Leftist or Liberal?

Where Do You Fit?

William Sundwick

Modern liberalism goes back a long way. Let’s start with John Locke in the 17^th century. He came up with the idea that governments exist to serve the needs of the people. Obvious to us now, but directly opposed to the divine right of monarchs. He was influential even in his own lifetime.  The Glorious Revolution of 1688,  establishing the supremacy of Parliament, was a Lockian idea.

All contemporary democracies are fundamentally liberal structures. The tension with the authoritarian right visible today in the United States and Europe has more to do with anxiety about who should be part of the polity than what that polity should provide its members.

In the 19^th century, tensions emerged with the first industrial revolution. Karl Marx became the icon for those who saw politics as a conflict of power wielded by the owners of capital over those who produce their wealth (workers). That was then. Now, anticipating a “fourth industrial revolution,” it is becoming clear that wealth tends to perpetuate itself – it doesn’t really depend on workers at all! Workers have lost most of the power gained over 200 years of struggle and liberal governance.

Economic prospects seem bleak for all who aren’t plugged into the capitalist wealth machine (mostly residing on Wall Street). It’s the current version of Marx’s alienation of labor. Yet, we’re loathe to divorce ourselves completely from the ideas of freedom and social contract in that very old liberal tradition. The liberal solution to the problem of alienation is based on disincentives for “excessive” accumulation of capital. Primarily, redistribution of wealth via taxation. Real leftists reject this solution as not going far enough to redress the imbalance of political power. And, political power is more than mere economic resources – it’s cultural. Liberals retort that leftists are guilty of “class reductionism.” Liberal societies, after all, allow for social mobility, right?

Class is the focus for the Left in the 21^st century more than wealth -- leave wealth to the liberals, they say. Yes, money is a common denominator in acquisition of political power (especially in the U.S.), but what the Left wants is a reversal of the dynamic behind ascendance of “elites.” Liberals may choose to make everybody happy with more money (Universal Basic Income is the current hot topic in liberal, and neoliberal, circles), but Real Leftists want to throw out the “money people” (Wall Street) from government altogether, feeling that an entirely different class should be in charge. Paradoxically, in the U.S., Donald Trump was supposed to be the kind of person the working class could get behind. Except, of course, he is the bastard child of Wall Street to begin with. Could a Bernie Sanders be the best answer? It’s populism, whether left or right.

Liberals generally counter populism with attempts at making everybody’s life more comfortable. It’s not about power, but comfort. If you give people enough stuff, maybe they’ll go away. Pitchforks come from more than discomfort, says the Left.

If the real contest in democracies is between classes and how much influence they can wield in government, then we should explore what defines these classes – the ins versus the outs. While it sometimes seems that multi-party parliamentary systems have more flexibility in accommodating class struggle, American political history also provides examples of realignments of the two major parties over time.

The Democratic Party of today is a strange (by historic standards) coalition of apparently divergent class interests – Wall Street capitalists find common cause there with communities of color and others who define themselves as marginalized, and with the well-educated minority of the population seeking to protect their privilege. The Republican Party seems to consist of a combination of “self-made” (allegedly) capitalists and culturally conservative religious communities, provincial rather than cosmopolitan in outlook (“people like me” versus “the other”). This bipolar party structure leaves those with strong left-wing convictions no home. It’s usually a story of compromise for American leftists – how much can they stomach to call themselves a Democrat?

So, what do American “leftists” believe? They despise liberals as much as the right-wingers in the Republican Party do. Yet they understand the economic structure of society to be based on exploitation of the labor of people like them. They no longer believe they can achieve “the American Dream” of one day becoming a successful capitalist themselves, probably not even their children. Privilege is so baked into the “elite” classes, who mobilize to protect it, that extraordinary political means are necessary to change it. They don’t want crumbs from the liberal establishment – they want power! How do they plan to seize it?

I have not met a single American Bolshevik – people who believe in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  If there ever were such animals, they probably all died out, or were co-opted, sometime around mid-century, during that unprecedented postwar prosperity with high participation of organized labor. Racial identifications with the Left persisted into the 1970s. But co-optation, and intimidation via police violence, mostly put an end to that. Women and young people? We’ve seen some organizing success with women recently (#MeToo movement), but young people will likely be co-opted by forgiveness of student loan debt – and higher starting salaries. That remains to be seen.

Anybody still committed to the Left imagines using social media to mobilize large numbers of people behind left-wing political candidates – and, doing it fast enough to save the planet from ecocide. The media message is crucial, but the goal is to ultimately seize victory through the ballot box. They expect great resistance here, however. Voter suppression and gerrymandering of legislative districts present real threats. And the judicial branch of government appears less friendly with each passing year. But seizing power democratically has long been the hallmark of Democratic Socialists and social democrats alike – the latter not necessarily committed to eliminating capitalism, anyway, hence of questionable “leftist” credentials.

Despite all the sniping at the “Democratic establishment” and resentment of “academic elites,” there remains a basic respect for democracy among the American Left – they have bought into the fundamental liberalism of the last three centuries. My bias here tells me that the liberal project is working. The differences between leftist and liberal will lead to a synthesis: a “Left-liberal” or “Liberal Socialist.” More leftists will be co-opted into the elites, convincing others that, given more attainable education, they too can become part of the governing elite.

