By Tom Kando
Although I was on the progressive Left like everybody else when I was in college, there were some things on the Left which turned me off, even then: For one thing, in the aftermath of the Counterculture, "progressive" at times turned into sinister, drug-crazed, Charles Manson-like beliefs and behaviors. Also, the Left became so powerful on University campuses that it stifled dissent and often became a mirror image of the traditional, bigoted Right. One of the things which bothered me about campus politics was the emergence of the "New Left.":The New Left was a term coined during the sixties. In contrast to the Old Left, it focused more on Identity Politics than purely on bread-and-butter issues. It added to the Old Left’s Socialist goals a whole new agenda, focusing on race, gender and sexual preference. It is on that front that the nastiest battles were fought. I was astounded to find that in some deranged minds, I was guilty just for being a white, heterosexual male.
I never really shed my moderately social-democratic views. For example, I deplored the decline of trade unions in America. I was one of the founders of the California University Professors Union. But identity politics were something else. People - including me and members of my family - were sometimes attacked and ridiculed not because of anything we had done, but because we belonged to the wrong demographic category. Old-fashioned white-male-sexist-heterosexual bigotry was being reciprocated in the opposite direction. Affirmative action, sexual harassment charges, grievances and law suits were flying all over the place. Things were very uncomfortable.
Of course, the only sane and intelligent political position is a progressive one. Social Justice is the most important goal. Still, I am convinced that a mature and progressive perspective requires one to distinguish between essential goals and more frivolous goals. President Obama’s genius is that he is able to make that distinction - as was President Clinton, who ran under the slogan, "it’s the economy, stupid." Indeed.
In an odd twist, it is now the Right which focuses on "Culture Wars." School prayer, gay marriage, the right to teach creationism side by side with evolution, abortion, crosses, creches and other religious symbolism in public locations, the right to bear arms, etc.
There is a similarity between the Right’s emphasis on Cultural Politics and The Left’s Identity Politics. They both move politics away from bread-and-butter issues.
Obviously, the Right couldn’t come out overtly in favor of economic inequality and the accumulation of wealth in fewer a fewer pockets. It has done that in a veiled way, and with some success, by trying to indoctrinate the populace into believing that labels such as "socialism" and "redistribution" are evil. In America, being called a socialist is now the kiss of death. Still, the Right’s economic agenda is hard to sell, since it basically says that "inequality is good."
So what does the Right do? It draws the gullible public’s attention to "cultural" issues. Hence, the "culture wars" fought by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Issues such as gay marriage and school prayer are excellent smoke screens. You get the people to huff and puff about such issues, so they won’t pay attention to their growing poverty, while Goldman Sachs continues to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.
But my point is that the Left’s Identity politics function somewhat the same way: They divert the population’s attention from the essential economic issue - growing inequality. Instead, subgroups are all up in arms over their ethnic and sexual identities. Should Columbus Day be a national holiday, or should we have Leif Erickson day instead? Is this important?
So you see, Identity politics turn me off for the same reason that the Culture wars turn me off. Maybe I am forever an "Old Leftist," and I will never feel comfortable with Identity politics. Gays? Lesbians? Transgendereds? African-Americans? Hispanics? Kablinesians (Tiger Woods)? Women? Men? The young? The old? Absolutely: ALL must be included, all must enjoy fully equal rights.
But most of what we are after can be subsumed under economic equality. In the end, it all boils down to a reasonable level of economic equality for all. For the rest, let there be diversity, live-and-let-live. It is not necessary for every group to march and to demonstrate in a quest to be loved by all others.
I am a grubby Hungarian Jew. I know that most people don’t love me, and that most people couldn’t care less about Hungarian Jews or Hungarian identity. But you know what? As long as I and my children are not arrested, or denied a job or a school or service in a restaurant because we are of Hungarian Jewish descent, I don’t really give a damn what other people think about our demographic origins. I don’t care, because we lead comfortable and happy lives. And that is the only essential goal progressive politics must pursue for all. leave comment here
8 comments:
Tom,
In response to your last paragraph: But what if you were NOT white male? Then maybe you WOULD care more about what you call 'identity politics' because people of color HAVE been arrested, and been denied jobs; and homosexuals experience discrimination regarding health insurance and inheritance rights ...to name but a few of the inequities that are not purely financial, but actually derived from the person's identity itself.
As you point out, the Right's culture wars and New Left's identity politics have diametrically opposed values, goals... content. The latter is pushing for social justice and the former is trying to prevent it. To me, this fact is more important than arguing that their strategies are similar because you feel they are both distracting us from bread-and-butter issues. Social justice IS a bread-and-butter issue. If the New Left is fighting for it, then it's not "distracting."
Am I understanding you?
P.S. It's Tiger Woods, but the way, not "Wood."
This is an excellent post. Not just because it is logical and sincere but because it is so true. But in my opinion the right is much more guilty of playing cultural politics than the left right now. To a dangerous point if you ask me. If they didn’t use ‘moral issues’ on their platform, they wouldn’t get anywhere, considering their real agenda is to create more inequality in American society. It is a very effective smokescreen.
The other question is why the Republican party has moved so far to the right that it HAS to use these tactics. At least the left is honest in their identity politics.You cannot accuse the left of using pro-choice, gay rights etc as a smokescreen. A smokescreen for what?
The right has created their ‘think tanks’, their ‘tv shows’, their conservative publications. The Conservative party has become the ‘moral values’ party. Democrats are the degenerates. What happened to values like ‘tolerance, equality, enlightenment?’ Why doesn't the left bite back? I am ready: aaarrrh!
Jan and Madeleine,
Thanks for your comments. You both make irrefutable points. I am glad that my post generates some discussion.
Come over to the dark side Tom, then you won't have to worry what chicks think!
As a conservative, this exchange is hilarious. You write a piece arguing for the old left’s goal of economic equality, describing how the left has been sidetracked by the politics of group identity, victimhood, and the pursuit of social justice. Then, as if on cue, two felines sucked in by that catnip jump in and prove your point. And rather than rebuking them, you - the emasculated liberal King Lear (wanting to maintain the love of his “daughters”) - thank them for their points. That is sublimely funny.
Not King Lear, but Tevye ("you are right; you are also right").
So why don't you dispute them? Wouldn't that be more worthwhile than taking potshots?
Tom, I relize it's been almost a year since you wrote it, but still - this must be the most level-headed piece I have stumbled upon in years. Just wanted to let you know.
Dear Gueibor,
Thanks for your comment. I was away, hence my delayed answer.
Looked up your profile. Looks good. Argentina, my goodness!
I know someone in Paris with the same name as yours, except it's his first name. I don't suppose you would be of the same nationality - you being a translator and all?
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!