Are Left and Right becoming meaningless straightjackets?

Armstead

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-03-09 10:51 PM
Original message

Are Left and Right becoming meaningless straightjackets?

Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 11:15 PM by Armstead

I'm serious.

This was prompted by all the bashing of Dennis Kucinich for daring to say that he wanted to forge alliances with right wingers who, like him, oppose the escalation in Afghanistan.

First of all, let me say this unequivocally. I am a progressive/liberal, leftie who in some ways is just short of being a democratic socialist. I unabashedly support the concept of the Democratic Party as the representative of the left half of the spectrim (in theory, anyway)...... My favorite legislators are (or were) clear progressives like Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, Marcy Kaptur, Jan Schiakovski, Barbara Lee etc. My next favorite are clear liberals like Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin. My least favorite legislators are Republicans. My next least favorite legislators are Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and slick Corporate DLC types like Evan Bayh.

Having said that, I must say that the definitions of "left" and "right" and moderate increasingly seem to me to be meaningless.

They seem to be straightjackets that ultimately prevent many natural potential alliances and perpetuate the corrupt status quo. Each is a package you are supposed to buy wholesale.

Listening to Sean Hannity the other day, I was reminded that on the right there is a template you are supposed to follow. Everything Democrats, Obama and "liberals" do is supposed to be wrong. Had a Republican president initiated Obama's strategy for Afghanistan, Hannity would be singing his praises. But since it is Obama, it is considered wrongheaded. It's that way with everything, down to trivial bullshit like the "party crashers" as a symbol of the ineptness of the administration.

We on the left are much less inclined to blind groupthink, as the continuing battles on DU attest. But we have our own litmus tests and set of preconceptions.

The problem is that life does not fall into neat little boxes. One may be an economic progressive but a social conservative, or vice versa.

For example, in the 2004 election, some of the "red" states that voted for George Bush also voted to raise their state's minimum wage. For another example, many of the people who oppose "socialized medicine" would bite your hand off if you took away their Medicare benefits. And many leaders recognize this. Notice how the politicians who oppose health care refoerm also whine that it will weaken medicare?

One of the greatest fighters for protection of our individual rights, and one of the staunchest opponents of the Iraq debacle was Ron Paul. Personally I find many of his economic views repugnant. But on certain issues he is much more stalwart and -- dare I say progressive -- than many so-called Democrats.

Likewise with the teabaggers. Before you get out the flamethrowers, let me say that I realize that the teabagger movement is largely a fabrication of Fox News and certain right wing interests. Many of the teabaggers are ignorant nitwits, and worse. Their analysis is fundamentally flawed.

However, below the surface, is the same populist impulse that drives many progressives. The teabaggers are reacting against a corrupt system in which entrenched oligarchs who are screwing the rest of us. They are incensed at the bail outs of Wall St. Sound familiar lefties?

Many of the right wingnuts are beyond reason. However, if others were able to escape their ideological straightjackets for a few minutes, they might be persuadable that the culprit is not "socialists" but the rapaciousness of the powerful.

Unfortunately, the center of power on the "left" as represented by the Democratic Party is not able to make the case because we are beholden to the same corporate interests and share the same world view as the Republican establishment. Therefore we are unable -- or unwilling -- to present a firm case for the values that drive progressives. (Too often, progressives have to go up against Democratic powers as much as Republican ones.)

That's one reason I really like Bernie Sanders. There is probably no one in Congress who is further to the left than he is. But Bernie also recognizes something very important. He believes in his soul that a progressive economic agenda is truly in the best interests of the majority. And -- surprise, surprise -- many people in Vermont who are not "liberals" or "progressives" recognize that and support him because he is a fighter for their jobs and economic interests.

Back to Dennis the K. He should not be beaten up on for wanting to join forces in opposition to the war with those he is not an ideological soulmate with on other issues. Rather, that is the only way many things will get accomplished.

Perhaps, if Democrats and "moderates" had the courage of their convictions on other issues like healthcare, they would also be able to convince many in the middle -- and even some self-professed conservatives -- that something like a stong "Medicare for everyone" form of public health plan is ion their best interests Perhaps, had they stuck to those guns, they could have ignited a groundswell of support for real reform that would transcend the usual boundaries of "left and right" and actually do what is RIGHT (in the non ideological sense).