> The question is attitudes towards authority.
> Parental authority may be weaker, but the
> concept of a democratic, tolerant, competent
> means of collective action is in pretty bad
> shape. You have fear and loathing of the idea
> of government -- not just the practice --
> by militia types and minorities. There is
> cynicism as to the potential of collective
> action; there is the atomization of the public
> sphere implied by growth in decentralization.
> This all makes for conservative culture where
> it counts -- in public policy. The army of
> bare ass on television doesn't matter.
>
And goes on to say later that:
> But the basic problem I would say is promoting
> progressive ideas in an aversive environment.
> The post-reconstruction South was pretty aversive.
> Anything that traveled well there demands
> closer scrutiny.
>
And David raises a very reasonable skepticism as follows:
> it often seems that the most substantial victory gained by women and
> gays was to be recognized as a consumerist demographic. Certain
> aspects of United States were turned upside down, but the notion of
> individuals as mere consumers remained the same. Also, being the
> beneficiaries of such achievements doesn't necessarily make you
> political conscious.
>
In my initial response to the Fallwell statement I pointed out that this basically favorable cultural advance happened with near total absence of any coherent policy initiatives from the left, apart from the rather minimal emphasis on the "rights" of women and gays. Nothing beyond that. Nothing to link gay and women's issues programmatically. Nothing that would pose an alternative family policy. Nothing that would go on to lay out an alternative and democratic social welfare policy, something inherently linked with issues of gender, family policy, and, more broadly, the politics of civil society, if that is understood as a question of how the individual links to the society in general.
What amazes me is how much has been gained with no leadership from the left, despite the caveats Max and David very rightly raise. Look at the Clinton imbroglio and its politics. This was a great progressive victory, even though no progressives had much to do with it. Think how much more we could achieve if we took an active, thought-out rôle, by formulating what I like to call a democratic gender politics.
I am confident that if we did we could create a situation in a few years, in which the religious right would have to take positions that would discredit it among broader and broader groups of the population, and would come, more and more, to be seen as the enemy of conventionally enlightened and democratically minded people. This could address the political isolation of the left and the discredit of democratic politics that Max mentions.
This would be a very substantial democratic advance, inasmuch as the religious right constitutes the storm troops of the Republican party, and -- for the moment -- exercises veto power over social policy. Creating a democratic gender politics would be well within the resources of the broad left, even at this moment. Initially, it would consist mostly of coordinating and unifying already existing political forces which work for abortion rights, bans on discrimination against gays, gay marriage, abolition of the legal concept of illegitimacy of children, etc.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema