"Why the old New Left had to die - Why I'm A Liberal" -- Steve Gilliard

Once again, Steve Gilliard hits one out of the park.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-old-new-left-had-to-die.html

Why I'm a liberal

Having read that idiotic piece by Keith Thompson now being printed all over the right blogosphere, and seeing a Kos posting on single issue groups, It reminded me of why I grew so frustrated with the remnants of the New Left as I grew up.

First, let's get the myths out of the way. The New Left didn't end the Vietnam War. Most of the protests were ineffective, even harmful to the anti-war movement until 1970. Most people held the hippies in disdain, judging them as hedonists at best and traitors at worse. But the hippies, which later definied the anti-war movement, were a very small part. You had the super-serious SDS folks, the Vets against the War, Panthers and other radicals, and the church based groups. The idea that the anti-war movement was a bunch of Ho-worshiping radicals is false at best and slander at worst. Some of these folks existed, mostly people like the Stalinist David Horowitz, but in the end, it was middle class parents and church groups who broadened the movement against the war.

The anti-war movement's greatest success was the 1974 elections, when a new guard of liberals entered Congress.

But when I read stuff like Thompson, it comes to mind why the New Left failed.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Grew up in Berkeley in the 60's & 70's -- still love it and miss it -- but saw, first hand, the left repeatedly shoot itself in the foot just in terms of local politics...

for over a century. Look at European politics today and its history. The right always form under a strong umbrella, quietly disagreeing on the finer points.

The Left break up viciously and passionately and disintegrate always letting the Right with a relatively stable voice become the more powerful.

This was most dramatically shown in the Spanish civil war. Fascists were at the gates of Barcelona, and the Left coalition within the city fighting the fascists began killing eachother. Anarchists vs communists vs trotskyites vs Poum vs left libertaire vs socialists............an embarrasing slaughter of eachother.

The fascists just had to sit and wait for the inevitable self destruction without firing a shot. It is the same in the political arena.

SEIU and AFSCME. Their endorsements were a coup for Dean because they helped keep Gephardt from getting the AFL-CIO endorsement.

This guy also forgets that the old industrial and manufacturing unions are dying and service unions like SEIU and AFSCME are the new generation of unions.

From Gephardt, Kerry got the waning industrial and manufacturing union support, who when united under one guy constitute a larger support network than just SEIU and AFSCME together. Kerry also had the support of the bulk of the Iowa Party network, who knew how to work the Caucus, Dean didn't. That was the key technical failure of Dean's campaign in Iowa. Also, Kerry's aides funded 527 groups that maliciously attacked Dean and helped paint Dean in a negative light leading up to the Caucus date.

the third-way, NEO-liberals, were the ones NARROW-CASTING and SHUTTING out the OLD TRADITIONAL leftist principles of fighting for weTHEpeople, the little guy.

it is the third-way crowd who have been DESPERATELY trying to shut out the old left and the record SHOW that.

what planet is this guy on :shrug:

peace

;-)

he attacks BS media created stereo types and ignores the "liberal" third-way elite who, imho, deserve a LOT of the credit, but ain't that always the case.



peace

I agree with much that he writes. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and came of age in the late 60's early 70's. I saw the so called "left" from the Haight Ashbury collapse through the sell outs that he refers to in the late 70's and early 80's.

A lot of my so called "leftist" friends cheered when we bombed Iraq in the first gulf war. They now had families and mortgages and nice jobs. Their so-called "core values" had been co-opted by economic concerns. They started voting Republican. These were the same "dope smoking anarchists" of 20 years before, now standing and cheering for the "home team."

I thought their Vietnam war opposition was skin deep at best and I told them so. What passed for much of the left was really an excuse to do drugs, listen to music at the Avalon or Winterland and screw yourself silly. It seemed to me at the time that the real (unspoken) concern was over getting drafted, not the fact that we were killing 2 million brown people.

The left leadership was elitist. If you didn't have long hair or smoked dope you were "the man." I even know one short haired guy who bought a long haired wig just to fit in. It was all pretty funny.

In the end, those self styled radicals were really emulating the very power structures they professed to hate. Women were usually treated as sex objects. Power was bestowed to the vocal "connected" few. High priced dope was the coin of the realm. The middle class was viewed as duped establishment pawns. Mainstream religion was for "dark age" stooges.

But the dope sellers got rich. They became the nouveau capitalists. The "revolutionaries" ran for office or wrote best sellers. For so many who decried the middle and upper classes, they sure were in a hurry to join them.

In the end, they were no different from those that they professed to despise. What they lacked were the organizational skills and strategic thinking to turn their "movement" into an effective political propaganda machine, as the right has done. The main reason for this is that the top down, hierarchical organizational structure is ideally suited for the Right's worldview and directly at odds with what the Left claims to embrace. In fact, acceptance of the terms "Left and Right" are tacit acceptance of the dialectical view of the authoritarian. In effect, the "battle" is lost before it is joined.

