Thursday, October 25, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
When Have Conservatives Been on the Right Side of History?
Corey Robin has recently wrote a book called The Reactionary Mind, which seeks to trace the continuities and fundamental attributes of political conservatism throughout the centuries and among a range of prominent people, from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. One of the major themes to be drawn from his analysis is that the fundamental essence of conservatism, everywhere and in every period, is the defense of privilege.
If this is true, it does much to explain the conservative argument, no matter the context or time period. Defense of privilege equates to defense of the wealthy, defense of businesses, defense of males, defense of whiteness, and so on.
If conservatives have consistently been on the side of the haves and not the have nots, then when have they been on the right side of history?
Currently, mainstream conservatives are against gay marriage, minority rights, and universal healthcare, while they are also skeptical of the merits of climate change, renewable energy, and electoral reform - things that will in the not-too-distant future be looked back upon by bewildered young people as being backwards, obtuse, and reactionary.
But conservatives were also against things that are now perceived as abominable: they went to great lengths to preserve slavery, then later to protect segregation and fought to keep policies that benefited minorites, such as the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, from being implemented; conservatives were against women's suffrage, against most laws that benefited organized labor that we now take for granted (minimum wage laws, over-time pay, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, etc.), have consistently been against immigration or anything that threatened white, affluent, heterosexual, Protestant males in general.
The major policies in the United States that have benefited the vast majority of society and helped to create a more tolerant, more equal society have in the past 80 years come exclusively from liberals and progressives, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even the laws that a Republican president signed into law, such as the Clean Air Act under Richard Nixon, have come about only when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.
In Europe, conservatives historically were vehemently mobilized against the vast majority of society that was not an aristocratic, white, Christian male and had no qualms about justifying the use of violence to repress movements that sought to promote voting rights, minority rights, and increases in democracy.
If mainstream conservatives, conservative thought, and conservatism as a political movement in general have consistently been on the side of privilege, then they have also consistently been on the wrong side of history. But this does not mean that they have never been on the right side.
Conservatives in Europe were correct about totalitarianism, whether in its fascist or communist variant. Though Neville Chamberlain, as a Conservative Prime Minister, pursued a policy of appeasement in dealing with Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, this was controversial even among his own party. The man who succeeded him, Sir Winston Churchill, was a consistently vocal and aggressive opponent of fascism. Later, when many on the Left had become enamored and apologized for the violent excesses of the Soviet Union, Churchill and conservatives called it what it was - totalitarian. Of course, French and British conservatives both supported the maintenance of imperialism (though they went about its decline in different ways).
Edmund Burke and other conservatives did not just protest against the French Revolution, they believed it to be a terrible idea. Indeed, their warnings in the early stages seemed especially prescient after the country descended into wide-ranging pandemonium, with citizens being indiscriminately murdered and movements such as The Terror and the Committee for Public Safety emerging. Napoleon Bonaparte may have introduced certain "progressive" reforms onto the Continent, but European conservatives decried his reign for what it was - a tyrannical dictatorship.
While those on the Left have had their fair share of poor decisions - supporting Mao's overseeing the starvation of millions in China, for example - conservatism has much more often than not been on the wrong side of history. Even when they have been correct, such as when confronting the French Revolution, the rise of totalitarian communism, and fascism, conservatives have also had a tendency to go overboard in their zeal - see Joseph McCarthy's fanatical rants about communist subversion or the appalling record of imprisoned minorities that have resulted from conservative crime laws.
If, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the arc of moral universe bends towards justice, then it is not due to conservatism that it is being bent that way.
If this is true, it does much to explain the conservative argument, no matter the context or time period. Defense of privilege equates to defense of the wealthy, defense of businesses, defense of males, defense of whiteness, and so on.
If conservatives have consistently been on the side of the haves and not the have nots, then when have they been on the right side of history?
Currently, mainstream conservatives are against gay marriage, minority rights, and universal healthcare, while they are also skeptical of the merits of climate change, renewable energy, and electoral reform - things that will in the not-too-distant future be looked back upon by bewildered young people as being backwards, obtuse, and reactionary.
But conservatives were also against things that are now perceived as abominable: they went to great lengths to preserve slavery, then later to protect segregation and fought to keep policies that benefited minorites, such as the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, from being implemented; conservatives were against women's suffrage, against most laws that benefited organized labor that we now take for granted (minimum wage laws, over-time pay, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, etc.), have consistently been against immigration or anything that threatened white, affluent, heterosexual, Protestant males in general.
The major policies in the United States that have benefited the vast majority of society and helped to create a more tolerant, more equal society have in the past 80 years come exclusively from liberals and progressives, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even the laws that a Republican president signed into law, such as the Clean Air Act under Richard Nixon, have come about only when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.
In Europe, conservatives historically were vehemently mobilized against the vast majority of society that was not an aristocratic, white, Christian male and had no qualms about justifying the use of violence to repress movements that sought to promote voting rights, minority rights, and increases in democracy.
If mainstream conservatives, conservative thought, and conservatism as a political movement in general have consistently been on the side of privilege, then they have also consistently been on the wrong side of history. But this does not mean that they have never been on the right side.
