The club rules of the left

[T_i_B]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ruth_fowler/2008/04/club_rules.html

The left is becoming, more and more, a difficult place to occupy. You say you're a liberal? But you don't give to charity every month, you haven't marched in support of Tibet, you're white and you don't have Muslim friends? You've never had an abortion and you didn't protest against the occupation of Iraq? Your parents paid for your education and you took a gap year that didn't involve children in Africa? You didn't take a term out of Manchester University to learn Arabic in the West Bank? You've chosen a career that guarantees upward mobility, a good wage and hence security for you and your family, but does absolutely sod all for the rest of the world? You went on holiday to the US? But you recycle, buy organic, read The Guardian, keep informed of international news and foster deprived kids from south London? Hmm. I'm sorry, but you haven't ticked enough boxes. Over to bar right. The exclusive club liberal is not accepting any more applications for membership in the foreseeable future.

According to the bourgeois liberal attitude, I'm a failure. I stayed at home with a hot-water bottle instead of protesting the Olympic flame (period pain vs human rights?). I don't give to charity regularly. I spent the money from my book deal on a deposit for an ex-local flat rather than immediately enlisting with VSO. I'm middle-class of working-class parents, and feel that I might be more "authentic" in many people's eyes had my selfish parents not shunted up a social class (although thank GOD for that comprehensive school education). I chose to go to an elite red-brick university. I travelled the world working low-paid cash-in-hand jobs instead of dedicating myself to a life of helping others (although I did work for a week in Mother Theresa's Khalighat hospice. I did, I DID!) I prefer to "live a weird life", even if that comprises working as a waitress, or a stripper, or preferably, as a writer, rather than start up my own eco-tourism company. I've never been to Palestine, despite the fact two of my siblings have worked out there - but I probably would if, like them, I got paid to go.

It seems that the "bourgeois liberal" must justify every action, making political consciousness the driving force behind even the simple need to take a trip up Kilimanjaro. I'd have a lot more respect for my writer friend and for G if they ditched the charade and came out with the truth - they wanted a holiday, and had to find a way to excuse those gaps in the CV.

The problem is issues such as international human rights and politics, race, ethnicity, national identity, freedom of speech, the UN and the EU, world financial markets, developing world debt - have become "bourgeois" issues, in that to be concerned about these causes is a luxury. The working classes who traditionally formed the backbone of the left wing don't become involved in these issues as the elitist left wing does, because they're concerned with their own finances, their own survival, making sure their kids stay out of trouble, cope with class or racial prejudice, go to school and get the education to move up a social group, a pay bracket, out of an "undesirable" area.

[midnight]

1. You seem to have many talents. But in all fairness it is just

getting difficult to have the freedom to voice any level of difference reguardless of leaning.

[T_i_B]

2. Who? Me?

Or Ms Fowler who wrote the article?

[fasttense]

3. I am over 50 and have been a self described liberal for all my

politically aware years, and I have yet to meet one of these "liberal elites". If they exist, I'm not aware of them. You would think I would have run into one of them at a protest, at a convention, at one meeting.

The closest I've seen are very wealthy people and politicians who claim to be liberal yet consistently vote like repukes. They tend to form in cliques and keep real liberals at arm's length. After the meetings, they tend to surround themselves with republicans. You know them, Lieberman comes to mind.

To me, it's not so much what you do in your job (Hell, I was in the military for 20 years, does that disqualify me as a liberal according to the article?) or lifestyle, it's how you vote.

[bemildred]

4. I don't get the point.

So she noticed that progressives are just like everybody else? Or that we ought to be better than we are? We're all the same species, eh? Has she ever seen a "conservative" in a state of high righteousness? Isn't she saying that liberals aren't good enough too?

Or is it the opposite of all that?

If this is not just liberal-bashing I don't see where she wants to go with it.

[zalinda]

5. The point of the article is that there is pressure

to live a ultra liberal life, or you're not good enough. It's kind of like keeping up with the Joneses, or if you prefer, political correctness, it's being taken to the nth degree. And, the problem with this is that you turn off normal people, those who don't volunteer their time to work at the soup kitchen, but maybe just recycles.

But, I'm sure you know the type of people Ms Fowler is talking about, the ones that insist that their way of thinking is the only way of thinking. You know, you are either with us or against us.

zalinda

[bemildred]

6. Tough.

I've been a progressive all my life, and one of the prerogatives of that is that I "do my own thing", as we used to say. It isn't about conformity, and people that think it is can kiss off. There are control freaks on the left as on the right, but they don't speak for anyone but themselves. It takes more than bullying to make a leader on the left.

[Two Americas]

12. that is fine

"Do your own thing" is fine, but that is not politics. Personal choice and individualism are closer to libertarianism than they are to the political left, and much closer to a spiritual movement than to anything political.

Politics is about economics and power, not personal choices, individual lifestyle choices or self-expression. By definition, the politics of the left are about cooperative action, about putting aside our personal whims and desires and working for the greater good for the many.

[bemildred]

13. Who the hell appointed you to speak for the "political left"?

Are you one of these weasels that the OP is talking about? And what the hell good are "personal choices, individual lifestyle choices or self-expression" without economic and political power? You are just road kill without political and economic power. One cooperates to gain political power, that leads to economic power, and then you can use that to have control of your personal life etc., see how it works? You don't have to be a collectivist herd-thinker to favor progressive politics, that is a false idea that the conservatives try to shove down our throats, and the OP is a perfect example.

