Why The Left Doesn’t Speak For (Or To) Average Americans
If the only thing you read was blogs, you would think that the American left was not only powerful, but hegemonic. The view that Republicans and conservatives are vicious, venal, and even outright evil or “treasonous” (the irony of embracing that formerly verboten word to describe dissent has apparently been lost) has reached the level of consensus in some quarters, where it is rarely challenged even in its most extreme forms of expression.
But seen in a broader context, the dominance that the far left holds in much of the political blogosphere, as well as in most of academia, serves only to highlight the marginalization of the left. For all the attacks leveled at the “Tea Party” from the all the strategic heights held by progressives unflinching with their moral and intellectual certitude, it is the “Tea Party” rather than progressives who are running the table in actual political competition. But why?
Michale Kazin ponders the failure of the American left to gain traction in the United States, pointing to a lack of institutional support:
How do we account for the relative silence of the left? Perhaps what really matters about a movement’s strength is the years of building that came before it. In the 1930s, the growth of unions and the popularity of demands to share the wealth and establish “industrial democracy” were not simply responses to the economic debacle. In fact, unions bloomed only in the middle of the decade, when a modest recovery was under way. The liberal triumph of the 1930s was in fact rooted in decades of eloquent oratory and patient organizing by a variety of reformers and radicals against the evils of “monopoly” and “big money.”
Similarly, the current populist right originated among the articulate spokespeople and well-funded institutions that emerged in the 1970s, long before the current crisis began. The two movements would have disagreed about nearly everything, but each had aggressive proponents who, backed up by powerful social forces, established their views as the conventional wisdom of an era.
The problem with Kazin’s account, however, is that it overlooks the institutional support that progressives do have, especially in labor unions and universities. He mentions these only in a throw-away line:
With unions embattled and on the decline, working people of all races lack a sturdy vehicle to articulate and fight for the vision of a more egalitarian society. Liberal universities, Web sites and non-governmental organizations cater mostly to a professional middle class and are more skillful at promoting social causes like legalizing same-sex marriage and protecting the environment than demanding millions of new jobs that pay a living wage.
Kazin and other progressives that groan with frustration at the failure of their movement to connect with average Americans should look more closely at why the unions are “embattled on the decline” and why their strategic heights in academia and popular culture fail to carry much effect in the battle.
I believe the reason that the left does not speak for average Americans is because they increasingly refuse to speak to average Americans. Take unions, for example. Throughout the current economic struggles, most union leaders have remained fixated on maintaining the lavish packages of pay and benefits that their current workers enjoy rather than seeking to expand employment more broadly to include more workers. No amount of anti-corporation rhetoric can alter the fundamental economic fact that per-worker costs in the United States are high and, given the omnipresent threat of new regulations pushed largely by progressive political coalitions, poised to go even higher. Since most businesses won’t be guilt-tripped into taking a potentially economically suicidal plunge into the risk of new hiring, they simply ignore the rhetorical bombast about corporate greed and refuse to hire. The unions render themselves ineffectual because what they actually work for — maintaining their own perks — doesn’t speak to the real needs of average Americans plagued by unemployment or underemployment in non-union jobs. The unions represent the already-employed, not the unemployed.
A similar problem plagues the academic and media elites who burn with frustration at the refusal of poor and middle-class Americans to flock to their banner. Caught up in their cloistered group-think environments, they don’t even understand how most Americans think about the daily struggles of work, family, and faith. The assumption that everyone who disagrees with them is evil and/or stupid operates as a shield against having to deal with “those people”, but the shield operates both ways, preventing the progressive elites from connecting politically with the objections of their cultural contempt. That is why even in cases where the progressive left has a strong case that can be made to the lower and middle classes in the United States, they struggle to even be heard — decades of condescension and abuse towards non-believers have painted progressivism as mean and elitist. The image of the foaming-at-the-mouth protester screaming vulgarities has become the dominant public face of progressivism, an image that only intensifies when one reads the daily drumbeat of content-free hatred towards Republicans and conservatives that dominates the left-leaning commentariat. Their passion is obvious (even excessive), but the bottom line is that progressive academia represents a few Mandarins with expense accounts and discretionary research travel budgets, not average Americans.
Does that mean progressives have nothing to contribute to the American political debate? I certainly hope not. Progressives have better policy ideas that conservatives in a wide range of areas, from social policy (the anti-gay crusades of the right are beyond tiresome at this point) to economic policy (unemployment is a problem that cannot be ignored any longer and the Mother of All Stimulus packages may be far better than Tea Party austerity in addressing it). The marginalization of the left and the self-immolation of the far left is not cause for celebration. The discrediting of good policy ideas allows some really bad policy ideas from the right to win by near-default, and that hurts us all.