Conservatives in Europe were correct about totalitarianism, whether in its fascist or communist variant. Though Neville Chamberlain, as a Conservative Prime Minister, pursued a policy of appeasement in dealing with Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, this was controversial even among his own party. The man who succeeded him, Sir Winston Churchill, was a consistently vocal and aggressive opponent of fascism. Later, when many on the Left had become enamored and apologized for the violent excesses of the Soviet Union, Churchill and conservatives called it what it was - totalitarian. Of course, French and British conservatives both supported the maintenance of imperialism (though they went about its decline in different ways).
Edmund Burke and other conservatives did not just protest against the French Revolution, they believed it to be a terrible idea. Indeed, their warnings in the early stages seemed especially prescient after the country descended into wide-ranging pandemonium, with citizens being indiscriminately murdered and movements such as The Terror and the Committee for Public Safety emerging. Napoleon Bonaparte may have introduced certain "progressive" reforms onto the Continent, but European conservatives decried his reign for what it was - a tyrannical dictatorship.
While those on the Left have had their fair share of poor decisions - supporting Mao's overseeing the starvation of millions in China, for example - conservatism has much more often than not been on the wrong side of history. Even when they have been correct, such as when confronting the French Revolution, the rise of totalitarian communism, and fascism, conservatives have also had a tendency to go overboard in their zeal - see Joseph McCarthy's fanatical rants about communist subversion or the appalling record of imprisoned minorities that have resulted from conservative crime laws.
If, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the arc of moral universe bends towards justice, then it is not due to conservatism that it is being bent that way.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Being Black in America
When Bill Clinton was elected to his first term as President of the United States, he was called by some America's "first black president". He was called this because he grew up poor with a single mother, played the saxophone, and liked McDonald's.
White males who wear "gangster" clothes, listen to rap, and "talk black" are derogatorily called wiggers; that is, a white person who seeks to emulate what he perceives to be African American culture, and by doing so, "becomes" black themselves.
This unfortunate conceptual framework of thinking is pervasive and fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be black in America. Being black isn't being poor, being a "gangster", listening to rap, being in jail, talking "black", growing up without a father, or living in the "ghetto". All of these are results of being black, not causes.
What it truly means to be black in America is something no white person can experience for themselves, no matter how hard they try or how willing they may be to understand. Being black in America means having dark skin in a white-skinned country. It means being discriminated against in a myriad of ways for something that is beyond your control, something which you never had a choice over.
In 1959, the journalist John Howard Griffin used medication to artificially darken his skin so as to appear African American. Overnight, he went from being white to being black. His book, Black Like Me, tells the story of his experiences traveling through the Deep South states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi at a time when segregation was the law of those lands. People he had befriended as a white man did not recognize him as a black man, and if he told them who he was, the difference in treatment was of a degree that astounded and frightened him. Griffin began to understand in a way that almost no white American could what it meant to be black: receiving the "hate stare" from white people who had no reason other than his skin color to hate him; having to travel far distances just to enjoy simple comforts like using the restroom, getting a bite to eat, or drinking some water; in Mississippi he was warned not to look at anything but the floor when a white woman was in the same room - the consequences could be deadly. When, as a black man, Griffin went to stay with some of his white friends, they had to do so with the utmost secrecy, lest someone were to see a "Negro" getting "uppity"; the scandal would have ruined his friend's reputation at best, and at worst resulted in violence.
Griffin, at several points, was unable to take it - the constant wariness, the desperate struggle merely to survive and avoid trouble from white authorities, the pervasive and all-encompassing hatred he received for nothing that he had done wrong. After nearly having a complete breakdown on a few occasions, Griffin was able to "rub the black out" of his skin and thereby pass a white person; he could return to the white world, whereas every other black person had to stay in their societal oppression.
The movie A Soldier's Story is about segregation in the U.S. Army in the Deep South during World War II. Different themes of racism are explored - including the self-inflicted wounds received and given by other black soldiers. Some of the African American soldiers are embarrassed when one of their fellow black soldiers does something to "set the race back" in the eyes of the whites. Others question "what kind of a colored person" a black officer is who lambasts other black soldiers for giving the whites reason to disrespect blacks. In the end, a black soldier yells "They still hate you!", meaning that no matter what they did or how they acted, blacks would remain oppressed because it wasn't about their actions but about their skin color.
The murder of unarmed African American 17-year old Trayvon Martin has left many Americans wondering if the person who fired the gun would have avoided arrest as well if he were black.
Being black in America is walking down the street and being wary that a police officer might decide you look threatening enough to check you out, and maybe mistake a wallet or a green card for a pistol. Being black is being the Other. Being black is having to work twice as hard to achieve the same result as a white person, to prove that you're "pretty good for a black girl" or for "being a testament to his race". Being black in America is being a representative of your race to others. It's having Black History Month instead of being included in "regular" American history. It's being accused of being lazy, ignorant, sexually lascivious and criminal - whether implicitly or explicitly.
Being black in America is having dark skin in a white-skinned country. All of those other things that are associated with African American culture - like crime, poverty, rap, hip-hop, being a gangster, being on welfare, growing up without a father - are results of the ingrained racism and superior advantages embedded in the societal structures of the United States that are afforded to whites and non-whites.
