Is There a Left Left?

“The term ‘the American left’ is as near to being meaningless or nonsensical as any term could be in politics.” -- Christopher Hitchens, Salon, Oct. 29

Granted, Christopher Hitchens has a tendency to be a wee bit, oh, inflammatory. (This is, after all, the man who wrote a book attacking Mother Teresa.) But still, when a dissident ex-Trotskyite starts saying that the left is kaput, you prick up your ears. It’s hardly a secret that the last year hasn’t been kind to political southpaws. Faced with a White House stocked with right-wing zealots and an electorate whose support for their platform is a lot wider than it is deep, the left has not galvanized, but splintered even further, split between timid critics, content to nibble at the edges of the status quo, and smug, insular pseudo-radicals who see the WTC attacks as the opportunity for the world’s greatest “I told you so,” thereby severing themselves from everyone who didn’t agree with them in the first place. The tragic death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone -- whose progressive, nonpartisan politics are enthusiastically laid in The Conscience of a Liberal (University of Minnesota Press) -- was all the sadder for the way it underlined how few politicians are qualified to fill his shoes. (Among other things, Wellstone was the only senator up for re-election to vote against the catastrophic Welfare Reform Act in 1996, and the only senator up for re-election to vote against “regime change” in Iraq this year.)

So, where did the left go? And more importantly, where can it go? There's been much hand-wringing on the subject, particularly in the days since Wellstone's death. Even with Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale running again, things ain't what they used to be. How it slipped away is the subject of many of the essays in Appeal to Reason, a voluminous collection which marks the 25th anniversary of In These Times, the veteran pinko newsmagazine. Without the mainstream acceptance of The New Republic or The Nation (which Hitchens recently quit after becoming disgusted with his readership), In These Times has blazed a trail for the few to find, championing what the collection's editor, Craig Aaron, calls "honest (but not objective) journalism." Of course, by mainstream standards, the term is oxymoronic, but then it's doubtful any of In These Times' readers get their news from only one source.

Sprinkled with excerpts culled from the publication's quarter-century -- including one which, in all-too-familiar language, laments the lack of real differences between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter -- Appeal to Reason devotes itself mainly to new, if largely backwards-looking, essays, on topics ranging from globalism to gay liberation, each entry cataloguing a particular aspect of "the movement." Barbara Ehrenreich, for example, examines how "class polarization" has eaten away at the potential for a widespread feminist movement, while Salim Muwakkil notes how the skyrocketing incarceration of men of color, combined with disenfranchisement laws that bar convicted felons from voting, could have serious, far-reaching effects on the voting pool.

Unfortunately, too many of Appeal to Reasons' authors get stuck in reverse, turning their attention to the future only at the last minute. While noting the presence of the energized "battle in Seattle" activists and the anti-globalization movement, there are few suggestions as to how to build their confrontational, media-savvy protests into a greater movement. Perhaps the most astute bit of observation comes from Chris Lehmann, who dissects the morphing of political conflicts into cultural ones (why, for example, we end up arguing about Steve Earle rather than war on Iraq). But knowing that we're on the wrong track doesn't make the next step any clearer.

Derrick Bell never mentions the left in Ethical Ambition, but as one who's devoted his life to social change and often paid the price for it -- most famously losing his job at Harvard after protesting its failure to hire professors of color -- Bell knows the struggle all too well. The brief philosophical monograph seeks to invert the conventional wisdom that sticking to your guns means sacrificing ambition, even ennobling failure. Each time he left a job in protest, Bell points out, he found a better job, if not higher paying, at least more satisfying to the soul. Underlying this is the notion that a life of activism need not be a life of deprivation. Bell's holistic conception points the way to a life well and fully lived, one whose definition of success extends far beyond career. (Bell labels "unethical" those periods of his life when he allowed work to impair his time with his family.) There's something inherently arrogant about such books, and Bell doesn't shy away from presenting himself as an example, but then he seems like the kind of person you would go to for advice, if only you knew him. If the idea that the benefits of taking a stand outweigh the costs isn't a specific prescription for the future, it's a hell of a guideline.

Derrick Bell reads Thu., Nov. 7, 8 p.m., $12, Free Library of Philadelphia, 19th and Vine sts., 215-686-5322. Craig Aaron and Joel Bleifuss, managing editor and editor/publisher of In These Times, will discuss the book Sun., Nov. 10, 2 p.m., Robin’s Bookstore, 108 S. 13th St., 215-735-9600.

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List




	search citypaper.net