That is true only in the United States. Every other industrialized democracy has some socialist, social-democratic, or labor-based party which is a major player in national politics. Even Canada has its NDP – the party that got them their single-payer health care system. I’m not convinced the anomalous position of the U.S. in this respect has to last forever. (And yes, I have read It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001).)
Well jeez, if the Republican party spilts, all the more reason for progressives to stay with the Democrats. We would then have solid control of the government, and could push through some left wing ideas. Why would you want ot split off just when you have a chance to make a difference?
Now you’re getting the idea.
And I am genuinely interested in seeing what Schwarzenegger wants to do in the future. Not a supporter, necessarily, but interested.
Quite right. But it is still the kiss of death here. If you are actually trying to bring about socialism in the US, I suspect you will not get far. You might be better served to decide what semi-socialist ideas you want to implement (socialized medicine, higher taxes, increased public subsidies for business, etc.) and package them under some other name.
And get used to the fact that one side or the other will co-opt the idea as soon as it looks like a winner.
Regards,
Shodan
For one thing, because I believe a multiparty system is a valuable thing, and much preferable to a two-party system, in and of itself, regardless of the ideologies of the particular parties in the field. Keep an eye out for a GD thread on this subject.
For another thing, the Democrats have been politically predominant for many periods in the past century, but there have always been definite limits on the left-wing ideas the party was willing to put into action, or even to publicly discuss. Progressives within the Democratic Party are a lot like religious conservatives within the Republican Party, who get a lot of lip-service but very little in the way of substantive policy achievements. (Is it any harder to get an abortion now than it was when Bush took office?) Only, we get rather less, even in the way of lip-service, from the Dems than the Christian wingnuts get from the Pubbies. Both parties remain dominated by corporate interests. A separate progressive party could put forth its own ideas on its own terms.
Splendid! That’s quite the point. You seem anxioius to point out that the “socialist agenda” has no “traction” in America. I have no doubt thats true, but how much is a matter of labeling and how much a matter of a considered political stance? How many Americans could tell you the difference between a socialist and a communist?
Progressive ideas continue and are effective, even though no one ever runs as a progressive. In my living memory, segregation was an issue that could be discussed soberly and with “appropriate” gravity, as though we were discussing something that wasn’t necessarily and inherently vile and poisonous. There was a “liberal” stance and a conservative stance. Over time, the conservative stance changed from “over my dead body!”, to “yes, sure, but not in a big, all-fired rush, gotta go slow” and now rests at “we were always on that side!”
Now I don’t mean to imply hypocricy here. The people have changed, people who identify as conservatives are no more racist than I, but they are skeptical and reluctant to change, but they are skeptical and reluctant about a different set of issues. (Or perhaps, just a smaller set…)
As a progressive/radical centrist, I am pleased with this trend, however frustrated by the god-awful drudge of pace.
Listen to the center, persuade the center, move the center. However glacial the pace, it works. There is no point in moving one party to the left unless the other moves with it.
See the snowball. Watch the snowball as it falls into a volcano…
Pfffffft!
A good metaphor for your idea. Gotta hand it to the pubs: They make a good herd.
Which idea? My idea (separate left-progressive party) or BoringDad’s idea (stronger left-progressive caucus within the Democratic Party)?
Or both?
More the latter. A fractious left is entirely plausible. A unified, galvanized, and loyal left is entirely implausible, at least over long periods of time.
I don’t think the experiences of other countries bear that out. Are the UK’s Labour Party, or the French Socialist Party, or the German Social Democratic Party, or the Canadian NDP, any more “fractious” than their conservative counterparts?
Perhaps not, but I’m not sure if there’s any really good comparison between American politics and European politics to be made.
My point is that there’s nothing inherently fractious or faction-prone about a left-of-center position. The divisiveness of the American left, I think, results from its being systematically shut out of real positions of power – leaving leftists with no real incentive to compromise and work together, and no reason not to dig in their heels and insist their particular position is the absolutely correct one. But if the electoral system were reformed (a chicken-and-egg problem, as I noted above), then they would have a reason to bury their differences for the sake of a broader movement.
I question this entire premise. How has the Left been “systematically shut out”? Some of the wealthiest, most influential people in the Nation have been Democrats, and if Kerry is elected president, he will join the likes of Kennedy, New England Liberals and heirs of rich, powerful families. The way left can’t stand people like this and never could, since they’re just the softer side of the Military-Industrialist Complex, and little better than the hypocrites on the other side of the aisle. Centrists are not idealists, and idealists are what the far left wants. The far left shuts themselves out because they cannot accept compromise, not because of any right-wing policy of systematic disenfranchisement.
I’m not saying the far Left has no role to play, but unlike the far Right, when they don’t get to make the agenda, they pick up all their marbles and leave the playing field. The far right tends to be more pragmatic and patient, and is willing to make short-term allowances and exceptions (not to mention they have no problem with out-and-out lying to fool the opposition), if they think they can make incremental gains. It’s all-or-nothing with the far left, which, of course, means they routinely get nothing. In a winner-takes-all political system, they’re outside by default, since they won’t pitch for the team if it means sacrificing any part of their ideals.
The European system is far less limited than our essentially exclusive two-party arrangement, and hence more radical elements of both the right and left have a clearer voice, since they typically have their own viable party and the elected parliamentary officials to show for it. Coalitions, as far as I can tell, are temporary marriages of convenience, usually to get a certain Prime Minister elected, and can easily fall apart.