White males who wear "gangster" clothes, listen to rap, and "talk black" are derogatorily called wiggers; that is, a white person who seeks to emulate what he perceives to be African American culture, and by doing so, "becomes" black themselves.
This unfortunate conceptual framework of thinking is pervasive and fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be black in America. Being black isn't being poor, being a "gangster", listening to rap, being in jail, talking "black", growing up without a father, or living in the "ghetto". All of these are results of being black, not causes.
What it truly means to be black in America is something no white person can experience for themselves, no matter how hard they try or how willing they may be to understand. Being black in America means having dark skin in a white-skinned country. It means being discriminated against in a myriad of ways for something that is beyond your control, something which you never had a choice over.
In 1959, the journalist John Howard Griffin used medication to artificially darken his skin so as to appear African American. Overnight, he went from being white to being black. His book, Black Like Me, tells the story of his experiences traveling through the Deep South states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi at a time when segregation was the law of those lands. People he had befriended as a white man did not recognize him as a black man, and if he told them who he was, the difference in treatment was of a degree that astounded and frightened him. Griffin began to understand in a way that almost no white American could what it meant to be black: receiving the "hate stare" from white people who had no reason other than his skin color to hate him; having to travel far distances just to enjoy simple comforts like using the restroom, getting a bite to eat, or drinking some water; in Mississippi he was warned not to look at anything but the floor when a white woman was in the same room - the consequences could be deadly. When, as a black man, Griffin went to stay with some of his white friends, they had to do so with the utmost secrecy, lest someone were to see a "Negro" getting "uppity"; the scandal would have ruined his friend's reputation at best, and at worst resulted in violence.
Griffin, at several points, was unable to take it - the constant wariness, the desperate struggle merely to survive and avoid trouble from white authorities, the pervasive and all-encompassing hatred he received for nothing that he had done wrong. After nearly having a complete breakdown on a few occasions, Griffin was able to "rub the black out" of his skin and thereby pass a white person; he could return to the white world, whereas every other black person had to stay in their societal oppression.
The movie A Soldier's Story is about segregation in the U.S. Army in the Deep South during World War II. Different themes of racism are explored - including the self-inflicted wounds received and given by other black soldiers. Some of the African American soldiers are embarrassed when one of their fellow black soldiers does something to "set the race back" in the eyes of the whites. Others question "what kind of a colored person" a black officer is who lambasts other black soldiers for giving the whites reason to disrespect blacks. In the end, a black soldier yells "They still hate you!", meaning that no matter what they did or how they acted, blacks would remain oppressed because it wasn't about their actions but about their skin color.
The murder of unarmed African American 17-year old Trayvon Martin has left many Americans wondering if the person who fired the gun would have avoided arrest as well if he were black.
Being black in America is walking down the street and being wary that a police officer might decide you look threatening enough to check you out, and maybe mistake a wallet or a green card for a pistol. Being black is being the Other. Being black is having to work twice as hard to achieve the same result as a white person, to prove that you're "pretty good for a black girl" or for "being a testament to his race". Being black in America is being a representative of your race to others. It's having Black History Month instead of being included in "regular" American history. It's being accused of being lazy, ignorant, sexually lascivious and criminal - whether implicitly or explicitly.
Being black in America is having dark skin in a white-skinned country. All of those other things that are associated with African American culture - like crime, poverty, rap, hip-hop, being a gangster, being on welfare, growing up without a father - are results of the ingrained racism and superior advantages embedded in the societal structures of the United States that are afforded to whites and non-whites.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Judge Others by What They Do, Not What They Say
A few weeks before the 2011 Canadian federal election, Heather Mallick wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star titled "What if the Harper Government were to win a majority?" In it, she accuses the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper of being serial liars and hypocrites. In her hypothetical political apocalypse of a world where the Conservatives were to win the upcoming election, she predicted that "old-tyme religion will reign", "students would turn [professors] in for Wrongspeak and [they] would lose [their] job", and accused conservative ideology of "working for" a societal structure that leaves massive amounts of poor and unemployed. In her long list of atrocious policies she imagined the hypothetical Conservative majority would implement, she referred to the Prime Minister's treatment of his "enemies" as "Stalinist", while confidently asserting that
But in reality, President Obama has been almost the perfect Republican president. He signed into law an extension of the Bush tax cuts, has done (from environmentalists' perspectives) little to nothing towards tackling climate change, allowed Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Business, and corporations to generally escape from much harsher regulation, has stopped short of approving gay marriage, has continued and even enhanced Bush-era policies on civil liberties and fighting foreign wars, kept Guantanamo open, deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, vastly increased unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan and other Muslim countries (resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, including children) and has been mostly hawkish in handling Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration's much ballyhooed economic stimulus bill contained significant portions of neo-liberal, supply-side hot air, consisting of almost 1/3 tax cuts that do almost nothing in terms of actually stimulating the economy. Taking this into account, the stimulus was fundamentally conservative in its size and content.
The President's signature health care bill, conservative apoplexy nothwithstanding, is fundamentally a right-wing policy; as recently as 2008, its concept was endorsed by such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Jim Demint. The chief economist that helped Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts implement what is essentially the same bill in that state also helped the President in developing the federal version. The Obama health care bill is based entirely upon an idea created by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, endorsed by multiple Republican leaders for almost 20 years prior to its embrace by Democrats, and is incredibly reliant upon the free market and private industry for its efficiency.
