It’s the left and the left only
Perhaps the best way to understand Occupy Wall Street is simply that it is a typical leftist manifestation. These are leftists doing—with variations—what leftists always do. And the support that the Democratic establishment are giving the Occupy movement is also what leftists always do. And the media’s hyping of the Occupy movement, trying to make us believe that this is the emergent direction of America and that it represents the cutting edge of a revolutionary transformation of society, is also what leftists always do. And the efforts by some commentators to convince us that this is not the familiar left but a new political phenomenon joining left and right in a way that’s never happened before, is also what leftists always do. And the fragmentation among the protesters, and between the protesters and the leftist establishment, leading to disarray and disillusionment and ultimately the demise of this cause until the next leftist cause comes along giving the left yet another vehicle with which to damage society, is also what leftists always do. There is nothing new here.
- end of initial entry -
Ken Hechtman writes:
There could have been something new here.
There’s an opening to be “left” in a way that has more to do with economics and less to do with culture and identity politics that didn’t really exist 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. At some point, somebody is going to step into that opening. Occupy Wall Street wasn’t that someone but it doesn’t make the opening less real. [LA replies: It sounds as if you’re calling for the return of the old, economics-based left, which was displaced by the multicultural, identity-politics left in the ’80s and ’90s.]
Every generation or two, the main ballot question in American politics changes and the coalitions change accordingly. It’s not so much that anybody “joins left and right” but that people change what they mean by “left” and “right” and there’s a re-alignment. You’ve seen this once in your lifetime. Before 1964, the New Deal was still the ballot question. You had northern blacks and southern whites in the same party because the New Deal trumped everything. Once Civil Rights became the new ballot question after 1968, there was a realignment that broke up the old pro- and anti-New Deal coalitions and replaced them with the identity politics coalitions we have now.
That was 40 years ago. I think we’re about due for another realignment and so far I’m seeing more evidence for it on the right rather than the left. Herman Cain’s poll numbers are one data point. This is another one:
Bachmann’s Floundering Can Damage Tea Party
By American Majority President Ned Ryun
…
However, I suspect that we will hear more from her about social issues and religion to accomplish that goal. As an evangelical who is deeply pro-life, I can say that while many inside the Tea Party movement are socially conservative, social issues are not what drive the Tea Party. [ … ] Those fiscal issues which attract Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats alike must continue to be the focus of the majority of America’s grassroots, led with courage by the Tea Party.
The soft-on-abortion, soft-on-gay-marriage black candidate is leading in the polls. The most outspoken Christian candidate is being urged to drop out because her social conservatism is too divisive for the Republican party’s activist base. There’s the new phenomenon. There’s the idea of “on the right” being redefined in a way that’s never happened before.
LA replies:
I don’t know what you mean. What you’re talking about is the same old Republicanism which only cares about taxes and size of government and surrenders to the left on social issues.
In sum, it seems to me that the “new left” you’re hoping for is the old left, and that the “new right” you’re seeing emerge is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” Republicanism!
October 31
Alissa writes:
Ken Hechtman wrote:
“There’s the new phenomenon.”
I truly don’t understand you, Mr. Hechtman. The left hasn’t changed and the right will never change either. You’re talking about redefinition but it’s the same old thing. You see Bachmann as some far-right winger and I think to myself how women shouldn’t be running for leading officers like President because that’s not conservative. You see Beck as some raging racist and I’m think to myself how he worships Martin Luther King. You’re thinking about the left being all about economics but it’s cultural liberalism that drives the show and connects both the fiscal liberals (socialists, left-liberals) and fiscal conservatives (libertarians, right-liberals) whom run the Western world. It’s the same old story being told over and over again. If there were ever a new phenomenon occurring it would be the rejection of liberalism by the West.
LA replies:
Allisa wrote:
“If there were ever a new phenomenon occurring it would be the rejection of liberalism by the West.”
Exactly.
Ken Hechtman writes:
Alissa writes:
I truly don’t understand you, Mr. Hechtman. The left hasn’t changed and the right will never change either. You’re talking about redefinition but it’s the same old thing. You see Bachmann as some far-right winger and I think to myself how women shouldn’t be running for leading officers like President because that’s not conservative. You see Beck as some raging racist and I’m think to myself how he worships Martin Luther King. You’re thinking about the left being all about economics but it’s cultural liberalism that drives the show and connects both the fiscal liberals (socialists, left-liberals) and fiscal conservatives (libertarians, right-liberals) whom run the Western world. It’s the same old story being told over and over again. If there were ever a new phenomenon occurring it would be the rejection of liberalism by the West.
