True Beliver’ - we have to deal with real people in the real world, not ideological fantasies.

Our government is now so corrupt that the answer cannot come from such a rotten system - honesty and competence will repair the damage, but the question remains: Will we do what is necessary to take back our country? So far, I’m not very optimistic…
halrivers October 23rd, 2007 7:13 pm

pdf
Not that it would ever be left up to me, but if it were, the writers I’d like to see regularly featured on America’s op-ed pages are those who can really connect with everyday people like Barbara Ehrenreich, those who demonstrate real intellectual insight like Patricia Williams, those with a real working-class approach to issues of race like Bill Fletcher, and those with unimpeachable expertise on the Middle East like Robert Fisk, who probably could not be reduced to a left wing label, but would still keep the game honest with his radical independence. Juan Cole could fill that role well, too.
And armybrat,
Being open to the informed views of the left is not some mindless true believing. And Ron Paul is not some neutral outlier. In the name of human liberty he would give the capitalists full rein. I have yet to work in a corporation that believed in any human liberty other than the freedom of the lion to devour the lamb.
www.phillipbannowsky.com
pdf October 24th, 2007 7:19 am

Phillip ~ From my perspective, the best means to move society forward is not a single, static paradigm such as promoted by any single socioeconomic philosophy, but rather an organic and adaptable belief system that gives people the freedom to explore, but also promotes the singular responsibility aspect that discourages dependency. My upbringing led me to this view, as I grew up in a rugged, outdoors area that constantly insisted upon independence and self-reliance as a means to survival. I also witnessed first-hand the birth, growth, failure and destruction of a local commune that tried hard to be a workers paradise, and was doing well for a while until substance abuse and ego/personalities tore it down. That microcosm taught me much about and gave me pause to consider the ways and means to a greater society.
Jim Glover October 24th, 2007 2:41 pm

This is a real good discussion whose time has finally come.

locust October 21st, 2007 2:42 pm
Change the framing–

Locust nailed it and we will better understand our predicament that the Political debate has been already Framed for us with the 2 dimensional map of LEFT Vs Right.

The powerful always knew about the power of words because word association is how humans think and that is the history of political power.

Of course the powerful know that the majority 90 percent is right handed so the Left/Right debate is about as unfair a playing field as anyone could dream of….. Too Late , I have been calling my self “Left” with some pride for it’s outsider quality all my life.

Elections and wars in the end is about getting folks to conform or at least agree or be silent to go along in order to win.
The Irony is the Left is usually right and as we say that we are pointing out the unfairness of the playing field and by Saying “is right” we are putting ourselves back in the old prison frame of Left and Right.

We are also up against all the odds in war because the majority of folks will not want to point to any weakness or wrongdoing by their country in war because they reason “it will help the enemy” so conformist thinking is how the average mind thinks it can be safe from the danger of War…. This puts all us progressives at a huge disadvantage and I am proud of how well we are doin in spite of the odds against us on this rigged framed field.

We all want to be “right” (correct) and every time we repeat that we reinforce our minds and the listeners of the preordained connotation of the psychological history of power politics.

Ideas are expressed with words and words shape the ideas. I wonder what a world would be like if we woke up tomorrow and the majority of the folks were called “Rightist” and the Ruling Classes were called “Leftist”…. In that new Frame of reference, War Profiteers before long might be the new Criminal Class.

See how they make their own reality…. it was already made for them by kings of old.

ForUs, Jim

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)