The Problem with the Left
Jan. 28th, 2004 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8Two Easters ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
morgan1 and I were attending a service at a very liberal baptist church in Minneapolis. That day's sermon was based on something Ghandi said: "worship without sacrifice is idolatry." The overall gist of the sermon was that if the dominant regime isn't shooting you, beating you, or driving tanks over you, you are somehow failing in your duty to God. Morgan, being the Christian in our relationship and having grown up on messages like that, fled the church as soon as the service ended, never to return. As for me, the Jew, I was grateful to have just sat through an Easter service where I was not made to feel that I was having Jesus' death pinned on me. But the sermon itself itself was a valoration of martyrdom. And the fact that Liberals regularly choose martyrdom over victory is the problem with the left.
This is why Dean is losing in primaries. He might just be more electable John "Lurch" Kerry. But leftists don't like his willingness to roll up his sleeves and fight. They don't like a man who who isn't rabidly anti-gun, because hey, in lefty-land guns are what the regime uses to make a martyr of you. The moment you touch one, you become soiled by the power it grants. They don't like a man who can raise a rallying cry worthy of Jesse Ventura, even if his voice cracks at the end. Dean isn't afraid of mustering and using the raw power of the anger shared by many Americans. But the left is afraid of its own anger, afraid that if it gives its anger free rein, it might just do something . . . effectual.
The enmity of the left for Dean can be seen best in Maureen Dowd's articles both on Judy and on the "scream." She goes on like Ann Coulter, enumerating the many ways in which Judy's failure to be the perfect bimbo campaign-prop wife should raise our suspicions. Indeed if what Maureen prescribes for Judy is what she really believes in, one wonders where she finds the time to write her snarky little articles between raising her husband's children and cleaning out her husband's asshole.
So a word to the left: whether you like it or not, many Americans are ANGRY with Bush, and there is no shame in USING that anger. And Kerry -- If you DO win the nomination, offer Dean the Vice Presidency, and get James Carville to manage your campaign, and you might just have a shot at the whitehouse.
morgan1 and I were attending a service at a very liberal baptist church in Minneapolis. That day's sermon was based on something Ghandi said: "worship without sacrifice is idolatry." The overall gist of the sermon was that if the dominant regime isn't shooting you, beating you, or driving tanks over you, you are somehow failing in your duty to God. Morgan, being the Christian in our relationship and having grown up on messages like that, fled the church as soon as the service ended, never to return. As for me, the Jew, I was grateful to have just sat through an Easter service where I was not made to feel that I was having Jesus' death pinned on me. But the sermon itself itself was a valoration of martyrdom. And the fact that Liberals regularly choose martyrdom over victory is the problem with the left.This is why Dean is losing in primaries. He might just be more electable John "Lurch" Kerry. But leftists don't like his willingness to roll up his sleeves and fight. They don't like a man who who isn't rabidly anti-gun, because hey, in lefty-land guns are what the regime uses to make a martyr of you. The moment you touch one, you become soiled by the power it grants. They don't like a man who can raise a rallying cry worthy of Jesse Ventura, even if his voice cracks at the end. Dean isn't afraid of mustering and using the raw power of the anger shared by many Americans. But the left is afraid of its own anger, afraid that if it gives its anger free rein, it might just do something . . . effectual.
The enmity of the left for Dean can be seen best in Maureen Dowd's articles both on Judy and on the "scream." She goes on like Ann Coulter, enumerating the many ways in which Judy's failure to be the perfect bimbo campaign-prop wife should raise our suspicions. Indeed if what Maureen prescribes for Judy is what she really believes in, one wonders where she finds the time to write her snarky little articles between raising her husband's children and cleaning out her husband's asshole.
So a word to the left: whether you like it or not, many Americans are ANGRY with Bush, and there is no shame in USING that anger. And Kerry -- If you DO win the nomination, offer Dean the Vice Presidency, and get James Carville to manage your campaign, and you might just have a shot at the whitehouse.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 03:48 am (UTC)I strongly favor Dean but in the end, I'll vote for whichever Democrat finally runs against Bush.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 04:16 am (UTC)As for my use of terms like "Left" and "Leftist," I am using them deliberately. Bill Clinton is not a leftist. Wesley Clark is not a leftist. Gephardt is not a leftist. Nor is Lieberman. These people are centrists, aka weasels, and don't really stand for much of anything. They won't make the country worse, but they won't improve it either.
When I speak of leftists I mean people who hold old-school progressive values and champion things like universal single payer healthcare, a free college education for anyone who can maintain a GPA > 3.0, and a social safety net that keeps us from becoming a banana republic. I will not shy away from the term because the right pronounces it with a sneer -- letting them decide what is and is not a dirty word really lets them control the terms of debate. (Sorry to ramble, but this is a pet peeve of mine; if Ted Rall is content to call himself a lefty, well then, so am I).
But it bothers me that the Left forgot in the past few decades what it knew in the 30's and 40's: that you have to fight to win, and that it is better to be a winner than a corpse.
Re:
Date: 2004-01-29 01:48 pm (UTC)Regarding your definition of "leftist" that is my definition of "liberal." Unless you also favor the nationalization of all industries, to be put under the control of worker's committees then you aren't one. It also helps if you dress like Fidel and can at least hum The Internationale.
That you equate liberalism with leftism simply reinforces my point: that the language we are using keeps moving the perceived center to the right.
Let's hava a holy war!
Date: 2004-01-29 03:16 pm (UTC)And are we really so susceptible to this red-baiting, that we will allow them to steal every bit of language from us. I am a leftist, and proud of it. You should be proud too!
***Hums the Internationale***
Oh, and BTW, while we're fighting about what we should be calling ourselves this week, they're raping our country -- all part of the grand plan to divide and conquer.
Re: Let's hava a holy war!
Date: 2004-01-29 06:29 pm (UTC)True enough. That is communism. There is also socialism, which is somewhat to the right of communism.
Years ago, I read a wonderful book, I think it was titled "The Rise and Fall of Socialism in America," which laid the blame for the collapse, at least in part, on infighting over semantics and holy wars over minor doctrinal issues. It seems true believers tend to be all or nothing kind of people.
Much of the liberal dilemma is trying to institute socialist-type programs without having it called socialism. Although European nations have much the same sort of tension between the conservatives and liberals at least being called a "socialist" doesn't make one completely unelectable there. It actually helps with some constituencies.
The perceived center HAS moved to the right, though. Clinton was basically an Eisenhower Republican. Had he tried to push though anything resembling that ultra-liberal Nixon's social programs there probably would have been a coup.
A little discussion on semantics isn’t going to affect the rape of the country. The only thing that will slow it down is electing a Democrat to the presidency, and I’m 100% behind whoever gets the nomination. Keep in mind, though, the hard rightward trend has been going strong for 23 years now nonstop, with only a slowing down during the Clinton administration, not a reversal. It’s going to be like trying to steer the Titanic with a kayak paddle. To actually reverse the erosion of civil liberties, social programs and increasing income disparity is a long-term proposition.
I genuinely feel sorry for whoever the next Democratic president will be. The right wing media that is cheerleading for Bush now isn’t going anywhere. The wingnuts will go ape****. I fully expect to see a Waco or Ruby Ridge kind of thing on nearly a monthly basis. And of course, he's going to inherit a huge can of worms in the Middle East and massive debt that will tie his hands fiscally.
Re: Let's hava a holy war!
Date: 2004-01-30 04:40 am (UTC)