If President Obama had an (R) next to his name instead of a (D), conservatives would be ecstatic over his accomplishments. Judged by what he has actually done rather than what he has merely said, the President has governed in a fundamentally conservative fashion.
Voters, critics, and citizens need to judge politicians more by what they do, rather than what they say.
President Obama has said a lot of things about tackling climate change, while Prime Minister Harper has not; neither has, in the end, done very much to reverse the warming of the earth or man's impact thereupon. If the end result for both are the same, what difference then does it make that their opinions on what should be done are rather different?
President Obama has said he wants to see taxes rise (a pitiable amount) on the affluent, while Prime Minister Harper has expressly ruled that out; neither have actually raised taxes on anyone, making the President's statements (to this point) moot.
American conservatives don't like President Obama's policies mostly because he is a member of the Democratic Party - much if not most of his policies are fundamentally conservative in nature and would be applauded had they been done by a Republican administration. They are judging him more by what he has said (or what they think he will do) rather than what he has actually done.
Canadian critics of Prime Minister Harper appear as well to be judging him more based upon his party affiliation (or what they think this affiliation really means for as-yet unproduced policies) than on what he has actually done; small tax cuts, small free-trade deals, small movements to reduce the size and scope of the federal government do not by themselves constitute a fundamental remaking of the nature of Canadian society. Indeed, the Conservatives' self-stated goal is to replace the "centrist" Liberal Party; by moderating their social views and slowly implementing fiscal policies that for the most part can be agreed upon by many members of other parties, they are coming closer and closer every day to achieving this goal (the Liberals, it must be remembered, were the ones who drastically cut social spending and implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement after campaigning explicitly not to).
Canada's conservatives are not radicals - they will leave abortion and gay marriage untouched, and do nothing more than poke at the edges of reforming social legislation and welfare institutions. The Democratic Party and President Obama are also fundamentally a party of the center, with substantial overlap with the Right. Even the tax hikes they are discussing (dismissively accused of being unconscionably high) would do essentially nothing to halt or reverse the trends of income inequality. Indeed, many leading Democrats have expressed openness to massively cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - putting these societal institutions' futures in danger.
Judging by what they do rather than what they say makes the political process less hysterical and more open to serious, frank discussion that has a greater chance in resulting in policies that benefit the majority of society; projecting one's basest fears onto parties that represent those things that one dislikes the most only serves to reverse this democratic process.
"Canada would increasingly resemble the U.S., a model that makes European countries shudder. Guns on the street, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn . . . If Harper got his majority, these things would hit us like an avalanche.
Citizens regarded as 'ethnics' would be courted until election day, and then abandoned. Forget family reunification, forget federal money to ease non-whites' path into Canadian society, forget English classes.
Women's rights would retreat, including abortion rights, access to medical advances and the right to go to court to protest inequality.
Everything would be up for privatization, from roads, parks and parking meters to schools and hospitals."
From Mallick's perspective, one would think of the Conservatives as reactionary, chauvinist, ultra-libertarian racists who would fundamentally dismantle Canada's hitherto existing society and reshape it into some kind of horrible arch-conservative dreamworld.
What would make someone so afraid of a Conservative majority that they would imagine such a world? What did the Conservatives do while forming a minority-government to make Heather Mallick so hysterical?
It seems that, rather than basing her opinions and predictions on what the Conservatives had actually done while forming the government, she based them on certain things they may have said or what she feared they might do - with no strong grounding in facts.
Nothing in what the Conservative Party had done up to then would have made her believe that "old-tyme religion" would reign, or that abortion rights would be repealed, gay marriage abolished, or anything else that she so fervently fear-mongered. Any reasonable, non-partisan person who assessed the Conservatives' platform and their previous policies would know that they would never introduce such reactionary social legislation, because it would mean the death of their mandate. Canada is, after all, a country that is leans left on social issues but is more fiscally conservative - the Conservative Party had done its best over the years to mold itself to fit into this niche.
This is not to say that the Conservatives had been completely centrist and pragmatic in their years of minority-government; they had enacted some rather minor tax cuts, business tax breaks, and a few pieces of "red meat" for their base - reforming the long-form census and purchasing some fighter jets. But what seems to be utterly incomprehensible to Mallick is that none of these things could have happened without other parties voting for them due to the minority-ness of the Conservatives' government - including her beloved Liberal Party. Even when the Conservatives did commit a truly anti-democratic act - the prorogation of Parliament before the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver - as much blame should be apportioned to the Governor-General for accepting the Prime Minister's request. The electorate as well clearly didn't think much of the other parties voting to censure the Conservatives, as their percent of electoral support only increased from the previous election.
In short, it appears that Mallick was judging the Conservatives by their words (or what she assumed was their nefarious, secret plan ensconced in their ideological id) rather than their actions. Their words may sometimes mark them out for being more ideologically on the Right, while their actions - for the most part - suggested that they much more often than not took the centrist approach to politics rather than a hard right one. [This may all change, as the Conservatives did indeed win a majority after the 2011 election and now have no need to court the votes of other parties in Parliament]
While non-conservatives in Canada may fear and imagine the worst from their newly-elected government, American conservatives have spent the last several years warning anyone who would listen of the "radicalness" of the Obama administration. The National Rifle Association, for example, has claimed that the President is merely biding his time for after the 2012 election to completely ban guns and abrogate the 2nd Amendment (the fiend!). They believe this, despite literally no factual policies or quotations from the administration, and after a United States Congresswoman was shot in the head by someone, and after the only policy that Obama has implemented with regards to gun control actually expanded Americans' 2nd Amendment rights.
