"WE are the moderates--fighting extremists on both sides!" (Open Left)

[KoKo]

WE are the moderates--fighting extremists on both sides
by: Paul Rosenberg
Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 16:30

Perhaps the favorite Versailles trope is that of "extremists on both sides", which was deployed yet again, recently, to try to dismiss the fact that rightwing incitements to violence are so omnipresent in various different forms. But the reality is that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party--and a good number of folks outside the party altogether--represents the true moderate center at a much more fundamental level than anyone else on the scene.

The reason for this is simple and straightforward: we represent social democracy, the political philosophy best reflected in America by the New Deal and the Great Society, suport for whose programs remains strong, deep and broad--all across the political spectrum--even despite a virtual blackout of expressed political support from anyone in the political establishment except when real showdowns occur and tremendous pressure is brought to bear.

But just because we represent the silenced majority does that mean we're in the center? How does that work? Glad you asked. This was explained by Benjamin Barber in a number of different books, in slightly different, but clearly related terms.

To put it simply, there are three different models of civil society or social organization that are contesting in the world today. In Jihad vs. McWorld, Barber named two of them "Jihad" and "McWorld"--the former indicating religious/ethno-nationalism (or even sub-nationalism) and the later indicating materialist/consumerist neo-liberalism. Jihad and McWorld are bitter enemies, Barber argued, and yet at the same time they feed off of one another and both work against a common enemy: social democracy and its natural home in the nation-state.

In terms of civil society, as described in A Place For Us, McWorld is reflected in the libertarian vision, with its thin, impoverished vision in which there are few, if any institutions, only people and their "voluntary associations", of which the most powerful may well be corporations. OTOH, Jihad is reflected in the social conservative vision, where civil society is overwhelmed with traditional organizations, such as the church, and various different traditional organizations established to amplify status quo power structures. The social democratic viion of civil society differs from both these extremes, in that it provides space and encourgement for people to creat new organizations--from the casual to the institutional--to meet share social needs that are not and/or cannot be met by existing structures, be they governmental, private of part of the existing sphere of civil society.

MORE OF THE ARTICLE AT.......

http://www.openleft.com/diary/21529/we-are-the-moderatesfighting-extremists-on-both-sides

[dkf]

1. How can the two extremes the posts cite be part of the same party with the Socialist Dems in the

Middle?

That doesn't sound right.

[TheWraith]

2. It doesn't sound right because it's crap.

It's rah-rah jingoistic nonsense, the pablum that each side tries to pass off as truth, saying that they're really the middle, the "silent majority," the "moral majority," the real center, "we surround them."

Honesty about ourselves, our intentions, and our place in the political spectrum should be the BASIS of any and all debate. I am an far-left liberal Democrat with a strong anti-authoritatian streak. I recognize this and appreciate it. I do not pretend I am the center. I do not pretend that most Americans support switching the US Army to a citizen militia format such as is found in Switzerland. I do not pretend that most Americans support immediately nationalizing the defense industry. I do not pretend that it is politically feasible to immediately legalize most controlled substances.

My opinions represent a relatively small portion of the public, and I don't delude myself into thinking otherwise. People who think like I do are probably much rarer even than the hardcore tea partiers. That doesn't bother me, because I recognize that progress towards my goals is slow and methodical, the same way it's always been, and that evolution, not revolution, has to be the goal for long-term accomplishments.

[Hannah Bell]

4. *you're* a far-left liberal democrat? indeed?

i actually think the writer is correct. the center is the new deal model; capitalism with a human face & basic democratic institutions.

i have no idea what a "far-left" liberal democrat even is.

most americans support things like social security, unemployment insurance, and food stamps.

they're not "far left".

[TheWraith]

9. You're rewriting the entire history of the New Deal and FDR.

The entire central context of the New Deal was that it was a radical reform of the type that would have been impossible except in a state of crisis--reforms radical enough that some people tried to organize a MILITARY COUP against FDR. Even so, most of the New Deal got struck down as unconstitutionally overreaching. The changes from the New Deal were at the time certainly no less a departure with history than single payer and quartering the military would be today.

More to the point, you are trying to paint up a picture where one certain small group is the sole "true" defender of the meek, and trying to paint the bulk of the Democratic Party as anti-Social Security, etcetera, which is outright total nonsense.

[Hannah Bell]

12. it was somewhat radical at the time. but it's not now, after 70 years of existence.

when most people support something, that's the center.

[onpatrol98]

10. +1

That's a darn honest approach.

[Hannah Bell]

5. the op doesn't say "socialist dems". try reading. "social democracy" is basically a capitalist

welfare state, capitalism with a safety net, aka the new deal protections of social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, etc.

or similar protections in canada & europe.

[leveymg]

3. I like the term "radical centrism" to describe the ideology of corporate globalists who have seized

control over most of the world's wealth and power, and are actively destroying the rest to consolidate it and maintain the bottom line. It is indeed a violent and aggressive ideology of a well-financed and hierarchical movement.

By comparison to the destructive collectivizing impulse of the corporatists, the democratic socialists are moderate civil libertarians, and even the Jihadists are principled in their use of violence.

There really are three major factions, and the democratic left is by far the least violent.

[Hannah Bell]

6. it's "we represent social democracy".

Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.<1> Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

it has little to do with socialism of any variety.

[leveymg]

7. I'm not sure that the original left-right continuum really describes the world we live in

There is little or no pure capitalism, anymore, at least in the developed countries. Privately-owned means of production have been replaced to a great degree in the west by state-subsidized transnational oligopolies that own governments and political parties as business units and in China and Russia by state bodies and political parties that own corporations with private partners. There are shades and variations on this model, but few large entities of scale that can truly be said to be purely private or publicly-owned, anymore.

In the most "advanced" economies, most profit is no longer extracted from surplus value of labor production but instead from leveraging of public and private debt.

Running this global system are transnational banks and multinational corporations that are virtually autonomous, that shape national laws, budgets and political policies to suit their own needs. The traditional polity -- the voting private citizen -- of democratic theory is largely irrelevant except as stage dressing. While there has long been international finance, the new global corporation has become the central political, economic and political power of the 21st Century. Someone needs to convince me that classical models of capitalism and socialism still encompass this new corporatist reality.

[Hannah Bell]

11. there never was any "pure capitalism"

irrelevant to the point that social democracy ain't socialism

[swilton]

8. Highly recommended - K&R

Thanks for mentioning Benjamin Barber - I have met him at the University of Maryland - Jihad vs. McWorld is a must read as is his Consumed.