Perhaps it's time for the Left to grow up! [View All]

It's real easy to get discouraged reading the polls and the pundits. The Democrats are going to get their asses whupped in November, and most impoprtantly Barack Obama isn't Gene Debs afterall! Well, I'm no one's idea of a clairvoyant or prognosticator, so I won't venture any guesses about November. But I can say a few things to add a little historical perspective to the Obama presidency.

First, perhaps Obama isn't as far left as we hoped . . . but to those who thought they were electing Michael Manley or Che Guevara, I hate to be a pain-in-the-ass, but all you have to do is go back and read Obama's platform from 2008, and you will find that he's pretty much followed the script. Moderation and compromise should not surprise you. My guess is that most DUers, including myself, voted for Obama.

Second, and more importantly, go back and read the history of the European Left over the past 125 years. (I recommend David Sassoon's epic "100 Years of Socialism." Every elected left-leaning government has always faced the dilemma of being elected within capitalist society, to manage capitalist economy and bourgeois social arrangements. Hello! This always puts limitations on the extent of changes to capitalist society that an elected socialist, social democratic or labour government can accomplish. So, unless you're ready to toss aside the proprieties of constitutional elections, and embrace radical, militant revolution, then don't bemoan the fact that you didn't exactly elect Lenin and Trotsky!

Third, for all the nostalgia around FDR -- I hate to destroy anyone's fantasies -- the New Deal was hardly a massive, radical undertaking. Roosevelt campaigned on a "balanced budget" platform, sided with the Chamber of Commerce against the 30 Hour Work Week, and hemmed-and-hawed about labor legislation. Social Security was underfunded and subjected to delays. And unemployment was still way above 10% during Roosevelt's second term.

Nevertheless, the New Deal survived . . . and so did the European Social Democracy. Both came to define the extent of progress that 20th Century America and Europe were able to make in terms of social justice and general welfare. The process is annoying to the progressive activist -- and intolerable for the purist -- but that's the way history tends to work. Social change results from the collective, snow-balling labors of generations, rather than the orgasmic moment of political victory. Even revolutions have a problem: they generally win immediate demands, but really changing society still takes generations.

President Obama is not Michael Moore and never has been! It would be lovely if he was. But it is not necessary for him to be. An underlying assumption of Marxism is that ordinary people create far more history than kings and queens, and leaders and elites of all types. In other word, it IS necessary for the grassroots of the Left to remain radical and militant. It is also necessary for the Left to take off it's blinders. Barack Obama was not given dictatorial powers -- he has to manage the system, and at times compromise. If you think not, you only open yourself to disappointment. If Obama is supposed to wave his magic wand and produce social justice or socialism, then kindly get all this Constitutional restraint out of his way.

My point is that the current Left needs to grow up. It is starkly childish to embrace and idolize Obama in 2008, only to excoriate him in 2010 because Nirvana hasn't developed yet. Moreover, revolution -- peaceful or otherwise -- is not a function left to the most powerful position in the establishment. Rather, it is incumbent upon the common folks and the activist to carry that banner. In a very important way Obama serves an integral function for the Left -- he gives us more breathing space than the Republicans ever will. Far more! Remember, that when the media talks about a 1994 repeat . . .