[lbo-talk] more on who the TPers are

Chip Berlet c.berlet at publiceye.org
Mon Mar 15 13:21:32 PDT 2010


Hi,

I agree with Sean Andrews. No experienced left organizer would target right-wing leaders or consolidated movement activsts for conversion. What is being contested is the ideological direction of hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions-- of people who have every right to be angry at all sorts of government policies, but who only see the political right offering to help them resolve their grievances.

Cynicism can be cut to fit any social situation, but only organizing causes societal change.

Chip Berlet

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Sean Andrews Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:12 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] more on who the TPers are

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:41, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> [those leftists who think that the Tea Partiers are somehow reachable
by us
> - whatever reachable means, and whoever us is - take a gander at this]
>

They may not be reachable by leftists, but they once again demonstrate to leftists what it means to have some actual principles against which you compare politicians actions (rather than letting them get off on "realist" policy compromises alone.) I'm not saying these are rational or coherent principles: but they are principles nonetheless. It is also interesting that it seems many of these principles are generated from small, grassroots meetings (meetings which, perhaps, amplify messages they've heard elsewhere, but which serve as a setting for what Habermas might call rational critical debate.) In recent years, the presumption among some leftish academics seems to have been that, situations like these--where true democracy could emerge--would inevitably generate the kind of egalitarian principles that they would have liked to propose if they weren't afraid of sounding like passe Marxists. In other words, the focus has been on process of developing politics rather than content or principles. Though I can only stand to read him so long, this seems to be the direction Habermas has gone in recent years as have many other theorists of democracy and law.

I think the current encounter may demonstrate (though of course its still a hypothesis) that:

1. this is still a hegemonic struggle, not some mushy democratic consensus building project; and

2. to participate in a hegemonic struggle you have to have some actual principles and ideas--ideas you're not afraid to say out loud and with conviction.

I think it would be especially important in these polls to see how many people who are involved in these movements are the very nascent political activists, people who have been brought out because they are disgruntled and are experiencing their first political awakening on this basis. I think Doug is saying that many of them believe in some way in such a strong way they can't be converted. That may be true, but that can also be the sign of the intransigence of ideology you often see in people who've just gotten on their feet. In other words, this lot may be lost, but if there were actually strong institutions built with clear alternative interpretations it might make a difference. For instance, if Kos and MoveOn weren't such Demo hucksters, but instead had the interest in ideas to have some clear left partisans on their side--rather than sending around e-mails to poll their readers about whether they should support the piece of crap health care bill.

s

s ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list