Those who seek liberty and justice should seek it for all classes, regardless of perceived political or social boundaries. This is consistent with the democratic anarchistic worldview.

In fact, I would posit that attempts to take over the current power structure feed its existence. If our current bloody, authoritarian march to hell is to be blunted, it will be through consensus building at the human level, not through existing political structures.

Sometimes the most overt political act you can do is to show true compassion, even for those who profess to hate you.

I'll say that I don't agree with everything that the original piece said, but you certainly raise some good points here, orwell.

I wasn't around during the 60's, and I was a mere 6 when the 70's ended, but I will extend this discussion to the first group that I became involved with as an activist -- the environmental movement. I was never able to reconcile that the people with whom I worked in the Sierra Club, who claimed to value the environment so much, were predominantly well-to-do, and lived in rather large houses in areas that necessitated them driving a car anytime they wanted to go somewhere. I mean, the disconnect was simply staggering, IMHO.

Strangely enough, I've only grown more radical and anti-establishment as I've gone from my 20's into my 30's. Where most people are judging their status in life based on how much money they make, I never really think about it that way. In fact, I'm in the process of changing to a career where I will make decidedly LESS money, but will have the opportunity to help MORE people.

I guess that a lot of the "old new left" people were hellbent upon changing the world to suit their own vision of the way things should be, and when they found they couldn't do that, they decided the next best thing was to get rich and gain acclaim. Personally, if I ever reach that shift in thought, I want someone to just shoot me. The trick isn't changing the world to come in line with your vision of the way you think things should be -- the trick, IMHO, is changing your own life so that it comes into line with the way you think things should be, and then allow the little things you do in your life on a daily basis to change the world around you, even if in a small way.

The trick isn't changing the world to come in line with your vision of the way you think things should be -- the trick, IMHO, is changing your own life so that it comes into line with the way you think things should be, and then allow the little things you do in your life on a daily basis to change the world around you, even if in a small way.

I agree. I am always trying to look for how I am a hypocrite. I find hypocrisy so galling when I see it in others because it disturbs me when I find it in me.

My worldview, which is built on the concept of liberty and justice, should embrace the reality that everyone will see the world slightly differently than me. You should be able to think/do anything you want to (Liberty) but your liberty ends when your actions infringe on someone else's liberty (Justice).

That is why any war is such a problem for me. There is no greater denial of human rights than the slaughter of another human being. Are you allowed to defend yourself? Of course, if you choose to. Someone else has threatened your liberty with the attack. But there is nothing more primitive in my mind than aggression by a powerful bully. If we are to survive the next one hundred years, this prevailing (authoritarian) notion of might makes right will come to an end. This same concept extends toward "dominion" over the environment, toward all living things in the biosphere. In my mind, such assertions are folly. Everything as interconnected, therefore all has value, all life is part of the wonderful rich fabric of creation. The funny thing is, this should be the "conservative" view as well.

In some respects, the "small revolution" you espouse is much more in keeping with my worldview. We are members of a land trust in my county that uses money to buy important tracts of land to keep them from development. We have bought wetlands and small forests. It is an innovative solution that works within existing capitalist/ownership frameworks. The organization is very flat and cost effective. Most of the money goes to buying and maintaining the properties.

In the end we must be conscious of our own failings before we can analyze those of others or the structures they represent. This is a difficult but most fulfilling journey.

Thanks for you thoughts!

I am always trying to look for how I am a hypocrite. I find hypocrisy so galling when I see it in others because it disturbs me when I find it in me.

You certainly hit the nail on the head with this one. I absolutely abhor hypocrisy, ESPECIALLY when I find it in myself. But I came to a realization a while ago, being that we are ALL hypocrites -- the choice then becomes whether we choose to acknowledge that hypocrisy and try to do something about it, or if we ignore it and continue on our path.

I chose the former, which is probably why it galls me so much when I see others taking the latter approach.

With regards to war, I certainly agree with your point, probably moreso than you can imagine. I used to be an Army Reserve officer -- a pretty good one, too -- but eventually filed for conscientious objector because I came to see the utter futility of war and its conflict with my most basic beliefs. War is never truly about "defending" one's self -- it is about the organization of violence in order to impose your will on others. That's why I helped co-found a conscientious objector support network (www.peace-out.com) and now work with Iraq Veterans Against the War.

It may not be much, but I see it as just doing what I can to live my life in a way that changes the world a little bit for the better.

Peace.

for your work and your insights.

Peace right back at ya. ;)

What's is he talking about? The protests showed to the world the level of oppresive reactions the US government would take to squash dissent. The riots of 1968 in Chicago is just one example. I would also add, enough pressure was brought to bear that LBJ decided not to run again in 1968.