The problem with progressivism is its narcissism. It’s unshakable belief in its own moral and intellectual superiority has inhibited its ability to speak for average Americans because it inhibits so many progressives’ willingness to even speak to them. A retreat from arrogance and a renewed commitment to real civility and real debate with a respect for real dissent could help not only progressives, but everyone they want to help as well.
25 Responses to “Why The Left Doesn’t Speak For (Or To) Average Americans”
Every Republican period of leadership has resulted in an economic malaise or outright disaster. The Republican economic “model” is no model at all, in fact it is a merely a camouflage for corporate interest bought and paid for through the lobby. Creating debt by borrowing through Fed bond auctions to pay for their reduced taxes on the wealthy and stealing from social security accounts is the Republican government funding sustenance.
Any political gains among the “average” population since the depression has occurred primarily since Reagan with the advent of corporate sponsored propaganda artists, first with AM radio, and then growing into outlets like Fox News networks.
History proves that the Republican party is Social Darwinist when it comes to the “average” American, and Corporate Welfare Coddling when it comes to the wealthy.
LOL Unions maintaining lavish pay for it’s members. I didn’t know that Wall Street is unionized. What is the percentage of union members in the US? What is the difference between assembly line pay and Wall Street hedge fund managers?
Of course CATO and Heritage are looking out for Reagan Democrats. Unless the Brothers Grimm tell them otherwise…
“Unions maintaining lavish pay for it’s members.” No Logan they are trying to preserve what made the US great – the middle class. Supply side economics was never economics but the beginning of class war fare the purpose of which was to destroy the middle class and it’s been successful. Our entire economy is now centered around gamblers on Wall Street who contribute nothing – nothing to the economy while the middle class wilts and dies.
Obviously haven’t been watching the Republican debates, have you?
This is a party whose hardcore supporters cheered for the Death Penalty, were eager to see thirty year old uninsured die, and booed a soldier serving in Iraq, I can’t imagine why anyone would think it’s full of evil, vicious nasty sobs.
BTW I have yet to see any of the candidates tell their supporters in real time that their behavior is despicable.
You could take that last paragraph, replace the word “progressive” with “conservative,” and it would be a fairly accurate criticism of the right.
The first paragraph would also be similarly accurate with a little word-swap:
“The view that Democrats and liberals are vicious, venal, and even outright evil or “treasonous” (the irony of embracing that formerly verboten word to describe dissent has apparently been lost) has reached the level of consensus in some quarters, where it is rarely challenged even in its most extreme forms of expression.”
Not long ago, conservatives used the word “treasonous” to describe criticisms of Bush that would seem downright milquetoast in comparison to some of the venom that has been directed towards Obama, the irony having been apparently lost on them as well.
As far as the idea that “the left” or “the far left” (whatever these terms mean) is arrogant or elitist or out of touch, I’d say the answer is two-fold.
On the one hand, the right has been on a more or less concerted campaign for the last few decades to portray anyone in academia or speaking in an academic vernacular as “elitist” or “snobs.” Accurate or not, it is interesting when one considers there was at one time considerable academic prowess displayed by the right. One rather long-winded fellow even had a show on PBS, if you’ll remember.
Second, I’d say it’s a fair criticism to say that “the left” or progressives have generally failed to use language effectively…instead of “Health Care Reform” we get “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” for example. Yet this is not so much arrogance as it is incompetence. Republicans have been much more effective at using language to their own ends, giving us terms like “Death Tax” and “Job Creators” that resonate with voters. Someone in their camp long ago figured they’ve got to dumb it down to connect with Joe Sixpack.
Just because “the left” is unable or perhaps unwilling to dumb down doesn’t necessarily mean they’re arrogant.
Out of this whole article, there is one vein of truth in it:
I would say this is true.
I don’t know whether it is refusal or incompetence, but this (by itself) is an accurate statement.
Other than Jon Stewart and the fractured blogosphere, who on the left is trying to speaking to the people? Frankly, no one. Not even Obama. Folks have grown tired of the flowering speeches and inability to deliver (whether his fault or the opposition’s fault, it’s irrelevant).
Other than Stewart, the Left has no one interesting or charismatic enough to attract and keep people’s attention. This is sorely needed.
This lack of strong leadership on the left (or even a cohesive and dedicated left, period) has resulted in a one-sided debate in this country. It’s the “right way” or the highway, conservatism or nothing.
This country does need more Stewarts to counter the threats of talk radio, conservative Christianity, and the Tea Party. We don’t have it, and we suffer because of it.
@Barky
Another problem is the left deals with truth and reality and the right deals with lives and fantasy which is what most people want to hear. The majority don’t want to hear about global climate change, peak oil or the end of economic growth. The fantasy of the rights message is much more attractive. It’s always been that way which is why all civilizations have collapsed.
I would believe that up to a point, but I’m reminded of the Muckraker era. They were very popular, leftward-leaning journalists who wrote about worker safety, political corruption, tainted food, equal rights and environmental issues. They had a huge following in their time and inspired much change.
