EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It Goes Against Our Nature, but the Left Has to Start Asserting Its Own Values
The progressive attempt to appeal to self-interest has been a catastrophe. Empathy, not expediency, must drive our campaigns
So here we are, forming an orderly queue at the slaughterhouse gate. The punishment of the poor for the errors of the rich, the abandonment of universalism, the dismantling of the shelter the state provides: apart from a few small protests, none of this has yet brought us out fighting.
The acceptance of policies that counteract our interests is the pervasive mystery of the 21st century. In the US blue-collar workers angrily demand that they be left without healthcare, and insist that millionaires pay less tax. In the UK we appear ready to abandon the social progress for which our ancestors risked their lives with barely a mutter of protest. What has happened to us?
The answer, I think, is provided by the most interesting report I have read this year. Common Cause, written by Tom Crompton of the environment group WWF, examines a series of fascinating recent advances in the field of psychology. It offers, I believe, a remedy to the blight that now afflicts every good cause from welfare to climate change.
Progressives, he shows, have been suckers for a myth of human cognition he labels the enlightenment model. This holds that people make rational decisions by assessing facts. All that has to be done to persuade people is to lay out the data: they will then use it to decide which options best support their interests and desires.
A host of psychological experiments demonstrate that it doesn't work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information that confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.
Our social identity is shaped by values that psychologists classify as extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic values concern status and self-advancement. People with a strong set of extrinsic values fixate on how others see them. They cherish financial success, image and fame. Intrinsic values concern relationships with friends, family and community, and self-acceptance. Those who have a strong set of intrinsic values are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people. They have beliefs that transcend their self-interest.
Few people are all-extrinsic or all-intrinsic. Our social identity is formed by a mixture of values. But psychological tests in nearly 70 countries show that values cluster in remarkably consistent patterns. Those who strongly value financial success, for example, have less empathy, stronger manipulative tendencies, a stronger attraction to hierarchy and inequality, stronger prejudices towards strangers and less concern about human rights and the environment. Those with a strong sense of self-acceptance have more empathy and greater concern for human rights, social justice and the environment. These values suppress each other: the stronger someone's extrinsic aspirations, the weaker his or her intrinsic goals.
We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the social environment. By changing our perception of what is normal and acceptable, politics alters our minds as much as our circumstances. Free, universal healthcare, for example, tends to reinforce intrinsic values. Shutting the poor out of it normalises inequality, reinforcing extrinsic values. The rightward shift that began with Thatcher and persisted under Blair and Brown, whose governments emphasised the virtues of competition, the market and financial success, has changed our values. The British Social Attitudes survey shows a sharp fall over this period in public support for policies that redistribute wealth and opportunity.
This shift has been reinforced by advertising and the media. Their fascination with power politics, their rich lists, their catalogues of the 100 most powerful, influential, intelligent or beautiful people, their obsessive promotion of celebrity, fashion, fast cars, expensive holidays: all inculcate extrinsic values. By generating feelings of insecurity and inadequacy – which means reducing self-acceptance – they also suppress intrinsic goals.
Advertisers, who employ plenty of psychologists, are well aware of this. Crompton quotes Guy Murphy, global planning director for JWT: marketers "should see themselves as trying to manipulate culture; being social engineers, not brand managers; manipulating cultural forces, not brand impressions". The more they foster extrinsic values, the easier it is to sell products. Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that "economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul".
Conservatives in the US generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive response has been disastrous.
Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once progressive parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to middle England, often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been a catastrophic mistake.
Common Cause proposes a simple remedy: that we stop seeking to bury our values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology that informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – that make us insecure and selfish.
Ed Miliband appears to understand this need. He told the Labour conference that he "wants to change our society so that it values community and family, not just work" and "wants to change our foreign policy so that it's always based on values, not just alliances … We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line". But there's a paradox here, which means that we cannot rely on politicians to drive these changes. Those who succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic values. Their ambition must supplant peace of mind, family life, friendship – even brotherly love.
So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.
• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
58 Comments so far
Show AllIn a recent letter to the editor in a couple of area newspapers, I tried to express my views of our shared values by using the analogy of my favorite sports: football, baseball, and softball. These are all TEAM sports with everyone pulling together. I thought it was a good way to counter the 'cowboy' image of individualism.
Except that, most sports - particularly US sports revolve around the individual - the star coach or quarterback, the star batter with the .350 average.
Most good teams have one or more 'stars,' but they don't get far without good support from the rest of the TEAM.
I always enjoy George's articles. It's nice to see psychoanalysis of motives injected into the political debate. He's 'spot on' when it comes to defining the Right with extrinsic values and the Left with intrinsic values, but at the end of the day the 'intrinsic Left' is still left without a popular medium to express their dissatisfaction.
I'd add that policies should be argued for based on the fact that they are based on American and universal values--e.g., peace, civil liberties, encouraging entreprenuers rather than large corporations.
Well said!!
American and universal values? A rather large assumption.
you beat me to it.
I still believe one can go directly to our Preamble to find what we need: promote the general welfare; establish justice; provide for the common defense. The greatest of these is the general welfare clause, i.e. the common good, the modern, secularised expression of Jesus's 2nd commandment to LOVE one another.This is the true "bottom line" for our society/civilization, & it refers to having a genuine, substantial concern for the physical/material well-being of each other (those who've agreed to abide by these "sacred vows" by being a citizen-in-community with their fellow-americans, under our Constitution). It should appeal to the traditionalists, the religionists, the modern secularists (especially when explained that it must NECESSARILY BE a secularized expression of Jesus's 2nd commandment to avoid the repeat of horrendous religious/sectarian war that almost destroyed western civilization in the 17th century: ALL people of good heart & good intentions can endorse such an organizing principle for society). Note the general welfare-as-bottom-line DOES NOT endorse automatically capitalism, communism,socialism,any-other-kind-of-ism.Just WHATEVER WORKS to promote the general welfare. And the Constitution can be ammended to reflect further insights & gathering of wisdom, as time goes on. It is FAR from being "just a goddamn piece of paper", or a mere lie (if we choose to LIVE by it).
What civil liberties, liberty to do what?
Encouraging entrepreneurs to do what?
These are liberal values that facilitate capitalism
as well as further the illusion that individual effort achieves "success"
"What civil liberties, liberty to do what?"
Repeal the Big Brother Act of 2001 and 2003 to find out.
"Encouraging entrepreneurs to do what?"
Small business entrepreneurs can often be more creative and less on the money.
"These are liberal values that facilitate capitalism"
Regulated capitalism maybe but not the unfettered type.
This was an excellent article.
We need to forcefully defend our values without the bumbling and wimpering rationalizations or the usual appeals to "self interest." We denounce the right (and I include most of the members of the democratic party among the right) as selfish, greedy, sociopathis scum, and we repeat it loudly again and again until it soaks in. The campaigning of Rep. Alan Grayson provides a mild example of how this is done.
We denounce advertizing and consumer culture. When we see someone bragging about their new "droid" or i-phone, we laugh in their face and tell them to get a fucking real life. We engage in culture-jamming operations - wheat-pasting and the application of "corrections" to billboards - hack and take over those incrasingly common internet-connected billboards.
We target the mass corporate media that spreads this gospel of sociopathic self-absorbtion and greed. We engage in mass CD actions against the advertizer-run media - mocking the broadsheet reporters and columnists and the 6-o'clock news "personalities" at the entrance or in fromt of their homes until they hate to go to work in the morning. And, when strategically beneficial, we engage in carefully targeted, nonviolent vandalism of corproate media targets, backed by strong comminique's explaiing why it was done.
Let's get to work.
I do not agree. Trying to change consumer-loving Americans by laughing in their faces and cursing at them will end with most people angry at you and thinking you are a nutcase. Subtlety is needed. Some things, such as your "corrections" to billboards are a potential winner, especially if they're smart and perhaps a bit humorous. Trying to hit people over the head with your message is unlikely to work.
They laugh at me for not buying their cool plastic crap. Throw some of it back at them. In particular, inculcate anti-consumption behavior among kids, and get them to ostracize and bully the rich kids with the gadgets.
I am sooo tired of liberals who think being a wimpering pussy will advance the US left.
The we must assert our strength.
We must take the moral high ground
Fearlessly expose abuse, abusers and the methods they use.
Show how the left can empower individuals and communities.
Live what you believe.
Expect backlash.
SaboCat, I find it completely reprehensible that you would teach kids to ostracize and bully other kids. You seem to be an angry person with no subtlety. I feel bad for you.
Greg,
How far has subtlety gotten the proletariate
The power elite have been killing our children for too long
Waiting and politely asking them to stop hasn't worked so far
What do you suggest?
I don't believe Monbiot is addressing you. You are referenced here: "Those who strongly value financial success, for example, have less empathy, stronger manipulative tendencies, a stronger attraction to hierarchy and inequality, stronger prejudices towards strangers and less concern about human rights and the environment."
Oh, apparently, I misinterpreted your comment. So, you're attacking from the left. But even macho lefties need to understand the psychology of our current situation.
We may not have thought of these values as “extrinsic” or “intrinsic”, but we have always known that people can be divided by their values. Everyone I know clearly falls into one of those two value categories. There are degrees, of course, but the degrees are mostly based on individual ability. If one pursues extrinsic values but finds they are difficult to achieve, one then tends over time to seek a different set of values that are more easily achieved, which are generally more intrinsic. We extrinsically seek friends with similar values, as we all need a feeling of belonging.
In our capitalistic society with advertising dominating our lifestyle, it is difficult to belong without adapting to extrinsic values no matter how you feel about them.
As long as our constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court to grant almost unlimited freedom to pursue wealth, then we will see little change in our national values and sink further and further away from socialistic norms.
We may not have thought of these values as “extrinsic” or “intrinsic”, but we have always known that people can be divided by their values. Everyone I know clearly falls into one of those two value categories. There are degrees, of course, but the degrees are mostly based on individual ability. If one pursues extrinsic values but finds they are difficult to achieve, one then tends over time to seek a different set of values that are more easily achieved, which are generally more intrinsic. We extrinsically seek friends with similar values, as we all need a feeling of belonging.
In our capitalistic society with advertising dominating our lifestyle, it is difficult to belong without adapting to extrinsic values no matter how you feel about them.
As long as our constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court to grant almost unlimited freedom to pursue wealth, then we will see little change in our national values and sink further and further away from socialistic norms.
While this article does contain some good analyses, it also contains misleading assumptions.
The main dangerous assumptions within this article are that the appeals to "self interest" have been the work of some recent "progressives" and that "many" progressives have succumbed to consumerism as a way to "enhance your social status."
These assumptions mislead because, as the article itself states, these behaviors are NOT progressive.
The author fails to be accurate. The people promoting these assumptions are not progressives and the idea that real progressives have lost their way is false. If these ideas and behaviors are the manifestation of "Extrinsic value", then the people who promote and practice these behaviors are NOT progressives.
We cannot and should not make excuses for people and politicians ("New Labour" or Clintonian democrats) who promote these "extrinsic" corruptions.
We must stop making excuses for this corruption.
Where I live, the vast majority of democrats are more than willing to be cordial to republicans. In fact, they are also more than ready to attack anyone who is critical of republican policies - especially when those policies are promoted by a so-called democrat.
The failure is not a failure.
The problem is that the vast majority of voters worship the two-headed god of "free market" capitalism and are willing to believe that one priest is better than the other because of slight differences in the way they sermonize. Redecorating the side of the church where we prefer to sit isn't the answer.
It is long past time to leave.
Well done. Thanks, George.
The most disturbing change in media & entertainment I've noticed, as it applies to this, is the profusion of shows such as 'The Apprentice' or the 'Idol' series, even 'Survivor' or other 'elimination'-based Reality dramas.
