I know...I’ve written about this topic before. Probably more than even I know. However, when I’ve written about it before, it was in the context of the two major parties and why it is expedient for them to conflate ‘the left’ with ‘Democrats/liberals’. Just to give a short summary of the main reasons, I argue that;
for conservatives, they get to call Democrats socialist', ‘communist’ or other terms that are properly tied to ‘the left’ in order to take advantage of the 'red scare’ narrative that runs rampant in conservative circles.
for Democrats, they get to claim all of the leftist policies they pretend to represent in order to make liberals and left leaning people believe that Democrat politicians already hold and will fight for these values, making it totally unnecessary to vote for any actual leftist/leftist party.
Both are designed to keep voters within the two party duopoly, where supposedly the entirety of the left/right argument is thoroughly covered within that duopoly. The same type of strategy is used to conflate ALL conservatives with the ‘far right’, though like the supposed left/actual left, conservatives come in many flavors, representing a wide ranging mix of values from person to person.
But I digress. I am writing this particular piece because I’ve heard people who self-identify as leftists/Marxists claim that it makes very little difference whether ‘left’ means Democrats or leftists. The reason given? One group has the power to enact leftist policies but will not, while the other actually believes in those policies but has no power to enact them. While the statement is true on its face, I am not convinced by this argument.
If we allow that it makes no difference, then it makes no difference in any case. The short argument is that leftists have no power; therefore, it doesn’t matter if their agency is stolen or if the left is persuaded by this argument to give it away. It gives the impression that this will never change, and if this narrative is indeed ignored or worse embraced by the left, it never will change.
What happens if the left lets this go with no complaint? It gives the Democrats free range to claim solidarity with leftist activists who do the work of trying to inform the public about the problems of the system while refusing to use the power they have within that system to make the changes they claim to want. It gives them our permission to use the time and work leftists expend to bolster their own reputations without actually doing anything. It gives the voting populace the impression that the Democrats’ claims of being leftists are true, while those same Democrats do nothing to deliver on the promises they make based on ideas from the left. It makes the actual leftists’ struggles, their passion, their work, and their integrity worth less than nothing. It gives liberals more incentive and less trouble appropriating the ideas, values, and language of the left in order to make damn sure those things never see the light of day. Case in point; the Democrats’ appropriation of the Green New Deal conceived of by the Green Party (hence the name; contrary to what the liberals put forth, this was more than ecological in nature) as early as 2006 in Europe and 2010 in the US. And that is just one instance in recent memory of the major parties appropriating third party ideas. There are many more. Women’s right to vote, child labor laws, a progressive tax system, immigration reform, and shorter working hours were all first promoted by third parties. When those ideas interest enough people to possibly make a difference to the power of the major parties, they simply claim them as their own, water them down, and/or abandon them and let them languish as “untenable” even when their party holds the presidency and majorities in Congress.
Allowing liberals to capitalize on the marginalization of the left makes it less important to assure ballot access is available to those outside the major parties. It makes it less important to ensure that people with ideas outside the major parties are allowed a platform to debate those parties. It makes it less important to even listen to anyone outside the major parties. It makes it less important to stop the steady erosion of the rights granted to the people in the First Amendment to instead perpetuate the lesser evil 'strategy' that has never worked;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Freedom of speech? Free speech zones have been implemented and upheld by the US Supreme Court, appointed by the major parties. Freedom of the press? The press, in all its forms, is owned by the financiers of the major parties. The right of the people to assemble? Witness the arrests and physical abuse of people doing just that time after time after time after time. Do we really need more evidence that someone needs to stop this? Do you suppose that those who commit and approve of these acts will actually be the ones to change these policies?
Policies implemented by Democrats/Liberal include; The Telecommunications Act of 1996 which is directly responsible for giving rise to outlets such as Fox News and allowing the gobbling up of news organizations by the corporate class. NDAA 2012 which allows for the arrest of American citizens without charge or even evidence that must be shown. The ACA (commonly known as ObamaCare) which did not have universal health care nor the promised “public option”, although Democrats held a majority in Congress and could have enacted whatever program they chose. (Contrary to the narrative of liberals, the ACA was passed by Democrats alone; not a single Republican senator voted for it, so any “concessions” made were concessions to other Democrats). The escalation of the Vietnam War, which cost 58,220 American lives. The bombing of seven countries costing countless lives by drone with no declaration of war. The list goes on; this is but a small sampling of the policies Democrats enacted. Leftists, by contrast, did not support and actively fought against all of these policies.
Leftists do not want to be associated with, much less conflated with, any Democrats. Their ideals are not our ideals. Their warmongering is antithetic to being a leftist. Their economic policies are the complete opposite of what leftists support. Their stance on health care is nowhere near ours. Their views on policing are far from ours. In short, they do not deserve to benefit from our policies that in action they oppose.
Liberals do not need us to help them by allowing the conflagration between Democrats/liberals and leftists without a fight. It saves the duopoly the trouble of marginalizing leftists because we would be marginalizing ourselves. It means that leftists may as well not be leftists and join with the Democrats. A distinction without a difference? I think the evidence proves otherwise.
Comments