4 replies »

  1. The Left prioritizes cultural over systemic issues and as such is unlikely to pursue an alliance with supposed “reactionaries.” They also retain a pickiness over prospective collaborator’s reasons for opposing a war and will often reject ally candidates merely because of differing rationale. For instance, I encountered one Greenie who dismissed the idea of voting for Ron Paul as an anti-war candidate on the grounds that “he opposes the war as a right-wing isolationist, not as a liberal humanitarian.” My reply was “well who cares what his rationale is as long as he gets us out of there”?. Evidently my pragmatic proposal didn’t satisfy their scrutinous moral standards.

    But then again this kind of nitpicking has become part and parcel for them, and I’ll pull another example from the Ron Paul canon. During the latter months of ’07 I pitched an RP endorsement to a handful of center-left friends, emphasizing his staunch opposition to corporate welfare, warmongering, false “free trade”, and the drug war, and even illustrated the economic benefits of his anti-Fed agenda. Their eyes glazed over through my entire spiel, until one of them interjected with a premature defense of Keynesian economics while the others went into hysterics over his opposition to abortion. Needless to say I thought “fuck it” and took off.

    What they ultimately fail to realize is how their beloved cultural leftism does not in any way threaten, and in fact is buttressed, by the system they claim to oppose. State-subsidized abortion, gay marriage, and even affirmative action can peacefully coexist alongside plutocracy and empire, putting liberals in a very difficult position when it comes to choosing candidates. In the case of my liberal friends, they would rather hold out in desperation for an anti-system but culturally liberal candidate that never came than muddy their hands by voting for someone who will end the war but won’t let them have an abortion.

  2. What you’re saying is generally true of the Left, but there are tendencies on the Left that don’t fit into this mold that we’re both familiar with. The Antiwar League is one. There’s also some of the folks around Counterpunch, the Progressive Review, Ralph Nader, etc. Cynthia McKinney, who was the Green candidate in 2008, has expressed sympathy for the idea a Left-Right alliance of the kind Raimondo promotes. I also think tendencies on the Left that realize culture war politics are not everything will grow in the future, particularly as the cultural Left becomes more and more institutionalized.

  3. Do you see the rise of a New Left that is both adamantly anti-PC and non-right-influenced (like ATS is) defining itself in opposition to the establishment Left and totalitarian humanism? Because instances of this have already manifested, like Piconne and, to a lesser extent, Alexander Cockburn.

  4. Yes, I think currents like that will become more prevalent in the future. The reasons for its emergence will be the acquiescence of the establishment Left on foreign policy issues, widening class divisions and the similar failure of the Left on those questions as well, along with increasing disgust with PC on the part of many people who are otherwise inclined towards left-wing sympathies. For instance, there are likely plenty of counterculturalists and ACLU-sympathizing libertarian-liberalism with all the standard left-wing biases on most social issues who are fed up with things like being told they can’t smoke in bars and punk rock night clubs. There are also more serious issues like the treatment of men (particularly working class or minority men) by the feminazi-dominated family court systems. Plus, let’s face it, the PC crowd is downright boring. A rebellious nature is what drives many people to radicalism in the first place. The PCers are more like a bunch of dour churchgoers.

Leave a Reply to keith Cancel reply