Those shows appear to be pandering not only to our desperation to get enough cash to 'not have to worry anymore,' but also to a darker bit _ our current deepest fear, the true squeamish nightmare that plagues our modern lives _ getting fired. They are our horror shows & our pornography. Simon Cowell is America's supervisor.
These shows create opportunities for a ~few~ folks to become wealthy & pursue their dreams, which is wonderful. However, I suspect most of the entertainment value comes from the Judgment Moment, when there's a confrontation, and loser status is bestowed upon the 100 folks who 'can't' make it, for the 1 who 'can.' There's some sort of sick catharsis in there, sort of like Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery,' in reverse. If it was the 'talent' they wanted to showcase, the humiliation would probably be carried out backstage. I'm not sure what they're doing to our culture. It scares me to think what they could be doing to our children's heads.
It may be a good moment to consider a boycott of such shows _ at least more vocal resistance to an unwholesome 'entertainment' form that creates a lot more entertainment from anguish than from success. Colosseum lite.
Yes. the popularity of those shows always reminds me of the movie 'They shoot horses, don't they?' about depression-era dance contests where couples competed before paying customers to remain on their feet the longest and win the prize money. Its a depressing film that starts out light-hearted enough and then slowly grinds down to reveal the desperation of the contestants and apathy of the paying public.
Not one word in this article about the greatest scourge of all: "revealed" religion - the screen behind which the hateful hide; the ancient tribalizer that reinforces xenophobia and lends its imprimatur to our worst impulses; the institution that /literally/ demands our soul in exchange for a blissful afterlife (the existence of which has never been demonstrated); the fountainhead of injustice; the most successful means of control ever hatched by the mind of man, at least 3,500 years old and still going strong.
"religion" is the problem as much as "government" is the problem or "technology" is the solution. all the empty-category bashing is bunk
one shouldn't throw out the values Jesus Christ (whether he's god's son or human being is irrelevant) advocates because jerry falwell doesn't practice them.
one shouldn't advocate anarchy because a particular capitalist form of government is failing the population.
one shouldn't demonize all things that come with "religion" because most acts of evil claim religion as their cover.
whether the values come in the name of christ, mohammad, buddha, consucious, krishna, marx, dickens, or MLK is irrelevant.
we can still see the universal values, the right thing to do, what constitutes goodness, in all of them.
You seem to have overlooked my adjective, placed in quotation marks.
agreed, George.
it won't take long, though. before the fancy pants crowd move in and label you as a morality and thought police that knows it all.
"A host of psychological experiments demonstrate that it doesn't work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information that confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them."
This is new? Somebody just discovered this? We didn't know this until just now?
Since Amazon's best sellers are dominated by the right (Atlas Shrugged, after 50+ years - is still way up on the list!), since the Tea Party rally and Glen Beck's rally were the biggest events Washington DC has ever seen and since Reagan, running clearly as a conservative, won the presidency twice with the biggest victories ever, I think its safe to say this is pretty much a center-right nation.
That is why the more clearly left a candidate's positions are, the more likely he is to lose. Thus, the careful obfuscation and blurring of a true progressive's position is necessary in order to win.
Obama's campaign was a spectacularly well done example of this.
"That is why the more clearly left a candidate's positions are, the more likely he is to lose."
Actually, not. The mass media manufactures this attitude.
The tea party rally in DC on March 20 was far smaller than the anti war rally that was held the same day.
In the past several elctions, the congressional candidates who take uncompromising left positions and vigorously defend them wer somewhat more likely to got elected or re-elected compared to the wishy-washy equivocating candidates. Examples are Alan Grayspn, Kucinich, and Marcy Kaptur - whose districts are cross-sectons of supposedly innately conservative USAns.
Polls have shown again and again that USAns support strong left-progressive measures in healthcare, taxaton and minimum wage. A blind platform-preference poll of presidential candidates in past elections has indicated that the most popular platform of all was that of the Socialist Party, USA - just as long as they wren't told it was the Socialist candidate's platform.
Your last paragraph is oh so true. We need to educate. Talk (nicely) to people. Point out the hypocrisies in letters to the editor. Rude behavior will generally lead to closed ears.
The right seems to be doing quite well by being rude?
