Why do we even bother to pretend that a 'Left' exists anymore?
I ask in all seriousness. The predictive and evaluative usefulness of things like historical materialism aren't confined to Marxists. One is not either a neoliberal or of the left when it comes to economics. Secular atheism, feminism, and the various agendas to emerge out of 1968 are profoundly reactionary and depend not upon free thought but upon enforced groupthink. Abortionism and blind scientism are not compassionate things, and the Green movement, which is often touted as part of the 'radical left' has as much in common with the mid-twentieth century radical right.
There are some, too, who are honest about their conception of what being left is, and they locate it in the French Revolution. That revolution involved the physical destruction of enemies as a class, the bloody desecration and attempted destruction of the church, and an orgy of anarchy that devolved quickly into nationalist militarism and the cult of personality. Those who are honest recognise that and some embrace it.
Equally, show me a democratic radical tradition--like that of the levellers, or some of the American Jefferson-Jacksonians, and I'll show you a middle-class populism that could, conceivably be libertarian or even communitarian, but not 'left'. Trade Union 'workerism', too, isn't and never was a 'progressive' force in ideological terms.
I'm basically a Christian Democrat with some libertarian leanings. I think that people shouldn't be punished for putting their heart and soul into a business, or purchasing their own land, or doing right by their families. I don't like large numbers of people ordering me what to do on pain of state power and pretending that it is for my own good. I love my church, which is the natural home of flawed and confused men like myself. I'd like to believe that I live in a time when we can think things openly. I know we don't, though.
How many delusional things are we required to believe by those who are in themselves not particularly distinguished? Let me list a few;
1) The state knows better than families and communities how to bring up children
2) The case for global warming is proved, linked to the carbon products of human society, and requires a state-based response
3) The people of Israel, uniquely, have no right to their state
4) A middle-class, neoliberal conspiracy to sell, bomb or regulate the world is compassionate
5) The only objection to abortion is religious
6) The weight of human identity and the value of people can be hung upon their sexual inclinations
7) The private sector has a conscience somehow and can be trusted with public goods
8) War is an answer to anything
9) Islam is in need of a reformation and Muslims should be told so
10) A by-product of secondary narcissistic therapy and oil expressed as the idea that anyone can do anything and that there should be no limits to behaviour is somehow life-enhancing
11) George Bush was wrong about everything, and was a wrongly-elected President
12) Crime and social crisis are in part a function of immigration from, and cultures that arise out of, deeply damaged societies elsewhere on earth.
13) Government-run schools and universities work less often than private ones
14) Britain should leave the European Union, or remove itself from its structures
15) Science isn't almost always right when it sticks to science?
I've made posts like this before, but some of the few responses have ranged from 'well go off elsewhere then', to 'how were you ever anywhere near the Labour Party?'.
Why can't we have a real discussion? Why is no one interested in questioning the verities above, and why is it that a comfortable, and in fact deeply stupid groupthink on the right and 'left' is more acceptable? We are not truly free if our ideas are neither tested nor explicable outside of the social perception of classes upon whose payment we depend in our daily lives. In such circumstances, those Americans who are thinking of voting McCain-Palin, mistaken as I believe them to be, are more sensible than most self-defined 'progressives' whom I have ever met.
I ask in all seriousness. The predictive and evaluative usefulness of things like historical materialism aren't confined to Marxists. One is not either a neoliberal or of the left when it comes to economics. Secular atheism, feminism, and the various agendas to emerge out of 1968 are profoundly reactionary and depend not upon free thought but upon enforced groupthink. Abortionism and blind scientism are not compassionate things, and the Green movement, which is often touted as part of the 'radical left' has as much in common with the mid-twentieth century radical right.
There are some, too, who are honest about their conception of what being left is, and they locate it in the French Revolution. That revolution involved the physical destruction of enemies as a class, the bloody desecration and attempted destruction of the church, and an orgy of anarchy that devolved quickly into nationalist militarism and the cult of personality. Those who are honest recognise that and some embrace it.
Equally, show me a democratic radical tradition--like that of the levellers, or some of the American Jefferson-Jacksonians, and I'll show you a middle-class populism that could, conceivably be libertarian or even communitarian, but not 'left'. Trade Union 'workerism', too, isn't and never was a 'progressive' force in ideological terms.
