So here I am, yet again, exploring the domains of the political left on the web, and I am, yet again, disappointed by a most annoying and pitiful recurring theme: the deliberate fragmentation of the American Left. By this I mean the tendency for people describing themselves as left-wing to denounce, attack, and even vilify other ideological positions held by those who also describe themselves as left-wing.
At first, this seems not only negligible, but inevitable and perhaps even desirable; a diversity of opinions and ideas, even conflicting opinions and ideas, is always better than a monolithic and inflexible movement, right? Yes, with this much I agree. But this view of the situation ignores an important point: that there can be a comfortable balance between unity of position and plurality of thought among the left. And as justification that this view is more than just my own hopeful idealism, a good example of a group that has more or less achieved this balance with success is to be found in what seems the most unlikely and surprising place: the American Right. That's no typo: the political right wing in this country has done of fine job of remaining fairly united while holding varied and often diverging beliefs.
In saying this, I am not suggesting that I necessarily agree the typical ideals of the right, or even that conservatives don't have their share of internal disagreements about the way things should be. However, I am suggesting that the left can learn a lot from observing the structure of its direct opposite. Although it often doesn't seem so, there are many different types of American conservatives, many of whom you would expect to be fiercely against one another (and oftentimes are). But these various types of people all classify themselves in a politically similar way and manage to get along doing so.
To explain my point: war mongers and ultra-patriots who advance an aggressive foreign policy typically support the right--along with paleoconservative isolationists who want nothing to do with other countries. Poor rural farmers steeped in traditional values and wary of innovation share a party with rich big-city businessmen who advocate technological progress. Blue-collar workers hurt by outsourcing support the same party as do company executives who choose to outsource for profit's sake. Opponents of welfare and immigration stand with religious types who espouse helping the poor and downtrodden. Supporters of creationism and intelligent design are grouped with neo-liberals who envision an every-man-for-himself, survival-of-the-fittest style of capitalism. Libertarian students against big government rally with pro-life proponents of the death penalty, the war-on-drugs, and heterosexual-only marriage. Gun-loving, do-it-yourself truck drivers and wild west, foul-mouthed rogues are ring-wing, together with family-values, stay-at-home mothers who eschew vulgarity and impropriety in any form and champion abstinence, equality and the community.
As you can easily see, the only thing all these different people share in common is that they are not liberal. And yet somehow, all these groups can overcome their differences and combine into a single, united movement known as the political right. The stereotypical conservative can belong to practically any demographic group in today's America. And furthermore, the right wing has proved that it can adapt, as shown in the disappointment with Bush from many conservatives.
Of course, if the American Right is this diverse, it would only hold that the American Left also has its share of diversity--which it does. However, the essential difference between the groups on the right and those on the left is that the left's groups do not tend to get along as well. The anarchists are upset with those who envision a stronger federal government; militant atheists against any breach of church and state step on the feet of believers who also believe in religious expression and pluralism; there's the perpetual rivalry between reformers and revolutionaries; a liberal overly concerned with human rights, equality, and not offending others gets labeled a 'pansy,' even by fellow liberals; supporters of marijuana legalization are dismissed as no more than disgruntled stoners by others on the left; urban minorities and the liberal elite often find themselves at odds; intellectuals proclaim the decadence of the entertainment industry while directors, writers, and actors within the industry itself often try to open the minds of their viewers; animal rights activists are derided as too soft and sentimental by those on the hard left. The list could go on and on.
Though these groups share the commonality of belonging to the left, each spends much of its time attacking other leftist positions and defending itself against the attacks of others. And worse yet, many of these do not show as much flexibility and openness of thought as the adjective 'liberal' might suggest. Much of the internal animosity, I believe, stems from an embedded arrogance among many in the left-wing: the attitude that their opinion is the only true, valid one to hold, and that anything less doesn't even deserve to be considered part of the same movement. But, ironic as it might sound, these groups within the left need to take cue from those on the right and become more cooperative rather than competitive. In some strange feat, the conservatives have basically mastered this, and liberals would do well to use them as a model of what the left could be.
