> > Sometimes it's real tempting to take the H.L. Mencken route and give
> > up taking American politics seriously and just treat it as a circus. ...
> > What a nuthouse.
>
> [One of the more lunatic aspects of U.S. politics today is the way the right
> seems better positioned to take advantage of the growing polarization of
> wealth than the left. The following is from the current New York Press.]
This is a very, very strange article. Let me quote 2 paragraphs:
> Curiously, while inequality has increased, the left has made great advances
> in the cultural realm. You cannot turn on the television now without seeing
> prime-time programs, geared at teens and preteens, drenched in sexual
> innuendo. The ruling establishment of neither party dares to challenge
> bilingual education or racial quotas. Denigration of the dead white male
> figures of American history is standard classroom fare.
>
> The two developments are linked, the result of an informal ruling class
> arrangement: The left-wing multicultural elites won't challenge the hegemony
> of the rich; business leaders embrace "diversity" with all its negative
> implications for traditional American mores. Both parties receive their
> funding from different wings of the same establishment.
As to the first paragraph, let me quote from Charlie Bertsch's assessment of Rush Limbaugh's 'See, I told you so' (IGS newsletter #6): "In Gramscian terms, Rush is claiming that the liberal left is the "dominant fundamental group" in the sphere of civil society, where the masses are not militarily or legally coerced, but convinced to give their "spontaneous" consent to the "general direction imposed on social life" by that dominant group..."
(Rush argues that 'the left' in the US has learnt from Gramsci and won cultural hegemony)
My simple response to this is 'I wish it were so'.
And unfortunately my misgivings are born out by the second paragraph. We are presented a picture of 'left-wing multicultural elites' having sold out to the ruling class.
While there are some (small) elements of truth in this portrayal, I think what is more important is the way this picture of the situation leaves out the way the 'left' was resoundingly defeated (through the defeat of both the 1960s inspired social movements, and working class struggle). It is of course much more advantagous for the right-wing 'back to basics' agenda to portray the 'left' as fundamentally undefeated and playing an active part in 'the establishment'.
Peter P.S. this is not to say that there isn't a whole section of 'leftists' who now bolster the establishment (e.g. Susan Sonntag, Jurgen Habermas). But, as many people have pointed out, the truth of the matter is that 'left'ness resides in the movement of popular struggles - not in the movement of intellectual superstars. P.P.S. the above doesn't mean that I consider 'left' intellectuals meaningless in comparison to 'the mass', of course. -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available 'the ruthless criticism of everything existing' - Karl Marx 'Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will' - Antonio Gramsci