What I've Been Saying

I have a pretty good opinion of my ideas - I guess if I didn't then I wouldn't be bothering to maintain a blog. On the other hand, often enough I find myself reading something that says exactly what I've been trying to say, but much better.

I had that experience today on the Dissent blog.

Nelson Lichtenstein analyzes the prospects for a rejuvenated Left within the context of a rejuvenated labor movement, which makes a lot of sense. He argues for an expansive and inclusive unionization (when I was in college, I was involved in a number of labor campaigns, although I was affiliated with a radical student group, not a union per se - I think this is an example of what Lichtenstein is promoting. For what it is worth - the Graduate Employee Organization welcomed us, while the more traditional unions such as SEIU and AFSCME looked at us like we were crazy - which I suppose we kinda were, but it could have been a fruitful, interesting, learning experience for all involved had those connections been made).

He also points out that the movement will only have power in as far as it is only loosely united with mainstream politics - we should be allies of the Democratic party, but not beholden. This was my gripe as a member of the house of representatives of the United Teachers Los Angeles early in my career - we seemed to be too often adopting a Democratic Party political line, even if it didn't really dovetail with our interests.

Lastly (or really firstly, since I'm addressing Lichtenstein's arguments in reverse order) he makes the point that the right has a history of getting more aggressive when the left is in ascendancy. This is a relatively new idea for me, so I'm not sure I agree yet, though I tend to reject this notion - he points to the 1930s and 1960s as times of right-wing aggression, though if you look at the periods that immediately precede those eras, you see the 1920s and 1950s - both decades known for anti-communist witch hunts and ascendant eras of the KKK. Next to those decades, the right of the 30s and then the 60s looks beleaguered and drawn out.

I suppose there could be an argument that the 2000s were the right-wing ascendancy and the 2010s will be a period of reprieve (God, I hope so) but the cynic in me also warns that the modern period started with the French Revolution and ended with the Cold War. We may have entered a new paradigm and can't really use the old patterns as a basis for understanding where we are and where me might be headed.