Greg, you are a poster-child for all that is wrong with "liberals". The left succeeds when they grow a pair and act like men - Ernesto (Che) Guevara-Lynch, Fidel, or Hugo Chavez-Frias, or Evo Morales.
I agree with you, but I am certain that this is not what the various authors here at CD are saying. The author here is not talking about becoming more radical and militant, he is talking about becoming more aggressive and annoying to our neighbors, becoming more self-righteous, condescending and arrogant.
Thank you.
Though I'd suggest that we can be assertive without resorting to the vapid hysterics of the Far Right _ however well they apparently play among the American public. It's a fine line to walk, & involves much grace. Another example to add to your list would be Xanana Gusmao, who doggedly & successfully led a resistance in East Timor.
I'm with you, though _ the hour is upon us to stop the 'Kumbaya' _ the Far Right doesn't need a hug. It is a fight. It's not a conversation.
I'd also like to suggest that another front that requires attention is labor rights _ American workers need to find more ways to stand up & fight back.
so many thought wrongly.
The reason why Democrats and liberals have to lie to people is not because people would reject left wing politics. People will support left wing politics. They won't support people who fight for the owners while claiming to be on the side of working class people.
Right on. The policies being pushed by 'The Left' are common-sense & mainstream. It's by tainting them with the words 'Left,' 'Liberal,' 'Socialist' & 'Communist' that the Far Right has been able to persuade the Working Class to vote against its own interests.
To say that we as working class people are voting against our own interests implies that there is a way to vote for our interests, and also implies that voting is the main, or even an important way to advance the interests of the working class.
What is the evidence that either of those are true?
from the article:
~ So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see. ~
this is the climax? leading by ceasing to be embarrassed, and arguing assertively against selfishness and cruelty?
what good is that against a drone, or a sound cannon, or a crowd taser, or tear gas, or gorillas in riot gear, or...
one cannot assume primacy in one's own lifespace without viable lands and potable waters...
this is war for survival, not tea...the battle is not one of political opinion, it is one side policing owned property, and the other freeing such property for the common good...
the 'C' clocks, chemical and climate, are ticking...if one of them goes into alarm mode, the rest is moot...industry must cease...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
I'm glad we don't have to do much of anything for a couple of years (global start date) because I'm feeling kind of tired today.
thank you...
that 2-year time is for planning and planting...
"So here we are, forming an orderly queue at the slaughterhouse gate."
Yeah, but not without the usual trip to the therapist's couch first.
Another election, another beating, another trip to the psychoanalysing woodshed.
This is just sad. So weak. Incredibly weak. I had no idea that progressives were so weak minded. Yikes!
Monbiot: "a myth of human cognition... holds that people make rational decisions by assessing facts... [so just] lay out the data."
and later: "[Progressives] should argue for the policies we want... on the grounds that they are empathetic"
Isn't there a rational disconnect between these two statements?
I'm becoming more and more convinced that progressives shouldn't argue their policies, they should make them for themselves, and let the regressives rot. Regressives have benefitted by making all forms of communion impossible except church communion, for which they receive tax-free status. But progressive's should seek communion, ie community gathering, amongst themselves, for themselves, and just build the society they want, as much as they can, by themselves. This is to some extent already happening, and I think we as progressives should begin supporting these kinds of activities to a much greater degree than previously.
We should admit that the society is shattered, that regressives shattered it, and that regressives, like the idiot 'moonpie' who posted prior to me, are now engaged in a pathetic 'goading' exercise from the ashes of their success. They want us progressives to shoulder the burden of rebuilding what they have broken, to which they would attach themselves like leeches (hey, it beats working for a living).
Monbiot's teaching here is priceless: its time for progressives to recognize the futility of trying to reach out to the regressive community and get it to see reason. Its time for progressives to seek community within themselves. There are places in the U.S., like the NW and the NE, that still are largely progressive in character, and in these places a progressive has the best chance of helping build a just society that supports and encourages progressives. Outside those areas, local progressive communities have sprung up all over the nation that stand in stark contrast to the mean-spirited rat-race conducted around them. Progressive should be spending their time in supporting and enriching these communities, and not allow their preciously beaten-down optimism beat itself up reasoning with those committed to unreason.
