This post was inspired by David Horowitz's website www.discoverthenetworks.org, which, among other things, “defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas.” You see, it would appear Horowitz believes there to be some sort of hidden unifying structure hidden within the left (the whole website is dedicated to the idea).
What I would give for this to be true. No, Mr. Horowitz, I can assure you, with a sad sigh, that the left is little more than a hundred different voices all competing to be heard. One would think the philosophical home of economic justice, socialism, and yes, communism, would be capable of dividing the pie more equally, but without the authoritarian structures of the right we seem to be better at practicing free market capitalism (in the marketplace of ideas) than the free market capitalists.
To illustrate this point I decided to break down the liberal activist movement in the United States. I want to model the the issues and groups that make up the activist branch of US liberalism. Note, it will not be perfect, many of these issues and categories will be debatable on a philosophical level, and in all honesty, liberalism has few bounds. I am, however, trying to get at a general theme which will make itself apparent towards the end end of the post.
I will start by defining the major branches of liberal activism as I see them: Civil rights/liberties, Equality, Environment, and Peace/Nonviolence. Each of these issues can then be broken down into an infinite number of smaller branches. The environment alone can be separated into dozens of smaller, interconnected, issues: Conservation, Water conservation, Pollution, Recycling, National parks Open space, Renewable resources, Animal rights, Wilderness protection, Clean air, Clean water, Global warming, Fossil fuels, Organic produce, Endangered species, the list goes on. It would also appear that for each of these smaller issues there are at least two groups (this may or may not be hyperbole). Among these groups are: The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest World, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Defend the Dunes, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Earth Pledge, Population Research Institute, The Campaign for Political Ecology, The Left Green Network, and the National Resource Defense Council, again the list goes on (this took me five minutes to compile on line, imagine what I could find in an hour).
Given this lose breakdown one can only imagine how many groups both big and small are out there on every issue, competing to be heard. Could we please come up with a system, maybe a large organization willing to unite all of the voices into one. Just imagine our power if we did not have to bicker among ourselves to be heard.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Oh What a Better Place the World Would be if David Horowitz Were Right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
With a "sad sigh" eh? Well, cheer up and turn that frown upside down my friend, because what you described is democracy at its best--liberalism at its best.
Liberalism is suppose to promote this exchange of ideas from different groups with different views on different issues. To discourage otherwise, would be, well, conservative. I'm proud to say that you can go ahead and compile that list of advocacy groups via the internet in a matter of five minutes. That tells me that the liberal movement continues on strong and steadfast.
Sure, it may make for what seems to be a disorganized movement in many directions towards uncommon goals, but what you mentioned in terms of the environmental movement, is exactly that--a movement to better the environment. Thus liberals, proud as ever, stand in a varied, yet collective effort for a better environment.
And who's to say that the conservatives have anymore of a unified voice on the major issues of the day?
Gay Marriage--some hate it, some want the states to decide, and some say hurrah for civil unions.
Abortion--some hate it, some say ban some of it, and there are even those who support it.
Death penalty--again, many variations in support.
War in Iraq--God, they're almost as bad as the Democrats in terms of the nuances in plans for our future there.
Global Warming--Well, half don't believe in it, and the other half, like even Gingrich, say we need to stop this thing that the other half says doesn't even exist--at least liberals recognize the fact that it exists and want to improve the environment as a whole.
The liberals in this country are not in as bad, or "sad" a position as you state. Yeah, I guess we could ask Dean, Pelosi or Reid to streamline our agenda, but when has that ever worked? Even when it does--as with Gingrich in 1994, streamlined agendas eventually fall apart because of the basic nature of democracy and our nation's promotion of us being marketplace of ideas.
In regards to your post, I disagree with both you and Horowitz...yeah, we liberals don't necessarily have a unified plan for domination as good 'ole david says, but I also don't think it would necessarily be a better world if David's assumption were the case like you wish it were so.
So don't lose faith in the liberal movement. We are what we preach, and what we preach, is a common good that will never die, no matter which way or through which faction of the movement we get there.
Post a Comment