With a good possibility of a liberal president taking office this upcoming January, the inner solidarity of the left takes on a new significance. Cooperation with others outside one particular outlook is what will keep the American Left from disintegrating into a mass of squabbling, conflicted, self-serving, pompous, narrow special interest groups. Even if McCain is elected, the left will still have to hold together in order to have any vitality as a political position that can counterbalance the right. And anyone who considers him- or herself left-wing would do well to keep an open mind about expressions of leftism different from his or her own.
I am one who believes that some ideas have more merit than others, that a group shouldn't compromise its ideals simply for the sake of convenience, and that authoritarian entities are inherently dangerous. But these points are not at odds with the formation of an American Left united in its differences. Individuals need not have to compromise their ideals nor submit to relativism (that is, the belief all ideas have equal truth) in order to recognize a political association in common with others. This much we can see in the organization of the American Right. Opinions can (or rather should) still be challenged, and ideological disagreement is a given. But the groups of the left must be able to see beyond themselves lest the entire left risk falling apart. And it is up to American liberals to make this decision; a post on a blog is, in the end, only that. The political left in this country has to choose either to integrate or disintegrate; the only thing the left has left to do is make the choice.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Political Divide in the Workplace
This is less thorough and more shallow than my previous posts, but also more entertaining--and much, much shorter.
While browsing the Mother Jones website (yet again) I found an article called "Work, Then Party" that lists which political party people are more likely to donate to based on their occupation. Some of them are not surprising (organic farmers are overwhelming liberal) but a few are (house husbands are apparently very supportive of conservatives). It also lists the amount of money per occupation donated to the 2008 presidential campaign within a certain time.
Just thought it might be a cool time-waster, if nothing else.
While browsing the Mother Jones website (yet again) I found an article called "Work, Then Party" that lists which political party people are more likely to donate to based on their occupation. Some of them are not surprising (organic farmers are overwhelming liberal) but a few are (house husbands are apparently very supportive of conservatives). It also lists the amount of money per occupation donated to the 2008 presidential campaign within a certain time.
Just thought it might be a cool time-waster, if nothing else.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Pursuit of Unhappiness: the Connection Between Economics and Well-Being
Last week I spent much of my computer time browsing through more well-known blogs and the websites of different periodicals, searching for topics that piqued my interest. For the periodical websites, I'd rummage through the archives for this year and last and found several that I wished to print out and keep. And so it was that I chanced upon an article in the Mother Jones archives titled "Reversal of Fortune."
The article, a little over a year old, describes how even though Americans have been getting progressively richer, our happiness is not improving. The author, Bill McKibben, begins by describing how we, as a country, mistakenly believe that greater economic growth by default also means greater prosperity for everyone. He has an strong environmental bent: he cites that uncontrolled economic growth uses up nonrenewable resources, setting itself up to eventually becoming unsustainable, and that it also changes the climate in drastically negative ways (no news there). But he further develops this argument into how rampant economic growth is also having a negative impact on people--and not just the poor or disadvantaged.
A major theme throughout McKibben's article is how our current system is slowly (or perhaps not-so-slowly) eroding the ties that bring people together, and that these ties are the key to a happier life. People are now more isolated than they've ever been, and McKibben thinks this accounts for the relative constant of happiness despite a growing economy since the 1950s. He also notes that these ties previously put a check on unbridled economic pursuit; people used to be more mindful of the communities they belonged to. McKibben points out that Adam Smith (who developed the economic theory that would become capitalism in The Wealth of Nations) had this in mind when he envisioned capitalism working to make everyone richer. But now, with the decreased power of these ties, the economy is left to its own devices at the expense of the people, far from Smith's vision.
McKibben does note that happiness will increase with more money--but only up to a certain amount. (The breaking point appears to be $10,000 per person.) People who live in financial insecurity and poverty typically aren't meeting their basic needs: healthy food, adequate housing, access to medical care, etc. But once these needs are met, the level of happiness correlates more with one belonging to a strong network of people (i.e., relating to a larger community) rather than how many possessions one can rack up.
McKibben ends by suggesting that we move ourselves more toward a more localized, sustainable economic system rather than the present rampant global economic network. He addresses potential skepticism by explaining how smaller, independent farming methods are actually more efficient than large-scale, agribusiness-based farming. McKibben connects this to the beginning of his article by noting that smaller farms would also put less strain on the environment, relying less on industrial machinery and more on human and animal labor (i.e., energy from bio-fuels instead of fossil fuels). And better yet, smaller, more decentralized enterprises such as these would promote the community ties that increase happiness (and personal autonomy), creating a more-fulfilling system for everyone.
Although it has a few typos here and there, McKibben does a good job of developing his point, providing numerous examples, statistics, and quotes. The article can be found here if you want to read it for yourself. However, it equals thirteen pages printed out, so I don't expect many to actually read all the way through it--hence my long description above. If you're really into this kind of stuff, supplementary information for the article can be found here, including this 25-page study on the relationship (or lack thereof) of economics and happiness.
However, while I was browsing on the Freakonomics blog a few days earlier, I remembered running into a series of posts labeled "The Economics of Happiness," most of which support the finding that happiness actually will increase with money--directly at odds with the conclusions in McKibben's article. The first and second posts specifically ("Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox"and "Are Rich Countries Happier than Poor Countries?") point out that happiness can increase with money, providing data to support this finding (including a graph that portrays the correlation as nearly linear). However, Justin Wolfers, the author of these posts, does note some anomalies that he can't account for, such as trends relating to Belgium and Ireland ("Will Raising the Incomes of All Raise the Happiness of All?"). Also, in an unrelated series of posts called "The Politics of Happiness," Arthur Brooks explores the relationship behind political identity and happiness, and possible reasons for it. One of his findings is that conservatives are, on the average, happier than liberals, with one of the reasons being that conservatives tend to be more religious--i.e., they have stronger community ties, which is right in line with McKibben's point that communities increase happiness. In Brooks's third post he even cites one of the same people McKibben cites in his article. In an article for the Atlantic Monthly, David Brooks (unrelated to Arthur Brooks, as far as I know) describes his experience observing a small, rural, poorer conservative town, and how their sense of community was much stronger than in the liberal suburb that he lived in. When Brooks spoke with some of the townspeople, most liked where they lived, despite the fact that Brooks's suburb was wealthier. But nonetheless, Wolfers findings can't be ignored, and essentially puts the question back in a state of being unanswered. Is the pursuit of happiness conditional on the pursuit of riches?
This contradiction aside, there is another interesting point about McKibben's article: its message is somewhat similar to that of the Unabomber's essay (albeit McKibben is more toned down, more thought-through, and offers realistic suggestions). Both authors share the view that the current system of economic-technological development is a detriment to our well-being (defined as either happiness (McKibben) or self-fulfillment and autonomy (Kaczynski)) because it has disrupted the strong social ties that originally supported people and kept the economy in check, in addition to destroying the environment. Moreover, Arthur Brooks's posts (and David Brooks's observations) finding lower happiness levels among liberals vaguely echo Kaczynski's explanation of people affected by "leftism" dedicating themselves to the causes of oppressed groups as a surrogate activity due to their supposed feelings of inferiority. However, I would say that McKibben and the others are a better source of information than Kaczynski, due to their citations of statistics and other studies to support their conclusions.
Of course, this has left us in a conundrum. Can money indeed buy happiness? Or is our pursuit of happiness being constantly hampered by our belief that it can be bought?
The article, a little over a year old, describes how even though Americans have been getting progressively richer, our happiness is not improving. The author, Bill McKibben, begins by describing how we, as a country, mistakenly believe that greater economic growth by default also means greater prosperity for everyone. He has an strong environmental bent: he cites that uncontrolled economic growth uses up nonrenewable resources, setting itself up to eventually becoming unsustainable, and that it also changes the climate in drastically negative ways (no news there). But he further develops this argument into how rampant economic growth is also having a negative impact on people--and not just the poor or disadvantaged.
A major theme throughout McKibben's article is how our current system is slowly (or perhaps not-so-slowly) eroding the ties that bring people together, and that these ties are the key to a happier life. People are now more isolated than they've ever been, and McKibben thinks this accounts for the relative constant of happiness despite a growing economy since the 1950s. He also notes that these ties previously put a check on unbridled economic pursuit; people used to be more mindful of the communities they belonged to. McKibben points out that Adam Smith (who developed the economic theory that would become capitalism in The Wealth of Nations) had this in mind when he envisioned capitalism working to make everyone richer. But now, with the decreased power of these ties, the economy is left to its own devices at the expense of the people, far from Smith's vision.