American conservatives, just like Canadian non-conservatives, seem to be judging the President by what they think he will do, based upon what he has said rather than done.
If President Obama's statements were to become the laws that he actually signed, then conservatives may have something to dislike: he says that he favors higher taxes on the rich, stronger regulation for Wall Street, less loopholes for corporations, comprehensive immigration reform, strong action to tackle climate change, and advocates tolerance for religious and sexual minorities like Muslims and gay people. He also, as a presidential candidate, said that he would close Guantanamo Bay, end torture, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, implement universal health care (while opposing an individual mandate) and generally reverse the violations of civil liberties undertaken by the Bush administration.
But in reality, President Obama has been almost the perfect Republican president. He signed into law an extension of the Bush tax cuts, has done (from environmentalists' perspectives) little to nothing towards tackling climate change, allowed Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Business, and corporations to generally escape from much harsher regulation, has stopped short of approving gay marriage, has continued and even enhanced Bush-era policies on civil liberties and fighting foreign wars, kept Guantanamo open, deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, vastly increased unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan and other Muslim countries (resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, including children) and has been mostly hawkish in handling Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration's much ballyhooed economic stimulus bill contained significant portions of neo-liberal, supply-side hot air, consisting of almost 1/3 tax cuts that do almost nothing in terms of actually stimulating the economy. Taking this into account, the stimulus was fundamentally conservative in its size and content.
The President's signature health care bill, conservative apoplexy nothwithstanding, is fundamentally a right-wing policy; as recently as 2008, its concept was endorsed by such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Jim Demint. The chief economist that helped Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts implement what is essentially the same bill in that state also helped the President in developing the federal version. The Obama health care bill is based entirely upon an idea created by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, endorsed by multiple Republican leaders for almost 20 years prior to its embrace by Democrats, and is incredibly reliant upon the free market and private industry for its efficiency.
If President Obama had an (R) next to his name instead of a (D), conservatives would be ecstatic over his accomplishments. Judged by what he has actually done rather than what he has merely said, the President has governed in a fundamentally conservative fashion.
Voters, critics, and citizens need to judge politicians more by what they do, rather than what they say.
President Obama has said a lot of things about tackling climate change, while Prime Minister Harper has not; neither has, in the end, done very much to reverse the warming of the earth or man's impact thereupon. If the end result for both are the same, what difference then does it make that their opinions on what should be done are rather different?
President Obama has said he wants to see taxes rise (a pitiable amount) on the affluent, while Prime Minister Harper has expressly ruled that out; neither have actually raised taxes on anyone, making the President's statements (to this point) moot.
American conservatives don't like President Obama's policies mostly because he is a member of the Democratic Party - much if not most of his policies are fundamentally conservative in nature and would be applauded had they been done by a Republican administration. They are judging him more by what he has said (or what they think he will do) rather than what he has actually done.
Canadian critics of Prime Minister Harper appear as well to be judging him more based upon his party affiliation (or what they think this affiliation really means for as-yet unproduced policies) than on what he has actually done; small tax cuts, small free-trade deals, small movements to reduce the size and scope of the federal government do not by themselves constitute a fundamental remaking of the nature of Canadian society. Indeed, the Conservatives' self-stated goal is to replace the "centrist" Liberal Party; by moderating their social views and slowly implementing fiscal policies that for the most part can be agreed upon by many members of other parties, they are coming closer and closer every day to achieving this goal (the Liberals, it must be remembered, were the ones who drastically cut social spending and implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement after campaigning explicitly not to).
Canada's conservatives are not radicals - they will leave abortion and gay marriage untouched, and do nothing more than poke at the edges of reforming social legislation and welfare institutions. The Democratic Party and President Obama are also fundamentally a party of the center, with substantial overlap with the Right. Even the tax hikes they are discussing (dismissively accused of being unconscionably high) would do essentially nothing to halt or reverse the trends of income inequality. Indeed, many leading Democrats have expressed openness to massively cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - putting these societal institutions' futures in danger.
Judging by what they do rather than what they say makes the political process less hysterical and more open to serious, frank discussion that has a greater chance in resulting in policies that benefit the majority of society; projecting one's basest fears onto parties that represent those things that one dislikes the most only serves to reverse this democratic process.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Die Probleme der Partei DIE LINKE
Bei der Bundestagswahl 2009 erreichte Die Linke 11,9% der Stimmen, ein Ergebnis, das die demokratische sozialistische Partei vor den Grünen liess und für eine kleine überraschung sorgte.