The confusion is mutual. I’ll try to clear up the parts I can. I know Mr. Auster often uses absolute definitions for “left” and “right.” In that sense, the argument that they never change is true but it’s true by definition. I never use the words that way. I’ll always define “left” and “right” with respect to the current median voter, or with respect to the median voter of the time I’m talking about.
If you and I disagree, that doesn’t tell us much. But I do want to use our respective positions on Michele Bachmann to make a point here. “Never” is a long time. In American politics, you can go from left of center to right of center in about thirty years. All you need to do is not change your mind about anything.
You say you don’t think a woman should hold high office. Your statement certainly lands to the right of the median voter today. It lands considerably closer but still to the right of the median voter of 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice-president. You haven’t said if you think it’s OK for women to hold lesser offices but not high ones, but let me use that position to complete the picture. The median voter of 70 years ago would agree that women can be city councilors and state legislators but not president. On the other the median voter of 120 years ago would think it that statement was too liberal (because women shouldn’t even vote).
My position on Bachmann is that I don’t think anyone who believes in the literal truth of Genesis and Revelations should hold high office. I would have been off the spectrum in 1896 when the left-wing candidate for president was a Bible literalist. In 1980, the median voter could probably live with the idea. I don’t know if Ronald Reagan really did take the Bible literally but it was said that he did and the claim didn’t seem to hurt him any. Today there are people to the right of the median voter who agree with me and say so in public.
Do you see what I mean? Shifts in public opinion do happen and the positions that qualify as “left-of-the-median” and “right-of-the-median” are different from one generation to another.
I’ve never seen Glenn Beck’s show. I don’t have an informed opinion about the guy. But I can tell you this: It takes more than praising Martin Luther King to put you to the left of the median in 2011.
You say “it’s cultural liberalism that drives the show.” I agree. It does now and has for the last 40 years. But it didn’t always. When my grandfather was in the Communist Party and my great-grandfather was in the Socialist Party before that, they believed exactly the same things as the Christians and Republicans of their time did about homosexuality, illegitimacy, no-fault divorce and so on. More than that, they didn’t even spend much time pushing the envelope on other less controversial social issues, ones they thought they could win. Serious people didn’t spend time working on social issues. Serious people didn’t even consider social issues to be politics, not really.
Here’s the part you’re not going to like. A number of the social issues that weren’t on the political radar at all in the 1930s, because there was nobody for them, may well disappear off the political radar in the 2030s because there’s nobody left who’s against them. The same way you don’t hear many debates about legalizing no-fault divorce anymore, you won’t hear many debates about gay marriage.
LA replies:
For the moment a short reply. When I spoke of the left doing what the left always does, I had in mind the left as I’ve known it in my lifetime. I was not thinking of the left of, say, 1848, when there were revolutions in several European countries. Whether the left of 1848 was the same as the left of, say, 1983, when the left had a huge movement to stop the installation of intermediate-range U.S. missiles in Europe, is not something I’ve thought about. Of course society is always changing and therefore the issues that political men are struggling over are always changing. But that doesn’t mean that the terms left and right have no stable meaning. Let us also remember that the some usages of words are questionable and mischievous and should be challenged. For example, the idea of a conservative supporter of homosexual “marriage” is absurd. The idea of a conservative supporter of mass diverse immigration leading to the total transformation of his society and the disappearance of its historic majority people and culture is absurd.
I also question Mr. Hechtman’s confident prediction that twenty years hence the social issues will have disappeared because no one will still be opposing homosexual marriage. To the contrary, I think it’s likely that not only will people be opposing homosexual marriage, but that no-fault divorce will have been driven back as well. Mr. Hechtman complacently imagines a steady movement of the world to the left. I think history may have some surprises in store for him.
November 1
Alissa writes:
Ken Hechtman wrote:
“Serious people didn’t spend time working on social issues. Serious people didn’t even consider social issues to be politics, not really.”
I’m sure you’re including the serious liberals who bit by bit legalize and support decadence over the years. Basically what you’re telling me is another way of saying, “Ignore social issues, shut up and go with the liberal flow.” Your argument boils down to agreeing with you that history moves in a “progressive linear line.” The reality is that while technology and science may advance, morality is fairly stable and constant. Words may change but the essence stays the same. Sure, 100 years ago people may have held more conservative beliefs compared to now, but that doesn’t mean that liberalism wasn’t busy knocking these beliefs down until we reached the state we are abiding today.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 30, 2011 10:20 AM | Send