So if people join movements not because of ideology, but personal relationships, then it is all the more important for "leaders" to ensure that the ideology decreases oppression instead of increasing it or sweeping it under the rug.
One way to do that is to make sure that ideology is made a matter of public inspection and debate. What the US government is attempting to do is mask the underlying ideology of its moves through jingoism and claims that we all need to trust them and not demand an inspection of facts or procedures.
But sometimes leaders on the left make the same demands. Trust me, I've read Marx. Trust me, I am older and wiser. Trust me, we don't have time for input. And the often-unstated, trust me, I'm a straight White guy, and the left was doing fine until all these "special interest" groups began whining about victim status.
So while we agree on how people join the left, I think we may disagree on the issue of gatekeeping. On some broad scale there has to be some ideological core to being on the left. Not just one, but many. And I think that is precisely what needs to be debated right now if we are going to build a positive program.
What does it mean to be a leftist in the face of corporate globalization, US militarism, systemic oppression, political repression, and murderous terrorism? What distinguishes our opposition from the Buchananites and the libertarians?
How do we craft a set of ideologies that can also unite under a set of basic and sparse principles of unity that will allow a broad coalition that can recruit more people and not just speak to ourselves?
Because right now most people in this country think we are traitors who are apologists for ghastly terrorism.
-Chip Berlet