DIE LINKE vereinigten sich 2007 aus der ehemaligen Partei der Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS), als die traditionell von den Gewerkschaften und Arbeiterklassen unterstutzten Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands hunderttausenden Stimmen verlor wegen ihrer Agenda 2010, die den Arbeitsmarkt stark reformierte - und dabei sofort millionen ex-SPD Wählern schaffte. Es war auch der Linkspartei hilfreich, dass sich die Welt, Europa und Deutschland in diesem Moment in die schlimmste und tiefste Finanzkrise seit 1930 fanden, von vielen als Fehlzündung des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystem zu sehen war.
Die neue Partei der jetzt aufgelassenen Linkflügel der deutschen Politik ist allerdings seither nicht ganz erfolgreich gewesen, diese Chance zu nutzen, um ihre Parteistärke zu verbessern und dadurch ihre gewunschten Politik durchzusetzen. Sie nehmen an nur einer Landesregierung in einer Koalition teil, und haben in anderen Fällen nicht die erwünschten Zielen erreicht, entweder eine Koalition zu bilden oder sich einfach auf die vorherigen Wahlergebnissen der Landtagswahlen zu verbessern.
Nun steht vor der Partei DIE LINKE einigen wichtigen Fragen, die Sie ernstlich antworten müssen: Ist die Linkspartei nur eine Protestpartei, oder sollten Sie an die Macht kommen zu wollen? Warum ist es, dass die Politik der Linken nicht genug getan hat, um die Linke in den Umfragen Gewicht zuzulegen? Kurzlich gesagt - warum hat DIE LINKE seither nicht so viel gemacht, als man von ihnen erwarten können hätte?
Zur ersten Frage ist es ja klar gesehen aber nicht klar gelöst. DIE LINKE ist, genau wie die SPD oder die CDU, eine Partei, in denen sich viele unterschiedlichen Strömungen finden. Genau so wie die SPD eine Links- und Rechtflügel enthält, so hat auch DIE LINKE ihre eigene Parteiflügeln. Es gibt Kommunisten, die an keine Koalition teilnehmen wollen und nur so protestieren, damit es schwieriger macht, normale Politik von den anderen Parteien durchzuführen ist. Es gibt ehemalige Mitglieder der SPD, die von den Schröder Jahren enttäuscht und empört sind, und damit keinen Platz mehr in der SPD für sich selbst sehen können. Es gibt anderen, die gerne einen Weg zum demokratischen Sozialismus finden wollen, und dabei sind Sie auch bereit, eine Koalition zu bilden und in mehr die Mitte der Politik zu kommen, umd mehr Stimmen zu erreichen.
Soviele Strömungen und Meinungen in einer Partei zu haben macht es immer noch nicht leicht, Einigkeit zu finden und mehr Wähler zu gewinnen. Eine Partei, die links von der Mitte steht, wird es immer mindestens ein bisschen schwer finden, ganz Populär zu werden. Das Problem der Partei DIE LINKE liegt nicht soviel in ihrer Politik, sondern in ihrem Bild.
Was DIE LINKE an das deutsche Volk bietet ist nicht sehr weit außer der Politischen Mitte: einen Ausstieg der Atomkraft, einen gesetzlichen Mindestlohn, weniger Sparen bei Sozialausgaben und keinen Krieg. Das wirkliche Problem der Partei DIE LINKE ist ihr Vorstand.
Der Vorstand, der Castro zu seinem Geburtstag gratuliert. Der Vorstand, dessen Mitgliedern aus der ehemaligen (und gehassten) DDR Diktatur-Partei, die Sozialistische Einheits Partei, gekommen sind. Der Vorstand, der noch etwas gutes über die Berliner Mauer zu sagen hat. Der Vorstand, der Kolumbianische Terroristen, die unschuldige Geiseln entführen und ermördern, verteidigt hat. Warum würde jemand für DIE LINKE stimmen, wenn Sie offenbar keine Empfindlichkeit hat, für Sachen, die für die Öffentlichkeit exzentrisch oder extrem sind?
Die SED war eine Diktatur, die Ostdeutschland einen Einparteienstaat gemacht hat und ein ganzes Volk unterdrückt hat. Castro und Kuba waren und sind auch eine Diktatur. Nein, es gibt gar nichts über die Berliner Mauer dass gut war. Terroristen - egal, ob Sie Linksterroristen sind - sind Terroristen und sind nicht zu unterstützen.
Wenn DIE LINKE ihre Rolle als die einzige deutsche Partei, die den Neoliberalismus absolut ablehnt, ernstnehmem würde, könnten Sie Wahlerfolgen bekommen (das ist nach allem der Punkt, eine Partei zu bilden, oder?). Zuerst muss den aktuellen Vorstand Weg. DIE LINKE muss eine Realpolitik antreiben, die noch auf der Linke stattfinden darf. Die Politik sind nicht das Problem, sonder geht es um die Parteiführung, die noch in der Vergangenheit lebt.
DIE LINKE vereinigten sich 2007 aus der ehemaligen Partei der Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS), als die traditionell von den Gewerkschaften und Arbeiterklassen unterstutzten Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands hunderttausenden Stimmen verlor wegen ihrer Agenda 2010, die den Arbeitsmarkt stark reformierte - und dabei sofort millionen ex-SPD Wählern schaffte. Es war auch der Linkspartei hilfreich, dass sich die Welt, Europa und Deutschland in diesem Moment in die schlimmste und tiefste Finanzkrise seit 1930 fanden, von vielen als Fehlzündung des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystem zu sehen war.