McKibben does note that happiness will increase with more money--but only up to a certain amount. (The breaking point appears to be $10,000 per person.) People who live in financial insecurity and poverty typically aren't meeting their basic needs: healthy food, adequate housing, access to medical care, etc. But once these needs are met, the level of happiness correlates more with one belonging to a strong network of people (i.e., relating to a larger community) rather than how many possessions one can rack up.
McKibben ends by suggesting that we move ourselves more toward a more localized, sustainable economic system rather than the present rampant global economic network. He addresses potential skepticism by explaining how smaller, independent farming methods are actually more efficient than large-scale, agribusiness-based farming. McKibben connects this to the beginning of his article by noting that smaller farms would also put less strain on the environment, relying less on industrial machinery and more on human and animal labor (i.e., energy from bio-fuels instead of fossil fuels). And better yet, smaller, more decentralized enterprises such as these would promote the community ties that increase happiness (and personal autonomy), creating a more-fulfilling system for everyone.
Although it has a few typos here and there, McKibben does a good job of developing his point, providing numerous examples, statistics, and quotes. The article can be found here if you want to read it for yourself. However, it equals thirteen pages printed out, so I don't expect many to actually read all the way through it--hence my long description above. If you're really into this kind of stuff, supplementary information for the article can be found here, including this 25-page study on the relationship (or lack thereof) of economics and happiness.
However, while I was browsing on the Freakonomics blog a few days earlier, I remembered running into a series of posts labeled "The Economics of Happiness," most of which support the finding that happiness actually will increase with money--directly at odds with the conclusions in McKibben's article. The first and second posts specifically ("Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox"and "Are Rich Countries Happier than Poor Countries?") point out that happiness can increase with money, providing data to support this finding (including a graph that portrays the correlation as nearly linear). However, Justin Wolfers, the author of these posts, does note some anomalies that he can't account for, such as trends relating to Belgium and Ireland ("Will Raising the Incomes of All Raise the Happiness of All?"). Also, in an unrelated series of posts called "The Politics of Happiness," Arthur Brooks explores the relationship behind political identity and happiness, and possible reasons for it. One of his findings is that conservatives are, on the average, happier than liberals, with one of the reasons being that conservatives tend to be more religious--i.e., they have stronger community ties, which is right in line with McKibben's point that communities increase happiness. In Brooks's third post he even cites one of the same people McKibben cites in his article. In an article for the Atlantic Monthly, David Brooks (unrelated to Arthur Brooks, as far as I know) describes his experience observing a small, rural, poorer conservative town, and how their sense of community was much stronger than in the liberal suburb that he lived in. When Brooks spoke with some of the townspeople, most liked where they lived, despite the fact that Brooks's suburb was wealthier. But nonetheless, Wolfers findings can't be ignored, and essentially puts the question back in a state of being unanswered. Is the pursuit of happiness conditional on the pursuit of riches?
This contradiction aside, there is another interesting point about McKibben's article: its message is somewhat similar to that of the Unabomber's essay (albeit McKibben is more toned down, more thought-through, and offers realistic suggestions). Both authors share the view that the current system of economic-technological development is a detriment to our well-being (defined as either happiness (McKibben) or self-fulfillment and autonomy (Kaczynski)) because it has disrupted the strong social ties that originally supported people and kept the economy in check, in addition to destroying the environment. Moreover, Arthur Brooks's posts (and David Brooks's observations) finding lower happiness levels among liberals vaguely echo Kaczynski's explanation of people affected by "leftism" dedicating themselves to the causes of oppressed groups as a surrogate activity due to their supposed feelings of inferiority. However, I would say that McKibben and the others are a better source of information than Kaczynski, due to their citations of statistics and other studies to support their conclusions.
Of course, this has left us in a conundrum. Can money indeed buy happiness? Or is our pursuit of happiness being constantly hampered by our belief that it can be bought?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