[Two Americas]

16. I don't understand what you are saying

Not following you, sorry. No need for name-calling.

"...what the hell good are 'personal choices, individual lifestyle choices or self-expression' without economic and political power?"

That was my point, yes.

"You don't have to be a collectivist herd-thinker to favor progressive politics."

Agreed.

[bemildred]

18. I'm saying you can do your own thing while still working together for progressive politics.

In fact, neither means much without the other. Progressive politics is about individual liberty as well as collective political and economic power, and those are not in fact contradictory things.

[Two Americas]

19. thanks

You make a good point that they are not contradictory - or shouldn't be. I am saying that they too often are.

[bemildred]

20. Well there are control freaks on the left as well as the right.

But they are not "the left", anymore that Rush Limbaugh represents real conservatives, and it does a disservice to "the left" to conflate it with its less tolerant members.

A pleasure to meet you.
:hi:

[Two Americas]

21. nice meeting you too

Control freaks, or bullies, run everything in the country, in my opinion. We reward and enable bullying, and praise and admire it.

I think we need to make a distinction between being tolerant of other people and being tolerant of all ideas. A person is certainly free to express apologies for torture, for example, but I am going to express strong opposition to that point of view. There is a difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea. I also might say that apologizing for torture is not consistent with the speaker claiming to "be" a Democrat or liberal.

I also think that we do not have a political left in this country.

[bemildred]

22. Indeed.

I am against all restraint of speech short of incitement to violence. Even there one ought to be careful. One the other hand, I favor the maximum of personal liberty consistent with the personal liberty of others. In economic matters, a good deal of regulation is necessary, unrestrained accumulation of private capital is not consistent with political liberty, as history has shown over and over again.

We do have a left in this country, and it has a long and proud history, but it is not to be found in the mainstream media. One can find it in books, and some magazines, and on the internet, but there is nothing on TV or the news press.

[Two Americas]

11. yes, indeed, and it is worse than that

Not only is there relentless pressure "to live a ultra liberal life," as you say - which I believe to be the primary reason that the average person votes Republican - as a way to reject that - but beyond that the modern liberalism is not even political and is certainly not left wing at all. It drives the general public away from the left, and it attacks and marginalizes political leftists, as well.

Politics is about economics and power, mass mobilization and action, not about personal choices and personal belief systems.

[stimbox]

7. One of the comments in the response section sums it up brilliantly.

E10Rifles wrote, "Erm, maybe somebody can explain to Ruth the difference between liberal and left. She's obviously been in the USA too long.

I can't stand liberals myself. Mealy-mouthed apologists for capitalism.

Suffice to say the majority of socialists I know don't fall into her description. Maybe that's because they're actually socialists rather than dinner party liberals. And, unlike Ruth, can tell the difference between the two."

*ZING!*

[LongTomH]

8. Good one!

I especially like your last paragraph:

The problem is issues such as international human rights and politics, race, ethnicity, national identity, freedom of speech, the UN and the EU, world financial markets, developing world debt - have become "bourgeois" issues, in that to be concerned about these causes is a luxury. The working classes who traditionally formed the backbone of the left wing don't become involved in these issues as the elitist left wing does, because they're concerned with their own finances, their own survival, making sure their kids stay out of trouble, cope with class or racial prejudice, go to school and get the education to move up a social group, a pay bracket, out of an "undesirable" area.

This is the reason I find the truckers strike so hopeful: Finally, we're getting the working class riled up over the screwing they're getting! One of the biggest problem for the Liberal movement is, that we've had a reactionary working class in this country.

The other was the split between unions and middle class, white-collar workers. Blame 40 years of Conservative and Faux-Libertarian propaganda for that.

Maybe, just maybe, if we're really smart, we can start a dialog between working people and middle-class Liberals.

[struggle4progress]

9. "... misinformed and bigoted hatred is .. a trait peculiar to the .. liberal"? This is flamebait

[Two Americas]

10. interesting

"The left is becoming, more and more, a difficult place to occupy." Exactly. And why is this? Because the political left is driven from consideration by the modern liberalism described in this article - personal choice, personal belief systems, and lifestyle choices - none on which have much if anything to do with politics. In fact, modern liberalism is closer to libertarianism than it is to the traditional left, and it enables and supports the right wing and encourages the active destruction of the political left.

[Peanut Butter]

14. More of that LibRul Bashing

Turn off FoxNews Pal

[Two Americas]

17. say what?

Fox news bashes libertarianism?

I haven't owned a TV in 40 years. Pal.

It illustrates what a muddled modern liberalism has become when, expressing the same opinion, I am sometimes told to put down Karl Marx and now you say turn off Fox news. It is getting hard to even predict which insults will be directed at you if you question modern liberalism.

I think you were supposed to say "hey if you think that liberalism and the Democratic party are so co-opted and are becoming too right wing, what are ya gonna do? Write in Karl Marx?" if you wanted to hurl an insult.

[susankh4]

15. Excellent synopsis of how the left is....

becoming more and more like the right.

Intolerant. Litmus testing. Disrespectful of true diversity.