I'm basically a Christian Democrat with some libertarian leanings. I think that people shouldn't be punished for putting their heart and soul into a business, or purchasing their own land, or doing right by their families. I don't like large numbers of people ordering me what to do on pain of state power and pretending that it is for my own good. I love my church, which is the natural home of flawed and confused men like myself. I'd like to believe that I live in a time when we can think things openly. I know we don't, though.
How many delusional things are we required to believe by those who are in themselves not particularly distinguished? Let me list a few;
1) The state knows better than families and communities how to bring up children
2) The case for global warming is proved, linked to the carbon products of human society, and requires a state-based response
3) The people of Israel, uniquely, have no right to their state
4) A middle-class, neoliberal conspiracy to sell, bomb or regulate the world is compassionate
5) The only objection to abortion is religious
6) The weight of human identity and the value of people can be hung upon their sexual inclinations
7) The private sector has a conscience somehow and can be trusted with public goods
8) War is an answer to anything
9) Islam is in need of a reformation and Muslims should be told so
10) A by-product of secondary narcissistic therapy and oil expressed as the idea that anyone can do anything and that there should be no limits to behaviour is somehow life-enhancing
11) George Bush was wrong about everything, and was a wrongly-elected President
12) Crime and social crisis are in part a function of immigration from, and cultures that arise out of, deeply damaged societies elsewhere on earth.
13) Government-run schools and universities work less often than private ones
14) Britain should leave the European Union, or remove itself from its structures
15) Science isn't almost always right when it sticks to science?
I've made posts like this before, but some of the few responses have ranged from 'well go off elsewhere then', to 'how were you ever anywhere near the Labour Party?'.
Why can't we have a real discussion? Why is no one interested in questioning the verities above, and why is it that a comfortable, and in fact deeply stupid groupthink on the right and 'left' is more acceptable? We are not truly free if our ideas are neither tested nor explicable outside of the social perception of classes upon whose payment we depend in our daily lives. In such circumstances, those Americans who are thinking of voting McCain-Palin, mistaken as I believe them to be, are more sensible than most self-defined 'progressives' whom I have ever met.
Comments
I think there is a cultural left and right, but it appears that there is such a consensus on economic policy and widespread acceptance of globalisation, that the green agenda is the only real alternative, and that has little substantial support.
We can and do discuss the issues you mention, but I disagree with you on nearly all of them. Most of all, on principle I oppose any attempts of your church to attempt to have any influence outside its own walls. I would not wish to live in a society of its fashioning, which is why I choose not to be a member and do not believe its rather unpleasant god or its jesus-person exists.
You, and say this with respect, and not false respect either, are perfectly representative of those with values derived from the management and professional classes of the public and quasi-public sector who think they own the left and that those who disagree must associate with horrors like the modern Tory Party. From my point of view, what is the point of living in a world that was run by more successful versions of the likes of you, where a religion of rights, equality, 'find the enemy' and anti-life ran everything and where meaning was a relativised joke?
I could see myself relaxing with Reggie Maudling, a Tory centrist, or with libertarians--but not with sectarians with such a limited agenda disguised as 'atheists'. They lack manners, and respect no one, which is what the working classes and the tories used to do.
As for catholic influence, in a country where churches are established and there isn't a free market in ideas or speech, it's everyone for their own communities. I would prefer a place of absolute free speech where we could argue about religion, like some people have wanted America to be at various times in history. But, you and others can't get over my religion, there is an established church, the government will give in to religions, and when people try to have secular debates over abortion or suchlike, the 'left' won't refrain from bringing up religion so--well, bring it on.
I'll be in the ghetto with a hymnbook before I'll beg to get into some smoke free borg collective with lifestyles and technology dependent rights for colour. So will millions of others. Social democracy, by the way, means colelctive economic management of public enterprises and social accountability and ownership of resources; how is that possible if no one has respect for the non-state traditions of large numbers in society?
The only people who have any logic to them in those circumstances are the libertarians.
In reading your blog, I perceive your stance as christian democratic, and surely that approach has much in common with Iain Duncan Smith's think-tank's recent work?
Thankfully, religion actually has very little influence, largely because the British really don't like it very much (and this has certainly been helped by minority religionists wishing to impose their views on secular law). The continuing decline in churchgoing, which will soon be something done only by migrants, is certainly something to celebrate.
But, of course, you will disagree, as we have little which unites us in terms of our ideals.