The Left needs to learn how to get their message out in an appropriate charismatic manner. Probably the biggest problem with global warming is it was “kicked off” by Al Gore :yawn:, and all the other “leftward” messages get preachy instead of inspiring.
Just like Rush Limbaugh started a trend of barking-mad talk show hosts, inspiring Fox News’ barking-mad TV show hosts, the Left needs to find a format that works for them and replicate it across all media.
Personally, I think the Jon Stewart model is the right one. Using humor to make a point is incredibly effective for him (as it was for Mark Twain and other notables), the Left should figure out how to make that model work for them.
Then maybe we can have a two-sided debate instead of the “with us or against us” mode we live in now.
Conservatives EXCEL at accusing liberals of what they themselves do, and how they themselves act.
It’s their m.o.
I don’t even know what the terms Left and Right mean, and I’ve never met anyone who has been able to give me a satisfying definition of either term. “Progressives” invariably define the term progressive to paint themselves in the best possible light while defining the term conservative to paint “conservatives” in an unfavorable light. Similarly, “conservatives” invariably define the term conservative to paint themselves in the best possible light while defining the term progressive to paint “progressives” in an unfavorable light. I see little attempt by either side or even by moderates to define these terms using anything other than some arbitrary criteria devised according to their own subjective biases.
I think it is incredibly difficult to effectively criticize or defend the Left without defining who it is we are talking about.
A couple of commenters above argued that one of the basic differences between the Left and the Right is that the former deals with reality while the lattern deals with fantasy. I suppose that this is true in certain cases–particularly those cases in which we are comparing liberals/progressives who argue in favor of a particular policy based upon utilitarian grounds versus religious conservatives who might be more inclined to argue in favor of a particular policy based upon moral grounds.
However, more and more, I encounter situations in which liberals/progressives have abandoned arguments based upon utilitarian grounds in favor of argument based upon moral grounds. The program with this latter approach, however, is that everyone has their own definition of what is “moral”, and one’s own definition of what is “moral” often relies upon an set of arbitary criteria based upon one’s own subjective biases. I find this “left-wing” brand or moralism to be as thoroughly unconvincing (and off-putting) as “right-wing” moralism.
I find “moralist” arguments to be unconvincing and off-putting because the primary purpose of such arguments generally seems to be to paint one’s opponent as immoral–not on account of his/her actions but on account of what he/she believes. The argument that one’s opponent is immoral simply because of what he/she believes has the effect of dehumanizing that individual. And I consider that to be inconsistent with civilized, rational discourse.
We left rational, civilized discourse behind us about 35, 40 years ago and it ain’t coming back.
What we have now is a bare knuckle fight between the top .5% and their stooges and everyone else.
Last year the Forbes 400 had a net worth that was greater than that of the bottom 150 million Americans, they & their cronies have that money and they intend to keep it and if to do so, they have to destroy the Constitution, the US and roll back the entire twentieth century, that’s exactly what they will attempt to do.
Politics is about who gets what, that’s what it’s always been about and that’s what it will always be about.
Right now their goals are really simple: destroy the last few standing Unions and go after the big pile of cash that is Social Security & Government Pensions(Can’t go after private pensions, they have either been raided, destroyed or just don’t exist anymore).
Quelcrist Falconer said:
Point of clarification: Who is we?
People are individuals. They have the ability to make their own choices and are responsible for their own individual actions.
The fact that some people have chosen to abandon rational, civilized discourse does not mean that I have to abandon rational, civilized discourse, nor does it mean that you or anyone else at TMV has to choose to abandon rational, civilized discourse.
People who abandon rational, civilized discourse are not being forced to do so. Rather, they are doing so because they choose to do so.
To the best of my ability, I am going to continue to debate in a rational and civilized manner. And should I fail to live up to my own expectations, I’m not going to blame my failure on others.
Righties like Logan are better at marketing and manipulation. Been saying this for months.
No,Quelcrist Falconer, it’s not “and the rest of us”, it’s a bare-knuckle fight between members of the top 5%…and members of the top 5%, the only difference between them being which form of dehumanizing, demographic segregation they prefer to impose on the rest of us, usually with the excuse of “Doing it to you for your own good” in some form or another.
The left has shown much negligence in being true to it’s roots and it’s also been negligent in making a clearer and stronger message about the issues it has more cognizance and concern about than does today’s version of the right. If the truth of issues and advocacy were to be laid on the table instead of being allowed to drown in the murk of todays misinformation (and disinformation), then I think the citizenry would gain a better grasp of just who was attempting to help the country and who was driving it to an early grave. Hint to Jason: The R’s aren’t how you seem to think they are.
Neither “the Left” (yes, I’m using that term broadly) nor “the Right” can speak for the public, although I think they’re doing a lovely job of speaking to, or at least at, the rest of us.