Actually, I never said “stronger left-progressive caucus within the Democratic Party”. I just said that if the Repubs split we could push through some left wing ideas, not RADICAL left ideas. The Democrats positions ARE generally more left wing than the Repubs. People who disagree must be failing to notice things like Centrist Clinton banning new road construction in national forests, and Bush encouraging it.
Sticking with the Democratic party will not get any radical left wing programs passed. NOTHING will get radical left wing programs passed in the US. The US only passes generally centrist laws. The only way to pass left wing ideas is to move the entire eagle over a little so it looks like your positions are centrist. It is slow, but that bird is shuffling to the left over the last century.
Hmm, I will have to look for it, as I disagree with that premise.
Slowly, and not steadily. In early '60s, everybody who was anybody was a self-identified liberal and Barry Goldwater was a marginal nutcase. In the late ‘60s somebody, I forget who, said, “The country is going to move so far to the right you won’t even recognize it.” And so it did. The story is chronicled very well in The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (Penguin Press, 2004). Today we’re faced not only with a revitalized Republican Party but a broad-based, multi-tendency yet mutually cooperative conservative movement, a minor industry of very well-funded right-wink think-tanks, and a complex of corporate-controlled media outlets, some with an overtly conservative bias. And that didn’t just happen because the people changed their minds or followed some kind of pendulum swing; it happened because a lot of dedicated, zealous conservatives worked very hard to bring it about. And it’s going to take a lot of effort and organizing to move that eagle even a few inches back to the left – that’s why I’m thinking in terms of a new party; working within the Dems hasn’t accomplished that much. What we need to do is replicate the right-wingers’ historic achievement: Goldwater was a quixotic fool for his time, but he prepared the ground for a highly successful movement. Maybe Nader, Kucinich, etc., can lead the way to a new left revival.
Are you kidding me? The leftist strides that have been made over the last 40 years have been amazing!
See any enforced segregation? Laws against mixed race marriage? Rivers catching on fire? Have you noticed the greatly improved workplace safety regulations in place? Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid (socialist safety nets) confirmed as almost untouchable? Think you could go to a newsstand and buy a full color copy of “Sluts On Bikes” in 1960? (Sure, technically that might not be a really good thing socially, but it shows that cultural conservatives have lost their grip that forced married couples to have separate beds on 50s TV.)
The country is moving left. Yes, it is in fits and starts, but over the long run, it is moving. When my Dad ran for school board in the early 70’s, the small town was horrified when he advocated for sex and drug education. A candidate for school board in the very same small town today would be run out of town if he (or she) DIDN’T advocate drug and sex education. Risking being offensive, the eagle shuffles left at the speed of death. Generational turnover is what moves policy.
Yes, in cultural terms, American society has become more modern, liberal and cosmopolitan, much to the chagrin and frustration of Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, etc. We’ll probably have gay marriage recognized in every state within 10 years. But those are the kinds of changes the ruling class can afford to tolerate and might even want to see happen.
I’m thinking in social and economic terms: The political power of wealth grows and grows, elections are controlled by big money, the gap between the rich and everybody else grows wider every year, the corporations get their own way on most things most of the time, less of our labor force is unionized than at any time since the 1930s, six corporations control most of our media outlets, the economy is “globalized” on whatever terms will profit established business interests and to hell with everybody else. As for a cleaner environment and improved workplace safety regulations – we might have those things in the U.S., but you won’t find them in the countries to which our manufacturing jobs are steadily being outsourced.
Fighting those trends is what I mean by moving the country “left.”
And on top of all that, there’s the rise of the neoconservatives with their unilateralist, militarist, imperialist foreign policy. We need to fight that too, and move the country more in the direction of cooperation with other nations – maybe even giving up some of our sovereignty, as other countries have done in submitting to the authority of the International Criminal Court. And, as I’ve said before on this board, I hope someday we will join the ICC, soon enough that Henry Kissinger is still alive and can be tried for his crimes against humanity.
But are we going to get any of that, or any significant movement towards more social justice and economic equality, from the Democrats? I don’t think so.
The things that you call cultural, I would have called social. Your arguments appear to me to be almost all economic. And I’d rebut a cherry picked few of them thusly:
Political power of wealth grows? When in American history do you think that the wealthy did NOT have enormous power?
Corporations get their own way? This is new how? Heck, we took over Hawaii for the plantation owners!
Globalized economy will eventually be a good thing for the working class of the world. It is bad for the US working class. Pick your personal model of justice.
As for the environmental and labor issues in other countries, how is the US suppose to regulate that? How does that affect whether the US is left or right?
As for gap between rich and poor… Yeah, I’ll agree with you on that. But I don’t see the US as being in crisis mode such that we must jettison the Democrats to make bold progressive voices heard. Slow and steady wins the race. If we can’t even elect a moderate democrat, then the county is surely not going to back radical left reforms.
I finally tracked down that passage I mentioned earlier about American socialists being “generals without foot soldiers.” It’s from Discovering America: Travels in the Land of Guns, God & Corporate Gurus, by James Laxer (New York: The New Press, 2000). Laxer, a professor of political science at York University in Toronto, Canada, traveled through 38 states to get an outsider’s view of American culture and politics. It’s a really fascinating read – the author being a Canadian, from a country which is so much like the U.S. and yet so different. In Chapter 11, “American Pyramid,” he describes the 1998 Socialist Scholars Conference in Manhattan: