MLP: How Divided Are We?

4 Comments

1. 

   Cicero on February 18, 2006 at 11:13 pm

   I’ve been puzzling over the disconnect between labor and progressives in Philly, because in my own tiny little mind support for labor is a core progressive value.  But there’s a great paragraph in the linked article that sums it up nicely:

   Interest groups preoccupied with material concerns can readily find ways to arrive at compromise solutions to their differences; interest groups divided by issues of rights or morality find compromise very difficult. The positions taken by many of these groups and their supporters, often operating within the two political parties, profoundly affect the selection of candidates for office. In brief, it is hard to imagine someone opposed to abortion receiving the Democratic nomination for President, or someone in favor of it receiving the Republican nomination.

   • 

     CookTing on February 20, 2006 at 1:59 pm

     Glad you enjoyed the article. Leaving aside the fact that the term “progressive” is kind of amorphous and ambiguous, I’d like to point out that Labour, as an issue, is an odd one. It’s often, at best, orthagonal to other progressive causes, such as environmental protection. Often, labour groups will find more sympathy in conservative and nationalistic circles when they take on a defensive, protectionist approach. And, in the extreme, they will fight to protect their industry even when it conflicts with every other progressive value.

     That being said, Labour has been the home and incubator for some of the best gains that have been made by “progressives”, whether this has been in the struggle for equality, health and safety protection, or putting communities before shareholders.

     Labour is notoriously constrained by the legislation that grants it the “privilege” to organize (at least here in Canada, idunno so much about in the US); and I’m not convinced that the current Labour movement has a really well defined set of values / mores.  This contrast between priniciples and practicals that you highlight in your quote has been on my mind a lot lately.  Fortunately, I’ve met a significant number of people in the Labour Movement who are truly “progressive”, and do their best to find the common ground, on discreet, actionable issues, between Labour interests and other progressive movements.

     But, the ambiguity and tension I’m describing is, in my own opinion, oine of the biggest factors that has weakened the Labour movement in the past two decades.

2. 

   spiderleaf on February 19, 2006 at 11:10 am

   Such a condition is revealed when a candidate for public office is regarded by a competitor and his supporters not simply as wrong but as corrupt or wicked; when one way of thinking about the world is assumed to be morally superior to any other way; when one set of political beliefs is considered to be entirely correct and a rival set wholly wrong. In extreme form, as defined by Richard Hofstadter in The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), polarization can entail the belief that the other side is in thrall to a secret conspiracy that is using devious means to obtain control over society.

   Well, what if they really are? Is it wrong or polarizing to point out the obvious? Would the opposition in Germany in the 30’s be considered polarizing for pointing out the obvious about fascism and it’s evils?

   DeLay, Abramoff, et al are corrupt.

   Halliburton, Brown & Root, Enron, etc. were/ are involved in conspiracies to defraud the public and enrich their pockets (at a minimum)

   The neocons are involved in a conspiracy to take over society using devious means [vote fraud, media control, NCLB act, datamining, NSA spying, and so on and so on] (but I guess it ain’t so secret so that’s something)

   The policy of war in Iraq and torture is wholly wrong

   I can see how in the abstract that would be considered a polarizing view, but in reality it’s the truth… so do we just shut up about it or what? Do we try to appease those who don’t see what’s really right in front of them and are instead scared of the “other” or willing to trust their corporate masters by pushing forth “centrist” candidates and giving up on the fight by not vocalising it every chance they get?

   I dunno, in this instance I see ‘polarization’ as a saving grace… at least some of us on the left truly get what’s been going on in the extreme right.

3. 

   tampopo on February 20, 2006 at 10:59 am

   That was a very interesting read – thanks.