|
:: Soap-boxing ::
Monday, April 28, 2003
Stripped free of its limited ideological rhetoric (which, considering the source, is pleasantly subdued) this article makes a bevy of interesting and topical observations regarding the telos of those on the right side of the political spectrum.
"Leave me alone" is an appealing slogan, but the right regularly violates its own guiding principle. The antiabortion folks intend to use government power to force their own moral values on the private lives of others. Free-market right-wingers fall silent when Bush and Congress intrude to bail out airlines, insurance companies, banks--whatever sector finds itself in desperate need. The hard-right conservatives are downright enthusiastic when the Supreme Court and Bush's Justice Department hack away at our civil liberties. The "school choice" movement seeks not smaller government but a vast expansion of taxpayer obligations. Maybe what the right is really seeking is not so much to be left alone by government but to use government to reorganize society in its own right-wing image. All in all, the right's agenda promises a reordering that will drive the country toward greater separation and segmentation of its many social elements--higher walls and more distance for those who wish to protect themselves from messy diversity. The trend of social disintegration, including the slow breakup of the broad middle class, has been under way for several decades--fissures generated by growing inequalities of status and well-being. The right proposes to legitimize and encourage these deep social changes in the name of greater autonomy. Dismantle the common assets of society, give people back their tax money and let everyone fend for himself.
. . .
Autonomy can be lonely and chilly, as millions of Americans have learned in recent years when the company canceled their pensions or the stock market swallowed their savings or industrial interests destroyed their surroundings. For most Americans, there is no redress without common action, collective efforts based on mutual trust and shared responsibilities. In other words, I do not believe that most Americans want what the right wants. But I also think many cannot see the choices clearly or grasp the long-term implications for the country.
All good points, and almost all of them espouse viewpoints with which mine are consonant. The irony here though lies with the fact that, in not only carefully and accurately observing the right's ability to metamorphose itself into ostensibly a more populace-friendly entity but also astutely noting the tendency of said entity to be the persistent aggressor, Greider succumbs to two all-too-familiar failings upon which conservatives have gleefully harped for years: he has himself failed to transform his argument into one more universally accessible and free from the danger of implied (even if accidental) haughty distain as well as crafting a heavily reactive article (i.e. failing to mimic the assertive and proactive nature of his subject matter, despite admiring its success).
With regard to the first ironic aspect, phrases like "many cannot see the choices clearly or grasp the long-term implications" - whether or not they are meant to be derogatory (and in this case I do not believe that to be the subtext) - are tantamount to piles of 8-inch depleted-uranium anti-tank ammunition for the A-10 Warthog that is the right-wing PR machine, which has a field day busting holes in the legitimacy of leftist arguments by focusing on tangential side-notes and repeating them ad nauseum until it becomes the perceived gist. It unfairly exaggerates the stereotype of the modern liberal, isolated and out of touch with those he/she purports to represent, leading them along by the hand, replete with "trust me, I know what's best for you" arrogance. This is misleading and apocryphal to the populist legacy of the broad left wing. In its purest form, a progressive movement of this kind cannot distance itself from those it represents, precisely because it empowers every constituent to voice their opinions and aid in their own self-direction. It is this kind of heterogeneity - this kind of pragmatic egalitarianism - that Greider correctly observes as under siege by right-wing reactionism.
Secondly, and my criticism in this aspect - perhaps unfairly - extends far beyond the scope of this article, it is written more as a profile of a subject rather than a plan of action. This is a longstanding tradition on the left, and the machinations and strategy of the right are now well-observed and well-documented. The corpus of these studies unequivocally reveals not only the central tenet on the right of almost pathologically aggressive proactivity, but the high degree of efficacy thereof. Yet the left, and most especially its leaders, seem resigned to a strategy of cautious defensive posturing, attempting to resist whatever agenda the right sets instead of attempting to set their own. Perhaps at a macroscopic level its diversity is a hindrance to action, obfuscating a laser-like direction analogous to that of the right, but this can be compensated for with the consensus of a powerful majority. Remember, this is a movement which galvanized when a mass of Tom Jodes in the 1920's realized that together they could yell as loudly as a few Jay Gatsbys.
In other words, the left is in need of a good rebranding (just like Philip Morris and Worldcom), a little vim, and some assertiveness.
Enough pontificating for one day. Since when do I write 600-word rants about politics?
Posted by morland @ 05:43 PM
:: Comments ::
Glad your blog is back up. The article was interesting and your criticism of it right on. The left also needs to be as ruthless and focused as the right. Look at the obsession with dismantling Clinton. Why not a similar obsession with Bush? Bush's love affair with the formerly "liberal" media is one of the most mind boggling events of his presidency and one of the most dangerous...
Posted by: Goldberg on April 29, 2003 10:19 AM
Mr Goldberg:
Be mindful of what you say. The CIA is watching your every move.
Posted by: High Ranking General Guy on April 29, 2003 10:38 AM
morland for President.
Posted by: CIA on April 29, 2003 02:59 PM
- Post a comment -
« Relish it |
Main
| When acronyms attack »
|
