The Disintegration of the American Left

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.