He's gotta be kidding. The GOP tapped into people that feared a progressive agenda, much as it does now in the Red States. You can't even say the word Republican if it doesn't follow elitism. So what's difference? The difference is the elitism of the Republicans spoke as if it had a monopoly on moral values. The world was changing, and this scared many people. This is what the GOP tapped into.



What utter nonsense. The very fact that the people of Pacifica took back their stations speaks volumes for Pacifica. Amy Goodman's spinoff of Democracynow.org was the one that blew the lid off on the abuses in East Timor. As much respect as I have for Air America, and God Bless them, but Pacifica leads the way on many breaking stories that Air America picks up on. Where else will you hear the voices of activist like the Egyptian femenist, Nawal El Saadawi.

The founder of Pacifica Radio said it best:

and i stopped reading... i REFUSE to read folks anymore who deal with stereo types, myths and cliches at my expense.

the main thing wrong with the left is we don't have a megaphone to dispel the myths of the ELITE.

thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :bounce:

peace

peace

It might shock a few people, but I have some of the same problems with the "New Left" (or whatever other name one wants to give these people) that Mr. Gillard has.

What it really boils down to is that we're dealing with some rank ideologues and not pragmatists. John Kerry wasn't my idea of an ideal Presidential candidate, but I voted for him because I think he is a pragmatist. True, he would have tried to salvage the US position in Iraq; however, if I'm right and that position is truly beyond saving, then a pragmatist like Kerry would have realized that sooner or later and withdrawn. He would not have withdrawn as soon as I would have liked, but he would have. That's better than Bush, who would destroy the world rather than withdraw from Iraq in the belief that his wealthy cronies will be raptured and be permitted to take their ill-gotten gains from this colonial misadventure with them to the next world.

Politics is about building consensus, something an ideologue is often reluctant to do. I'm right, you're wrong, and we're going to do things my way. I decide, you follow, and since I'm right, I don't have to listen. That sounds like Bush and his neoconservative pals. It also sounds like Al From and Bruce Reed at the DLC. Ideologues can exist in the left, right or center. They're all losers.

It's one thing to have a grand ideology. It is a guide to setting goals. It distinguishes those with a vision from those who simply want the trappings of power. Politics, however, is about putting that vision into practice. That is something about which ideologues have no clue.

The only difference is between the "Saint Ralph New Left" and the "brand DLC New Left" is that, whilst they both prefer right wing ideas, the former affects a left wing posture; the later has not such need for such superficial hypocrisy.

1. Nader prefers right wing ideas? That's news to me. There is nothing right wing about him; however, he was wrong to try to divide the progressive/left vote in 2004.

2. As stated in the article to which I just linked, I voted for Nader in 2000. I thought then that it was important for the progressives/left to let the Democratic Party know that we were there and that we weren't happy. Nevertheless, it would have been just as wrong for the dissidents to slam the door to the Democrats as it is for the DLC to try to keep the dissidents out or make them feel unwelcome. It is equally wrong for progressives to try to make the New Democrats feel like second-class citizens in a big tent. Whenever Blue Dog Democrats vote Republican or progressives vote Green a Republican victory becomes more likely.

3. So what changed for me between 2000 and 2004? Al From and Bruce Reed certainly didn't make me feel like they really wanted my vote. But I could ignore those two dimwits. What changed was my perception of Bush. In 2000, I thought him just another obnoxious conservative, like his father; if he slipped in as a result of dissidents deserting the Democrats, it would be disagreeable, but nothing we couldn't survive. I was wrong. So were a lot of other people. Bush is a genuine threat to democratic institutions. His goal is to recolonize developing nations. He is a tyrant, a despot. He represents something that is alien to traditional American political thought. By 2004, we -- I mean all of us -- were in the position of French patriots during World War II after their country was taken over an alien and hostile force that had contempt for the ideals of the French Revolution. In order to expel this force, the French resistance, which was largely made up of the far left, made an alliance with General de Gaulle, a sober conservative, and took direction from him. Any problems the French left had with de Gaulle could wait until after the Nazis were defeated. It was first things first. To expel Bush from the White House, I was willing to vote for Kerry, even Lieberman, even McCain if he were willing to lead a rebellion of moderate Republicans in coalition with Democrats if that is what it was going to take.

Unfortunately, we have Bush and none of the danger to American democracy or to international stability which he has wrought has been alleviated. He is still a war criminal who should be brought before an international tribunal. He remains a threat to life and liberty.

fyi: St Ralph is from the shut out, 'OLD' left, the DLC are as superficial as the rest of corporate america and FULL of HYPOCRACY... beginning with their 'left' banner.

peace