Build the just society, and its existance alone will turn regressive minds around. With the kind of Faux News training regressives have received, its probably the only thing that will at the current time.
While Monbiot gets most things correct, he too falls for the politically correct meaning of the word "conservative". It is possible to be a principled conservative and yet progressive. The Left has values but the way the values are used in the USA is totally different from how they are used elsewhere. Here, the principled meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" gave way to political correctness and now we are seeing the same thing being done to the word "progressive". Elsewhere, even a typical conservative would make most of the American "Left" look too rightist because they are principled and yet the American "Left" is wobbly at best. Here, it is either "be practical and concede or get slapped as a Republican" that defines the American "left". Whatever ideological label you want to wear, my suggestion is to be principled and fair about it.
P.S.: American "conservatives" are generally unaware of the fact that they are not principally conservative much less progressive or liberal at heart on some issues.
Damn, I'm tired of hearing yet again what progressives must do to win back the electorate. Spineless Democrats who won't discuss openly that they are pro-choice, in favor of taxing the rich at higher levels, pro-public education, against foreign wars, against bailing out Wall Street without getting anything in return are NOT progressive at all. Forget about them. They deserve to lose.
And it's not that the right is so skillful about the use of language and "framing." If you have billions of dollars and the corporate media behind you, you can look like a goddam genius. This whole Lakoff "framing" thing--doesn't he understand that you need a vehicle, a venue to frame your point of view: a watched TV network (or several), talk radio that is listened to, newspapers that are read? Once one side has control of the media--be it Pravda in the USSR or the corporate media in the US--the game is over. No amount of self-recrimination or "reframing" will make any difference; you are just pissing in the wind (and the wind is not blowing in the right direction).
Interesting analysis with salient points, but unfortunately, none of it matters.
*Nothing* will improve until progressives focus on the singular thing that could help America move forward again. Unless we make an all out fight to remove all private monies from our electoral process, corporations and the uber-rich will continue to gather ever more power. We need a non-stop, simple message to create a non-stop forceful demand from voters:
END Privately-Financed Elections.
I suggest we stop trying to figure out how to appeal to voters, how to make Democrats care about the working class or how to push a progressive agenda. First we need a new, clean, electoral process.
Accepting privately-funded elections in today's reality will end our democracy before too long.
Me too with " is this news?" From the Rolling Stones 'Satisfaction' " He can't be a man cos he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me", Carnegie's " How to Win Friends and Influence People", Thomas Frank's " What's the Matter With Kansas" ... need I go on to include just about everything written in the twentieth century - it's plainly seen that EVERYONE knows people don't respond to logical arguments, but to emotional appeals, flattery... Think Nurember rallies, think ADVERTISING! So who on Earth is George Monbiot talking about or addressing himself to?
A big problem with the 'left' is that the leadership seems to come from the same elite circles as the right - privileged, wealthy, clueless academics like Monbiot, who claim to represent US, but do nothing but state banalities in as long-winded and pseudo-academic a manner as possible, as if to bore people into going home rather than man the barricades.
You nailed it -
"A big problem with the 'left' is that the leadership seems to come from the same elite circles as the right."
That is the entire problem in a nutshell.
Seems to me that the anger on both the right and the left have to do with the fact that our government doesn't represent we the people, instead representing minorities and assorted do-gooders according to the right, corporations according to the left. This difference in the object of one's disaffection makes it easier for rightists to recruit others than it is for leftists, being that minorities and do-gooders are visible targets, whereas corporations are anonymous creations that are difficult to understand let alone reach. Rightists also are advantaged in that their irrationality enables them to zero-in on whatever the hot button issue of the moment, making things up as they go, whereas leftists search for the underlying cause of a problem, holding back on the rage. What's the answer? The left has to let go, not be so low key, because by holding back on emotion it looks like we don't really care. This, along with seeking more effective ways to organize and mobilize.