One of the most interesting aspects of the American society is that it is pretty much devoid of politics in the traditional sense - as tactical pursuits of power for the sake of wielding power. Instead, the traditional polity bifurcates into two adjacent areas - business and religion. Or more precisely, politics is either an instrument of money making or - if it does not fit that mode - it becomes a religious ritual.
One consequence of this is that outright rejection of the marriage between money and politics almost invariably movers one into the realm of religion. This is what happened to the left-of-the center here. It bifurcated into "liberals" and “radicals.” The main political pursuit of liberals, who In the political arena they operate mainly through the Democrat party, is defending certain occupational or regional interests, such as teachers or public education more generally, manual labor or ethnic minorities who tend to perform it, public services, urban populations, etc. On the other hand, radicals left the political arena altogether and engage in what amount to religious pursuits, such as interpretation of the scriptures, incantations, or observance of rituals (e.g. street demos.) This is demonstrated, inter alia, by the centrality of scripture exegesis (e.g. endless quotations from both the classics - Marx, Engels, Lenin - as well as younger crop of writers), abstract theoretical analyses of little practical relevance, and eschatological concepts such as "classless society" "end of work" or "abolishing the wage system" in the radical discourse. These concepts are secular versions of the religious notion of "heaven." They are all words that have no empirical meaning by definition - as they are all constructed by simple negation of empirical reality as we know it - all they have is emotive connotations of the state of ultimate satiation, bliss, ecstasy, sexual gratification, and general happiness.
The only exception from this business/religion bifurcation of politics in the United States is what Corey Robin describes as reactionary activists - they pursue politics for the sake of power rather than just pecuniary gains. Although pecuniary gains typically follow their political action, I buy Robin's argument that this is not what primarily motivates these guys. Their primary motivation is wielding power at any cost and devising clever stratagems to gain it - and this is why they stand head and shoulders above both, the political mainstream (Democrats, liberals, and centrist Republicans) and the religiously radical left.
This peculiar bifurcation of the American polity into religion and politics in which crypto-fascists play increasingly prominent role explains why liberals are under constant ideological attack from two sides: the religiously radical left and the reactionary activists, albeit for different reasons. For the “religious” radical left, liberals are the part of the politics-as-business which the radicals reject, but they also occupy areas that are adjacent to that claimed by the radicals. This poses a danger for the radical identity. Nobody will confuse, say, a centrist Republican with a radical, but the demarcation line between liberals and radicals is blurred, and taking one for another is more likely. This calls for radical measures of turf demarcation - of which scorn and vocal denunciations are an important part.
Reactionary activists, on the other hand, launch ideological attacks on liberals for tactical reasons. Unlike radicals, they do not feel threatened by liberals in any way - and this is precisely what makes liberals useful for reactionary rhetoric. The success of reactionary rhetoric depends on creating the sense of fear and endangerment, which in turn calls for "defensive" measures entailed in reactionary political moves. However, the manufactured danger cannot be real, for that poses the risk of defeat. On the contrary It must be phony to be safe for reactionary demagogues, but it also must look scary.
Liberals serve that function rather well - they are not powerful to begin with, and they are not very combative, so the chance of them inflicting a serious damage on reactionaries is small. However, their views can easily be demonized by rather crude propaganda, that the Fox “News” & Co. must have taken from the pages of Völkischer Beobachter, portraying them as out of whack with what most red blooded 'Muricans consider "common sense." Thus sensible liberal proposals for environmental protections become “loony tree hugging” in the reactionary rhetoric, asking to observe due process guaranteed by law becomes “being soft on criminals and terrorism,” proposals for funding arts, science or public infrastructure become “wasteful government spending” and so forth.
But other than these two factions, being liberal is not a reason for hostility or eve scorn at all. Centrist Republicans or conservative Democrats may disagree with them, but they do not scorn them - they have no reason to. However, their political style is being overshadowed, first by the spectacle of professional wrestling manufactured by fascist-dominated Republicans who, no doubt, set the tenor of political discourse in the United States, but then also by the radical left that insists on religious-like purity of their ideology and uses liberals as a convenient reference point to mark that purity. This reminds me of the situation in the 1920s Italy, where radical Communists staunchly refused to join ranks with more moderate socialists and social democrats (viewed as a “liberal wing of the bourgeoisie”) against fascists, even as their own ranks were rapidly shrinking under the fascist assault. But for a true believer, unflinching faith is the only way to salvation, and death in defense of that faith is martyrdom that guarantees instant salvation – while compromise is a temptation with which the road to hell is paved.
No comments:
Post a Comment