The only ones left behind will be those who choose entrenched community traditions over current economic/political reality: otherwise known as conservatives. Looking inward and backward always succumbs to looking outward and forward. 

 This one fits both "The Future" and "The Past" ... good piece from Vox.com, in their "The Big Idea" series. Neoliberalism defined and explained. In short: it's the economic/political philosophy which replaced the New Deal-to-Great Society philosophy that many of us oldsters associate with the "traditional" Democratic Party. It values free markets and capitalism far more than previously, began in earnest with the Clinton years, and now dominates the "center" of the Democratic Party, as opposed to its left flank.

Read, and absorb message. Some facts a little questionable, but thrust remains on target. The future belongs to the left!

Making of a Lefty

Populism Isn’t Only for the Right

William Sundwick

Things have changed in American politics over the last hundred years. In 1917, there was a Democratic Party that had embraced the soul of the Progressive Era (started by Republicans), seemingly dedicated to a “Fair Deal” for working men (and some women, mostly in the garment industry). There was a peace between the Democratic Party and capitalism based on capital’s earnest desire for labor. The coming war in Europe would further constrict the supply of labor. Big industrial employers were competing for workers – they were eager to accommodate the Left, at least that part of it that didn’t threaten their survival.

In 2017, however, we are looking at low growth in the short term … greater productivity of workers, for sure, but no labor shortage on the horizon. Both technology and immigration are reducing demand for American workers. And, with these economic changes, the political power of organized labor has dwindled to virtually nil.

Initially, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and its wave effect throughout the industrialized world, struck fear into the hearts of capitalists everywhere. They felt weak and vulnerable, and began to shore up their defenses. In the U.S., they invented an ideology: “The American Way” … it didn’t include any security for most industrial workers, and people of color were still excluded. But, we were “free,” they said. The Frontier, Horatio Alger and self-reliance, were heroic. Generations were indoctrinated accordingly.

The Left took a big hit. The Cold War didn’t help, when it seemed like the world was divided between two giant superpowers facing off – one “Communist” and one “Free.”

Saving Capitalism

There was an interruption to this story in the thirties and forties – capitalism nearly collapsed worldwide. It was saved by two things: rediscovery of that turn-of-the-century “progressivism,” and total mobilization of the state to fight an existential threat from fascism. The Soviet Union beat us at the latter, as their economy had been mobilized by the state since the Revolution.

In the United States, 1945 showed us that “The American Way” had triumphed … but, what really triumphed? Stalin would say the very same thing to people in his half of the world: “socialism” was triumphant. The Cold War seemed to prove both views correct!

The progressivism of FDR’s New Deal became institutionalized in the U.S. throughout the forties, fifties, sixties, even the seventies with Nixon-Ford-Carter. Both American parties subscribed to the same ideology, despite the still unacceptable public association with the Left (progressives became known as “liberals” in the U.S.).

The Socialist International of the nineteenth century became the basis for democratically elected center-left parties throughout western Europe, and Latin America. The term “liberal” was associated with center-right parties. The Soviet Union grew its own economy, along with its new imperial domain in eastern Europe, although at a somewhat slower pace than the West. By the end of the century, that competition finally got the best of the Soviets. They were ultimately outproduced into oblivion, probably due to structural weaknesses of their overly centralized economy.

But, “victory” in the Cold War did NOT come only because of the free market ideology of the Reagan years. Capitalism won because of those many decades of collaboration between industry and the state. It was the progressive left that saved it. Capital remained privately owned (or, publicly, through shareholders), but was subject to regulation by the state, for the common good. Fascism used a similar economic organization, but its “common good” was defined as furtherance of national interests vs. the rest of the world -- hence, World War II.

Post-Cold War, Dems Fail

By the beginning of the 21^st century, it was becoming increasingly clear that most American working- class people saw less hope in the future than their parents had known in the past century. The Russians hadn’t been their enemy, but powerful forces in their own society were. However, propaganda for the “American Way” intentionally made these forces difficult to identify.

Exceptions to this malaise were now people of color (POC), women, and those fortunate enough to find their way into growing economic sectors (tech), rather than retreating sectors (manufacturing). Everybody else tended to look backward rather than forward – they drifted to the right, politically. The Republican Party seized on this opportunity, since they had a similar group of supporters already (rural and small-town folks). Democrats started losing elections when Republicans portrayed them as the “powerful forces” keeping people down. As Dems were the leading proponents of the meritocracy of the professional class, there was some truth to the charge.

Those groups remaining tied to the Democratic Party thought their current favorable status, vis-à-vis the future, was a direct result of Democratic priorities. They won the presidency in 2008 and 2012, but otherwise were localized in the cosmopolitan urban centers of the coasts (and Chicago) … there were many of them, but they WERE the privileged class in America!

I am one of them, but hopefully I can see that I don’t represent the majority.

The Impoverished

The majority in America are not people like me. They are people who couldn’t afford college, and weren’t eligible for sufficiently debt-free financial aid. They are younger. They struggle. They won’t have many resources to pass on to their children, either. Their skills may well be in dying occupations. They need relief, and mostly it’s Republican politicians who promise it … by favoring their employers, and their communities.

When Democrats attempt the same, they are generally bargaining with capitalism from weakness. In high growth sectors (like tech), they’ve sometimes managed to work with entrepreneurs. But, entrepreneurship tends to breed reaction … from the established money, their competitors in the market. Entrepreneurship is so twenty-five years ago, not so much now. The Citizens United decision of 2010 sealed the fate of any attempts to influence elections with “grass roots” support alone.

Democrats are now left competing for the same big donors that Republicans use. This requires them to cater to capitalist-centric interests, and remain silent on opposing interests – like things that benefit workers. Only the most cynical (or courageous) donors would take a chance on a politician who travels around campaigning on any kind of restrictions, much less any outright attack, on them. Instead, Dems will usually be content to emphasize positions which support their established base, and have no economic consequences for their big donors. They are never allowed to grow that base, they are always on the defensive.

Those “Deplorables”

The 2016 election did something profound. It etched in clear relief who was on which side. That traditional blue-collar workforce (both male and female, but white) voted overwhelmingly for the candidate of the right: Donald Trump. Other parts of the Democratic coalition held, but turnout was lower than for Obama’s two elections. In the end, the “band of deplorables,” as Clinton memorably named them, won.

The Left needs to get them back. As “deplorable” as they seem, it seems to me that an economic message about capitalism may be just the ticket to get their attention in the 21^st century. If enough people can be convinced that they have something in common with the other cultural groups that remain in the Democratic coalition, Dems can start winning again. Since they are in no danger of losing any more of their base, the time is ripe to think about expansion. And, the most promising avenue for this strategy is to “go left.” Here’s why …

1.    Only old people who remember the Cold War have any negative association with socialism (maybe some “Gen X” libertarians, too … but, they can either vote for a third party, or Republicans, they’re not needed for a left coalition).

2.       Given a few more election cycles, the old folks will die out.

3.       White racism, sexism, social conservatism are all expressions of frustration about not knowing how to deal with “the other” … social engineering (via advertising, social media, and entertainment) can easily remedy that, helping people cope with others. Millennials already have this covered. People in large urban areas are better equipped than those in rural areas and small towns – and, they’re more numerous!

4.       The main thing that keeps people from participating in the democratic process is lack of trust in candidates for elected office – there’s a stench of corruption around the whole thing that keeps many from even voting. Openness about financing would go a long way to help this.

The formula for a winning “lefty” candidate, then, would be one who could marshal the hearts and minds of young people struggling economically, but who have never learned to hate any groups competing with them for the crumbs at the bottom of the food chain. The final ingredient would be willingness of the candidate to fully disclose where their money comes from, and why they’re proud to represent those interests! Yes, some big money IS from socially responsible organizations, or individuals. It should not be a handicap to get large donations from George Soros or Donald Sussman.

Barack Obama managed to marshal those young hearts and minds, but faltered on the openness requirement – even though it dogged his party more than him.

So, what’s stopping the Democratic Party from fielding candidates like this? They sometimes do, but a primary challenge of incumbents, or their designated successors, may be required (as in Virginia this month). Primaries can be just as brutal as general elections against Republicans, if not handled adroitly. The incumbents have lots of resources, and loyal networks of people they have helped (or, who think they’ve been helped).

What Is To Be Done?

Message to idealistic young people who want to push “lefty” candidates for office: keep trying, always resist attempts to divide voters along cultural lines (don’t talk about “deplorables”), your political foe is a competitor, not an enemy. And, think about the larger community your candidate seeks to serve – it may be an opportunity to build a new network. Remember, you’re probably luckier than most people in the community – don’t forget that privilege. Share your talents, don’t use them as weapons.

Be like Vera Pavlovna, the main character in the 1863 Chernyshevsky novel, Chto delat’.

Once you’ve committed yourself to social justice (to “the revolution”), and become a genuine “lefty” like me, you need to appreciate that change is a big job … indeed, it will likely take many election cycles, uninterrupted by reaction, with many people working toward the same goals.

Your goals are to reduce wealth inequality, and to be sensitive to various emotional and cultural predispositions in your community. Your tools are organizing, contributing, and steadfastness in your dedication to justice.

Whatever you do, it won’t be enough – even if your candidate prevails, they need to be re-elected to complete their mission. If they fail, another candidate will need to take their place. The candidates themselves are only means to an end.

And, others will be needed to take your place, as well – they will be there when you lose your resolve. 

New party comin' round in USA? I could join ... maybe takeover of Dems is a bit much, tho'!

Bernie Sanders' main strength has always been that "I" next to his name, that's why he re-registered as Independent after the primary. Dem apparatchiks who think that hurts him as spiritual leader of party don't understand American political dynamics ... future belongs to left, get ppl off their sofas to vote, don't waste time trying to steal them away from Republicans!

Truth-Out not most reliable news source, but this op-ed describes something real: "The Great Turning" ... basically, the democratic socialist agenda.