> .... I often think the reason for the left's contemporary distance from the Democrats has to do with precisely this factor: its distance from working class life and the everyday concerns faced by working people, especially those with young children. Nathan Newman's post below is a vivid reminder of this.
> How many people on this list, for example, many of them aging professionals - myself included - have an immediate need for government support for pre-school education, children's health care, a ban on compulsory overtime, leave to recover from household violence, unsafe day labour, union lockout rights and wage rates, etc. Some do, but most don't.
> It's easy to understand why politically-conscious working people would turn to pro-capitalist liberal parties which promise these reforms as the only means of improving their condition. But these issues don't resonate for the great majority of left intellectuals or their neighbours, which is why they are more easily able to take their distance from the Democrats. .... to working people, who have deeper material interests at stake, where even the modest reforms proposed by the Democrats can make a significant difference in their everyday working and living conditions.
> I think we have be more conscious of the changed class composition of the socialist left when we hear voices within it so confidently counselling the working class that it is wholly irrelevant whether they are governed by Tweedledum or Tweedledee. .... meanwhile workers need more than dreams and exhortations from well-intentioned intellectuals outside their communities to sustain themselves. I don't think this is true of most on the left, but it is true of a large enough part of it that it needs to be bluntly addressed in this fashion.
I'll apply this to contemporary feminism, which today is identified with the feminism(s) espoused by women working in the academy, not working class women, working women, women not in the elite professions (medicine, law, corporate life, those making a living writing or with their art). Academic feminism, or feminisms, abandoned and then belittled the agenda of second wave or "liberal" feminism years ago: drive for equal rights in the workplace, child care, equal pay for equal work, equity in laws covering both males and females, raising the minimum wage, family friendly work policies, enforcement of child support, protection from and prosecution of domestic violence, &c. When what is presented as "feminism" in the mainstream is offered to many women, of course they deny being feminists, but they do support the individual issues. Academic feminists and writers like Naomi Wolf (I'm not picking on just her, her name just popped into mind), who set the national "feminist" agenda live lives so far removed from the rest of us they might as well be on Mars. Likewise women in the upper middle to upper classes live lives far removed from the vast majority of women and don't suffer the consequences of lack of childcare, poor pay, lack of respect on the job, they will never face hunger or homelessness, &c -- all the same things leftists (as described above) don't identify with, but these issues cut to the heart of the difficulty of living day by day when you're not in the top 10% or so of the population. Why become politically active when nobody cares about these issues? Why even be a "feminist?" "Feminism" spouted by sheltered, spoiled women condescends to the rest of us.
This is why, although I can't wait to stop being a nurse, I identify so strongly with nurses. Nurses aren't elitist and speak from no privileged position of power, not even in the health care system. Nurses are Everywoman and by their lives give damaging critique to academic feminism's failure to deal with reality. We are working class to middle class, low on the status ranking with medicine, politics, and law, but #1 in public trust. You should listen to nurses talk -- no matter how conservative, nearly every one I have ever known endorses the "leftist" feminist agenda I outlined above, but are untapped as source of potential political power. Many nurses support their families -- partner is laid off or makes less money than she, her job gives health benefits for the family; they are single parents, struggling to raise kids alone while working shift work; they can't afford health insurance themselves if they work per diem or agency for the extra money to feed their kids; indignation and outrage daily at the vast number of sick and uninsured .... This describes many working women today, barely scraping by. The Dems don't speak this language, don't address their needs. The Repugs superficially speak this language, just enough to swing elections, and hook people who don't or can't think beneath the sound bite, then don't follow through, of course. I blame the Dems, the left, for abandoning the working person and losing their votes and allegiance.
After the last election, I'm not voting Democratic again unless there's a particular candidate who actually endorses positions I believe in. I may never vote again. Screw them.
Grace BTW, in regards to the thread topic, I still think Chicago is one of the great cities and I'm homesick as hell for it (anything's better than CT, right?). Years ago Molly Ivins compared/contrasted political cronyism and corruption between Texas and Chicago and Springfield, and they came out about even in every category, including outrageousness. I grew up in Texas so thought her comparison was apt :) Desire is half of life; indifference is half of death.
-- Kahlil Gibran
"Try to put your happiness before anyone else's, because you may never have done so in your entire life, if you really think about it, if you are really honest with yourself." -- Margaret Cho -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5893 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20060213/0ce5e624/attachment.bin>