Die neue Partei der jetzt aufgelassenen Linkflügel der deutschen Politik ist allerdings seither nicht ganz erfolgreich gewesen, diese Chance zu nutzen, um ihre Parteistärke zu verbessern und dadurch ihre gewunschten Politik durchzusetzen. Sie nehmen an nur einer Landesregierung in einer Koalition teil, und haben in anderen Fällen nicht die erwünschten Zielen erreicht, entweder eine Koalition zu bilden oder sich einfach auf die vorherigen Wahlergebnissen der Landtagswahlen zu verbessern.
Nun steht vor der Partei DIE LINKE einigen wichtigen Fragen, die Sie ernstlich antworten müssen: Ist die Linkspartei nur eine Protestpartei, oder sollten Sie an die Macht kommen zu wollen? Warum ist es, dass die Politik der Linken nicht genug getan hat, um die Linke in den Umfragen Gewicht zuzulegen? Kurzlich gesagt - warum hat DIE LINKE seither nicht so viel gemacht, als man von ihnen erwarten können hätte?
Zur ersten Frage ist es ja klar gesehen aber nicht klar gelöst. DIE LINKE ist, genau wie die SPD oder die CDU, eine Partei, in denen sich viele unterschiedlichen Strömungen finden. Genau so wie die SPD eine Links- und Rechtflügel enthält, so hat auch DIE LINKE ihre eigene Parteiflügeln. Es gibt Kommunisten, die an keine Koalition teilnehmen wollen und nur so protestieren, damit es schwieriger macht, normale Politik von den anderen Parteien durchzuführen ist. Es gibt ehemalige Mitglieder der SPD, die von den Schröder Jahren enttäuscht und empört sind, und damit keinen Platz mehr in der SPD für sich selbst sehen können. Es gibt anderen, die gerne einen Weg zum demokratischen Sozialismus finden wollen, und dabei sind Sie auch bereit, eine Koalition zu bilden und in mehr die Mitte der Politik zu kommen, umd mehr Stimmen zu erreichen.
Soviele Strömungen und Meinungen in einer Partei zu haben macht es immer noch nicht leicht, Einigkeit zu finden und mehr Wähler zu gewinnen. Eine Partei, die links von der Mitte steht, wird es immer mindestens ein bisschen schwer finden, ganz Populär zu werden. Das Problem der Partei DIE LINKE liegt nicht soviel in ihrer Politik, sondern in ihrem Bild.
Was DIE LINKE an das deutsche Volk bietet ist nicht sehr weit außer der Politischen Mitte: einen Ausstieg der Atomkraft, einen gesetzlichen Mindestlohn, weniger Sparen bei Sozialausgaben und keinen Krieg. Das wirkliche Problem der Partei DIE LINKE ist ihr Vorstand.
Der Vorstand, der Castro zu seinem Geburtstag gratuliert. Der Vorstand, dessen Mitgliedern aus der ehemaligen (und gehassten) DDR Diktatur-Partei, die Sozialistische Einheits Partei, gekommen sind. Der Vorstand, der noch etwas gutes über die Berliner Mauer zu sagen hat. Der Vorstand, der Kolumbianische Terroristen, die unschuldige Geiseln entführen und ermördern, verteidigt hat. Warum würde jemand für DIE LINKE stimmen, wenn Sie offenbar keine Empfindlichkeit hat, für Sachen, die für die Öffentlichkeit exzentrisch oder extrem sind?
Die SED war eine Diktatur, die Ostdeutschland einen Einparteienstaat gemacht hat und ein ganzes Volk unterdrückt hat. Castro und Kuba waren und sind auch eine Diktatur. Nein, es gibt gar nichts über die Berliner Mauer dass gut war. Terroristen - egal, ob Sie Linksterroristen sind - sind Terroristen und sind nicht zu unterstützen.
Wenn DIE LINKE ihre Rolle als die einzige deutsche Partei, die den Neoliberalismus absolut ablehnt, ernstnehmem würde, könnten Sie Wahlerfolgen bekommen (das ist nach allem der Punkt, eine Partei zu bilden, oder?). Zuerst muss den aktuellen Vorstand Weg. DIE LINKE muss eine Realpolitik antreiben, die noch auf der Linke stattfinden darf. Die Politik sind nicht das Problem, sonder geht es um die Parteiführung, die noch in der Vergangenheit lebt.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Is a Robust Social Democracy the Best the Left has to Offer?
The large center-left, allegedly social democratic parties in Europe and North America are increasingly becoming irrelevant, hollowed-out shells of their former selves by abandoning party core principles, core constituents, and largely embracing right-wing conservative ideology as their own in an attempt to be taken "seriously" by the electorate and media. A good example of this can be seen in Britain's Labour Party leader Ed Milliband's recent legitimization of the governing Conservatives austerity agenda. Three years away from the next general election, Labour has effectively endorsed the Conservative Party's ideology and managed to alienate their own supporters while doing nothing to persuade independent voters from choosing Labour in the process.
Europe's large social democratic parties, like Britain's Labour, Germany's SPD, Scandinavia's Social Democrats, as well as those in financially-stricken countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, currently offer no better alternative to their right-wing counterparts other than a less harsh version of conservative, neoliberal doctrine. The same can be said of the supposedly center-left Democratic Party in the United States, who have largely embraced austerity and right-wing economics so as to be considered "serious" and "responsible".
The mainstream Left thus finds itself in a predicament; they cannot stray too far to the left for policies for fear of becoming unelectable, but their rightward shift has angered vast swathes of their formerly-ardent supporters, who are leaving en masse to alternative leftist parties. This shift has meant that the Left, out of new ideas, are in danger of becoming (or finalizing their transition to) conservatives-lite - Labour, for example, is increasingly being perceived by their core supporters of offering essentially the same social and economic platform as the Conservatives.
The mainstream Left is out of ideas. It has proven itself unable to build upon its successes of the past. This begs the question: Is a robust social democratic society the best the Left has to offer?
For many decades, the Left was able to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism so as to create a better, more prosperous, more healthy, more progressive society. The safety net may vary from country to country, but its existence is unquestioned. Though unquestioned, it is still threatened. That is the crux of the problem for social democrats everywhere - the safety net is under attack, its future uncertain, and the very fact that it can be destroyed means that there is a potentially gaping hole in future society that will need to be filled to avoid mass poverty and deprivation. The Left needs to fill this hole, but at the moment, they have no idea how to.
Instead of building upon their past successes, parties of the Left are joining conservatives in tearing them down. Though many countries have succeeded in vastly reducing poverty, hunger, deprivation, etc., they have not abolished them. Unemployment, high at the moment due to the financial crisis, nonetheless remains a constant threat for millions.
The Left must come up with new ideas, new movements, new ways to improve life so that even in a recession as deep as the current one, citizens may stay out of poverty, can remain employed, can enjoy a high standard of living, need not go hungry, need not lose their homes, their savings, their health. The Left must find a way to reverse the effects of financial policies of the past several decades that have resulted in increased productivity but stagnant wages and the vast majority of income and wealth growth going to an incredibly small amount of the population who was already affluent to begin with.
A living wage, unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, social security, and the rest of the safety net is good, but it is not enough. For social democracy is under attack, the safety net is being torn down bit by bit, and the Left in Europe and North America is at its ideologically weakest in decades.
Now is the time for the Left to reinvigorate itself. Now is the time for the Left to reassert itself. Now is the time for the Left to return and fulfill its time-honored goals. The Left must offer a true alternative to neoliberalism. The Left must renew itself, or it will fade, wither, and die.
Europe's large social democratic parties, like Britain's Labour, Germany's SPD, Scandinavia's Social Democrats, as well as those in financially-stricken countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, currently offer no better alternative to their right-wing counterparts other than a less harsh version of conservative, neoliberal doctrine. The same can be said of the supposedly center-left Democratic Party in the United States, who have largely embraced austerity and right-wing economics so as to be considered "serious" and "responsible".
Germany's SPD has lost hundreds of thousands of members in only a few years
The mainstream Left thus finds itself in a predicament; they cannot stray too far to the left for policies for fear of becoming unelectable, but their rightward shift has angered vast swathes of their formerly-ardent supporters, who are leaving en masse to alternative leftist parties. This shift has meant that the Left, out of new ideas, are in danger of becoming (or finalizing their transition to) conservatives-lite - Labour, for example, is increasingly being perceived by their core supporters of offering essentially the same social and economic platform as the Conservatives.
The mainstream Left is out of ideas. It has proven itself unable to build upon its successes of the past. This begs the question: Is a robust social democratic society the best the Left has to offer?
For many decades, the Left was able to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism so as to create a better, more prosperous, more healthy, more progressive society. The safety net may vary from country to country, but its existence is unquestioned. Though unquestioned, it is still threatened. That is the crux of the problem for social democrats everywhere - the safety net is under attack, its future uncertain, and the very fact that it can be destroyed means that there is a potentially gaping hole in future society that will need to be filled to avoid mass poverty and deprivation. The Left needs to fill this hole, but at the moment, they have no idea how to.
Instead of building upon their past successes, parties of the Left are joining conservatives in tearing them down. Though many countries have succeeded in vastly reducing poverty, hunger, deprivation, etc., they have not abolished them. Unemployment, high at the moment due to the financial crisis, nonetheless remains a constant threat for millions.
The vast majority of Democrats voted along with Republicans to deregulate Wall Street in 1999
The Left must come up with new ideas, new movements, new ways to improve life so that even in a recession as deep as the current one, citizens may stay out of poverty, can remain employed, can enjoy a high standard of living, need not go hungry, need not lose their homes, their savings, their health. The Left must find a way to reverse the effects of financial policies of the past several decades that have resulted in increased productivity but stagnant wages and the vast majority of income and wealth growth going to an incredibly small amount of the population who was already affluent to begin with.
A living wage, unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, social security, and the rest of the safety net is good, but it is not enough. For social democracy is under attack, the safety net is being torn down bit by bit, and the Left in Europe and North America is at its ideologically weakest in decades.
Now is the time for the Left to reinvigorate itself. Now is the time for the Left to reassert itself. Now is the time for the Left to return and fulfill its time-honored goals. The Left must offer a true alternative to neoliberalism. The Left must renew itself, or it will fade, wither, and die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)