The real root problem for both of them is that we’re coming to end or our glory years, when we could fund both warfare and welfare in ever-growing amounts, using flowery speeches or indirect accusations to keep people from getting too concerned with the long term consequences.
Now that we’re obviously overloaded, no one wants their sacred cows touched. Sorry, but it a lie all along. The military must cut back, the “safety net” has to be re-thought (is it too much to ask for a little honesty and long-term thinking this time?), and regulations have to re-made to serve the population instead of those that they’re supposed to regulate.
In the real world, we have a real deficit, a real long-term downturn, a truly unstable financial sector, and a truly unsustainable Social Security system (which includes Medicare/Medicaid). Ignoring reality only makes it far worse later on.
Disappointed? Than get off your progressive apathetic asses and get in the fight! Some important things were done, some failed to get accomplished but a lot was attempted! You did nothing to stop the conservative Republicans and tea party baggers from gaining control of the house! Did you think the struggle was over. You could just lay back and watch reality TV. You let the 80?s and 90?s slip right by while the right wing was reorganizing! Big deal you got a black man elected president. Is that’s it? Your generational accomplishment! Now its right wing conservatism, racism, and corporate back lash and your not organized. You want a leader BE ONE get in the jobs fight or what about the 3-4 wars over the last couple of decades, the crushing attacks on collective bargaining since Reagan, the murder of women’s rights activists, the consolidation of wealth and dogma, how about that execution was that justice, those debate death cheers, the gay bashing of a soldier. Is that your idea of a progressive America? Your not in Kansas anymore citizens and clicking your heels won’t change a thing! Get out in the streets! If Republicans, Tea bangers, and there corporate allies get in the Oval office we might as well just move to the streets, There will be nothing but Corporate domination and right wing christian dogma! Don’t Mourn Organize, Win Big in 2012. ? fah451bks
Prof…..WAIT!
We can’t cut the military yet…we still have Pakistan to invade!
What are you trying to do, short change our soldiers and sailors?
Get a grip, we can more bonds, or Hawaii or something. Maybe the Russians are interested in buying back Alasker. We can throw in Palin as an enticer.
“Get a grip, we can [sell] more bonds, or Hawaii or something.”
DC has some impressive monuments. It might go a pretty penny.
As recent polls are out and available for all to see:
The right has completely ignored the wishes of average Americans since they took over the lower chamber of congress and it seems a bit cheeky for someone on the right to imply (scream?) that the Left doesn’t speak for (or to) average Americans.
It’s akin to blaming the Obama Administration for Primatene® Mists exit from the marketplace when with just minimal research it’s obvious that neither is the case.
Steve, I think your use of the word, “cheeky” is kind and gentle.
It should be clear by now that social security is considered by most people (after most of a century) as American as apple pie. Politicians will Perry around with it at their peril.
“The view that Republicans and conservatives are vicious, venal, and even outright evil or “treasonous””
I know you love the hyperbole, but “greedy, short-sighted, and dishonest” would have sufficed.
“You could take that last paragraph, replace the word “progressive” with “conservative,” and it would be a fairly accurate criticism of the right.”
Of course this is true. In the end, the two parties are mirror images of each other, each using the other side’s antics as for cover for their own partisanship. In the end neither side cares for the independent and swing voters, just about their side, who’s righteousness is beyond question, defeating the “bad guys”.
Logan’s comments are on the money. But, in the end, the only novel thing is that they talked about the failings of the Liberals in a blog that concentrates on the failing of Conservatives. And the take home lesson we all should get is that what we need is to break out of a system that leaves only these two parties as our choices.
The crimes of the liberals are crimes of negligence – not being true to their roots, whereas the crimes of the “conservatives” (an increasingly laughable misnomer) are crimes of active and willful fail. The parties are most certainly not “mirror images”. That said, we need to break out of a system that no longer seems to work, and I agree with you that IRV would be a great step in that direction (one we will probably never see take place).
@JSpencer
Maybe in the past, but today the biggest crime is neglecting the math and accepting long-term consequences. Every liberal program (and conservative ones also, but we’re talking about the liberals at this time) has grown far beyond its projections, and while the conservative cry to kill them may not be the best answer, the liberal cry for ever more is leading us to disaster.
Well, I don’t know if we will see it (or some other suitable reform, instant-runoff voting is not the only possibility, no matter my own preference). OTOH, we definitely won’t if we all assume it to be impossible. And, in the, I have found that partisanship has degraded politics, that working to do something out it is really the only worthwhile target for one’s time. Otherwise you are wasting your time on an endless partisan war that has not end.
After all, even is you (for example) liked the Democrats more than the Republicans, do you think there is ever going to be a time that the conservatives just go away? And if they did, is there any chance the Democrats wouldn’t just use the lack of competition to become worse?