|
The Enemy of my Friend is my Friend?
by Selwynn
The most vicious attacks on the left this political season are not coming from the right. They are coming from the left. One of the things that has always amazed me about the differences between conservative and liberal politics in America is how much more the left seems to struggle for any kind of unity.
It often seems as though conservatives of all stripes enjoy much more unity than liberals of any stripe ever seem to have. While moderate conservatives, religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neo-conservatives and social conservatives all seem to rally around some key issues that they can agree on, and set aside some differences for the sake of loyalty, no such possibility seems to exist on the left side of the spectrum.
In fact the divisions between moderate “new” democrats, social liberals, social democrats, traditional “old” democrats and progressive democrats seem to be irreconcilable. The biggest of these is the division – and outright hatred – of many “progressives” for the Democratic Party they feel has abandoned them. While they have a legitimate gripe (there is enough blame to go around), years of disunity and divisiveness among those of a left perspective have drastically weakened everything that is not a conservative stance.
In 2004, one of the biggest feelings affecting the base of the left is the feeling of dissatisfaction with all options. If you are not a centrist moderate democrat, then there is no room for you in party politics this year, just as there was no room in 2000, or 1996, or 1992. Where the Republican Party manages to find ways to hold on to both its base and its moderates, the Democratic Party seems to not even be trying. Unfortunately, that unwillingness to reach out has created many other rifts. Now, moderate and progressive democrats are at each other’s throats, and progressives and progressives are at each other’s throats.
Remembering Agreement
Because of this, traditional democrats and progressives of all stripes are a little defensive about their choices – with some leaving the party for independent pastures, and others fighting a gritty less-than-hopeful fight for change from within. None of the options seem anywhere near satisfactory, but rather than coming together and uniting for change, those choosing to work from within and those choosing to work from without spent little time actually working, and most time viciously fighting with one another.
Whether it is the tyranny of the DLC, putting a strangle-hold on the parameters of the acceptable issues and debate, or whether it is progressives more interested in savagely attacking not only the party, but anyone still thinking about participating in the party – in the face of a unified conservative machine, we have all the bickering, infighting, fragments of “opposition.” Is it any wonder we are ineffective? The liberal base of the democratic party and liberal progressives who have left the party, and moderate centrists who control the party, often do the things that Republicans could only wish for in their wildest dreams – spending so much time fighting amongst each other that we significantly aide those who we claim to resist. The enemy of my friend becomes my friend.
We ought to be able to agree on a couple starting principles that would make inter party (or inter-political spectrum) discourse so much more humane. First, we ought to be able to agree that the questions about how to do the right thing politically are incredibly complicated, and there are no simplistic either/or answers. Finding ways to actually assist in creating real change, not just speak rhetorically about change, is the greatest challenge.
We ought to be able to agree that the bulk of the people we meet on the “left” want a better more just, more humane society in which people are treated like people, and where our presence in the world is one of peace rather than aggression. Even if we question the total commitment of corporate centrists to egalitarian ideas, we can still find some commonalities shared – and certainly we can find many commonalities between progressives still committed to the Democratic part and progressives outside the party.
To me it seems like those are pretty strong agreements. It would seem like with those agreements in place, we could have far more civil discourse about our disagreement, seeking common ground and ways in which we can partner together against the defeat of the diverse conservative make up of the Republican Party, all currently united under the banner of Neo-conservatism.
So let’s talk about the biggest disagreement: how to vote. There is no bigger or more contentious debate than the one between progressives who believe that Kerry does not represent real progressive ideals and progressives that believe nothing is more important than removing the tyranny of the Bush Administration from power. I will explain my own decision:
Remembering Respectful Disagreement
I've made carefully considered decision to vote against Bush by voting for Kerry this year, because in the final analysis I can convinced it is the choice that best honors my beliefs and commitments overall. I do this not because I love Kerry, nor because I believe that there are not similarities between the two parties' candidates. So the first point where productive discussion breaks down is when a fellow progressive tries over and over again trying to expose me to the fact that the system is wrecked and that Kerry is horrible evil person who is just part of the same machine that Bush is a part of is not going to result in anything productive. In the final analysis, I do not agree that there are no differences between the candidates. There are differences.
Electing a president is not a one issue decision. There is nothing that makes me more frustrated than when Republican people I know vote Republican for literally one reason and one reason alone: Abortion. It angers me when they ignore every other critical and serious issue out there and vote only based on that one thing, as though there are no other serious issues demanding moral reflection other than that one.
Yet at the same time, it makes me equally as frustrated when progressive minded folk do the same thing. Right now the sweeping generalizations about Kerry’s lack of differentiation from Bush have to do with one issue: Iraq. In fact, almost the only issue even being talked about on the left is Iraq. Iraq is a critically important issue. But it is one critically important issue among many.
The injustices of our action in Iraq are outrageous – but no more outrageous than the injustices of our policies towards our own people, the poor, our children, our mothers. They are no more outrageous than the undermining of separation of church and state, than the collapse of civil liberties, of the undermining of labor. They are no more outrageous than our lack of quality health care, or the tax breaks given to the super rich in the last four years. Across the spectrum of all the issues that I believe are critically important, there are indeed differences between the candidates.
So the question becomes: are the differences between candidates sufficient to influence my vote? They can be sufficient in either a positive or negative way. For example, the positive differences between Kerry and Bush could be sufficient enough that one would vote for him more than Bush and more than a third party candidate. But in this election year, it is the negative differences that influence me.. The negative differences between Bush and Kerry are be so serious, that I would want to vote for Kerry more than Bush or a third party candidate which might inadvertently aide Bush.
So there's the rub, and it is at the heart of all the ugly bickering and infighting that plagues the left and makes is inefficient: I am not confused about the failures of the Democratic Party. I am not in the dark about the shortcomings of the John Kerry candidacy. Fight start when the same tired old points are given over and over again that completely miss the point. The point is, the negative aspects of the Bush administration create a sufficient difference between Bush and Kerry, and therefore it necessitates casting my vote in such a way that best guarantees the defeat of Bush.
This is the first time in recent history we have been plagued by an administration so horribly bad that removing them from power is the most important goal. There is no historical trend that supports the idea that there is always something this severe that must be voted against (a frequent argument of progressives not voting for Kerry against progressives voting for Kerry). What we know is that that right now, we face the worst, most destructive and most dangerous administration in decades, and regardless of the insufficiency of Kerry's candidacy, I do not feel that he exists on a much different plane.
Clearly there is disagreement here on both the scope of the Bush Administrations evil and the level of Kerry’s qualification. But we can at least start coming together in a more united fashion if we start accepting honest disagreements and stop reacting to fellow liberals and progressives who believe differently with hatred and cynicism. We must accept that progressives voting for Kerry against Bush have not made the decision because they haven't thought about things. They haven't made the decision because they hate democracy or love corporations, or don't believe in progressive ideals. They are doing what they are doing because they believe, as I do, in a world where decisions are unbelievably complicated, and choices are never perfect. In the end, they do what they do because they believe they are right.
The Revolution Will not be Televised
Real change will never start in the White House. It is not going start by another progressive posting yet another non stop self-gratifying articles about how corporations have taken over, and the two parties are the same. It's not going to start until we can move from our endless descriptions of the problems and toward prescriptions for change!
It is therapeutic and soothing to rally around each other and gripe about everything. Progressives outside the party rally together and snidely criticize the system with each other, and then attack anyone still participating in that structure. Progressives inside the party rally together and mock and scoff anyone who has chosen to work outside the system. It feels good to speak negatively about the things we see are wrong, and find yet another good article ranting about the evils of corporatism or warmongering or the power elite. It makes us feel like we're actually doing something when we just post endless commentary describing everything that's wrong. But it isn't worth much practically. Isn't it time to start talking about what we're really for and how to turn that into reality?
I don't believe that process starts in a campaign for the White House with no base, not support, no changing of public opinion. I believe that process starts when we stop acting like a self congratulatory cliquey club that says, "hey come over tonight, we'll sit around and rank out the system and point out all the problems in society again!" and instead start hitting the streets saying, "I'm done hanging out in our little clubs bitching about what's wrong - I'm taking to the streets in my own home town to build a movement of progressive revolution form the ground up. I'm heading out to change hearts and minds - how? By telling them what we should be for – not just all we're against. I’m looking for ways to work with fellow progressives, get past our disagreements and unite on the things we do agree about.” Then get these people elected to city councils and school boards, and put them into local media and on the radio, and into state legislatures and into the courts, and sent to Washington. And then - then – get one elected president with the majority base of a progressive nation.
Is that possible? I don’t know - and we'll never know until we start serious grassroots transformation of the hearts and mind of the public. I wish that during that process, we could respect each other's points of view a little bit more. It’s certainly more of a challenge to find ways for progressive democrats and moderate democrats to work together. But it’s a sad shame that even progressives and progressives have problems working together. We could learn a thing or two from the unity of the right.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
