Left, Right and Forward

by Zvi Baranoff

Looking both left and right before crossing the street is good practice, but perceiving the political landscape in terms of "Left" and "Right" misses the nuances that may be useful for moving forward. Ideology only holds so much water. Collective action from a principled perspective can bridge ideological self-definition. Attachments to the "isms" is focusing on the schisms and misses the possibilities of finding common ground.

A Sofa Party is a political party where all the members fit on a sofa. In a Sofa Party it is fairly easy for everyone to agree. There are always differences of opinion once you get beyond the limitations of a sofa.

All political parties are perpetually shifting coalitions. If we look at the two (currently) main American political parties the shifting sands of political reality clearly show that ideology for them is quite dispensable. The coalitions are built around the possibility of hobbling together a short term political win and not based on fundamental social analysis nor long term social planning. The ("progressive") Republican Party of Lincoln brought an end to slavery although it took a protracted and destructive civil war that increased the centralized power of the executive branch. The Republicans grew into the party that represented the interests of business while the Democratic Party painted itself more so as the party of the working class.

Roosevelt's "Progressive and Working Class" Democratic Party was a coalition that included the racist, all white Southern Democrats of the Jim Crow era, Northern liberals, union activists, leftists and other fellow travellers. This coalition largely held together until Lyndon Johnson. Segregationists (Democrats like George Wallace and Lestor Madox) left over issues of integration, becoming Republicans and the liberal/left wing was frayed over the Vietnam War. After Chicago Democrat Mayor Daly's Police Riot at the Democratic Convention many on the "Left" simply did not feel real at home with the Democratic Party. Of course, the Communists and their allies had already been thrown under the bus during the House Un-American Activities hearings (the McCarthy Era).

The big questions that our nation have faced are not so simply divided into terms of Left or Right or Democrat or Republican. Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Integration, War and Peace, Prohibition, Birth Control, Censorship, Global Warming, Gay Rights...these are matters that call for broad social agreements yet involved deep social fissures. The coalitions that are built around such issues are complex. One party or another may come to power over such issues but no party can stay in power simply on the basis of positioning on a social issue.

The politics and ramifications of Alcohol Prohibition exemplifies the point. Many felt it was a "progressive" next step in social development along with women obtained the vote. Thirteen years later most progressives were firmly lined up for repeal. Staying out of foreign wars is a reasonably "progressive" position but a unified front against fascism was adapted by most of the American Left during WW II with the exception of committed pacifists. A "progressive" working class position is pro union yet historically many unions have developed nativist, xenophobic positions that exclude wide segments of the working class. A notable exception is the organizing efforts of the internationalist IWW (Wobblies) but they were marginalized within the labor movement. The "Environment" and "Progress"  also have the great potential to both unify or divide. Large scale projects like rural electrification may have seemed "progressive" at the time but in retrospect raise serious ecological concerns. Conservation of public lands likewise may seemingly serve the interests of one class or another, depending on the era and one's perspective. Ideology alone does not easily address any of these issues.

The "Progressive" Democratic Party took us into Vietnam. Democrats and Republicans kept the War going. Active opposition in the streets and a growing disillusionment throughout the general population as well as the committed military resistance of Vietnamese Nationalists coalesced to the point of the American withdrawal and the fall of the US backed Saigon regime. Now Vietnam is an economic trading partner.

Nixon declared a War on Drugs but it took decades to build a widespread anti-war sentiment. Many so-called "Progressives" were Drug War Hawks until recently, including such notables as Jesse Jackson.  A seismic shift has taken place and the calls for more enforcement and more punishment have all but disappeared. The coalitions built around drug reform and marijuana legalization reached way beyond the limits of ideological positioning and Party Lines. Some "Progressives" are still mouthing Prohibitionist positions and resisting Cannabis Legalization.

The German Green Party formed based on principles rather than ideology. They coined the slogan Neither Left nor Right but Forward. This is a useful way of approaching broad social issues because it allows us to get beyond our ideological perspectives and reach out to folks that self-define from ideological perspectives other than our own.

The best hope for moving forward on any broad social issues is when the ideological divisions break down and folks speak one to one beyond their limiting worldviews. Meeting with individuals or groups regardless of significant disagreement is the way to move resolutions forward.

Nixon met with Mao. Arafat met with Sharon. Dan Quale spoke at a Negro College Fund event. That did not mean that Nixon embraced Marxism any more than Arafat had become a Zionist and Quale did not become an Afro-American. Seeking common ground with Libertarians does not make one a crypto-capitalist any more than listening to Wagner or reading Ezra Pound means that one is a fascist sympathizer. The world is far more nuanced than that.

Folks that self-define by one political ideology or another do so because they find some common understanding but most people see, at least to some extent, beyond the "Party Line". Some Libertarians are quick to label everything "socialist" as Stalinism and many on the left are quick to write all Libertarians off as corporate stooges. Both elements fail to grasp the subtleties involved. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for the development of a working class fusion that brings together individual liberty and common social responsibility into a largely voluntary cooperative culture and economy.

The terms left and right and liberal and conservative and progressive and reactionary are all shorthand that shortchange our hopes of discovering common ground. Ultimately we need to turn from such a self limiting analytical perspective to seek out what is true, effective and useful rather than what fits into our ideological molds. When we can stretch our world view, we can begin to see what can be. What is ahead of us is forward and not in the rear view mirror and surely not Left or Right. We must press for principle based solutions. As such, individuals that agree on specific policies, without consideration of ideology and political alignment, can find common ground and ways to work together. In States that have Initiative or Referendum processes, very broad coalitions can work together to bring about some very significant changes to social policy.

In no way, however, do I imply that a common political front can be formed with fascists or those with fascistic tendencies. There has been some unfortunate overlap of nihilistic perspectives and attempts to bridge the gap of the political fringes. There is a nebulous theory that with enough social chaos a popular uprising will lead to some sort of magical remaking of the social contract. The corollary is that anyone in stated opposition to corporations and the State are allies.  This sort of “thinking” leads to a dangerous path with no hope of any sort of positive outcome.

The most radical sounding positions and platforms are often distractions from bringing about the truly fundamental political and social shifts that are needed. They serve as a way to spin off support from the broader movement. To bring about a seismic shift in how American people understand and interact with the political process we need to be able to communicate transformative ideas in a way that connects with how they already understand their world. On the whole, Americans are not ideological.

Where a conservative argument can be presented for a practical solution, as in the harm reduction and economic consideration for drug policy reform, this is the optimal way of building a broad and effective coalition. Worth noting is that in the 2016 general election in Florida, Medical Marijuana garnered over 60% of the vote. In the same election neither of the two major party candidates cleared the 50% point and Trump edged out Clinton by a mere 1%. Clearly a fair number of conservatives voted yes on this issue.

We need to promote a transitional, postindustrial, environmentally aware and justice centered agenda through all the mechanisms available, including the electoral process, and that sort of platform transcends the traditional definitions of liberal and conservative and call for a whole new paradigm. All coalitions are temporary, relatively short-term relationships. The nature of the American electoral process deems necessary entering into an extended coalition relationship within one of the major political parties to be able to exert influence on policy decisions. At this time the only viable coalition open to this sort of analysis is within the Democratic Party. This is certainly true for at least the next two election cycles. In 2020 we will have the opportunity to put theory into practice, if we are part of the governing coalition. That is where the rubber hits the road.