What might actually threaten our predatory governmental-corporate overlords?
A libertarian and recovering Ayn Randian friend of mine and I have been discussing the possibility of a new political formation. For lack of a better term, we are calling it a "left-right convergence." Our initial inspiration derives from the halls of Congress itself: the very first anti-bank bailout coalition, where we witnessed the unlikely bedfellows of House progressive Democrats and (mostly) libertarian-leaning Republicans in opposition. Though defeated on its second try after the application of (I’m sure) massive pressure, this unlikely opposition coalition, it should be remembered, WON the first vote. One could practically audibly hear the power elite shaking from that initial set of "nays." The second great inspirational event was the Alan Grayson-Ron Paul House Committee victory regarding transparency at the Fed. This, too, seemed actually to present a refreshing challenge to our predatory power elite...read on...
There was also the Sanders-Bunning et al. (Bunning: when you’re crazy and have nothing to lose sometimes you speak truth!) et al., Senate "hold" on the Bernanke nomination. And sadly, in many respects, this awful health insurance bill is shaping up as another great left-right convergence possibility as well. There exist lots of further issues that lend themselves to the convergence idea. An important example would be the atrocious eminent domain ruling concerning New London, CT by the US Supreme Court (2005), which allows governmental entities to use their coercive power to evict residents in order to hand their property over to private corporate business interests. My friend and I now regularly email each other possible "convergence" issues as we notice them.
How is it that "extreme" (for U.S. politics) left and right are finding themselves thrown in together regarding, it seems, an increasing range of issues? What I am talking about here is, I’d guess, a good 20-30% of the electorate. (This isn’t scientific, folks, but impressionistic, I'd be happy to update with better numbers.) Think of US politics as a spectrum from far left to far right--or maybe a circle where at least conceptually the anarchist left at some point joins with the libertarian right. Take out the extreme 5% on both extremes. That would mean those who've joined up with socialist/Green parties and single issue extremists on the left (God love them, but that’s where they sit on the spectrum), along with birthers and assorted way-out theological and conspiracy loons on the right (5% is probably optimistic: they may be twice that). Then let’s say we have Democrats and Republicans, by which I mean those more or less affiliated with Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, making up the middle, say, 40% (20% each). That leaves a good chunk of the electorate, the beloved and mythical unicorn-like "independents," perhaps 20-40% of them, who are disenchanted with the Dems AND the Reps from the left AND right, respectively. (Note: I know this doesn’t add up to 100. I give at least 10% for the radically clueless altogether outside any political loop.)
Now stay with me. On the right, I think these are the people who are essentially libertarian, or, perhaps, you might say "folk libertarian," who say they like "capitalism" yet what they mean is their nostalgic vision of their grandfather's capitalism, but what it's actually become, viz., a gargantuan predatory state that serves the larger, already-established corporations and enshrines their aready-existing advantages. Rather, when they applaud "capitalism" they are referencing what in thier minds it OUGHT to be, viz., a sort of small-scale yeoman system of virtuous freeholders who rise and fall in the marketplace according to their individual talent and efforts, etc. Meanwhile, on the left, we have the coastal and urban progressives, including many among ethnic minority groups, who want essentially Scandinavian welfare state policies as single-payer health care, a dovish foreign policy, a return to progressive taxation, serious environmental initiatives, New Deal-esque social programs, and maybe even a bit of "socialism" as far as 'too big to fail, too big to exist' and the like.
What ties these two groups together? The closest the mainstream media gets is calling them "populists" and then associates them with the lunacy of the teabaggers, and maybe the fringe-seeming Seattle and Copenhagen-style ultra leftist protesters--and I suppose now, thanks to the White House, the "irrationality" of such as Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, et al. But, ex hypothesi, what is causing the left-right convergence is deeper than the throwaway term "populism." IT IS THAT THEIR CRITIQUES OF ELITE POWER ARE NOW DOVETAILING IN EXCITING AND IMPORTANT RESPECTS. To continue with James Galbraith’s phrase, what we have now is a "predatory state" which exists to serve major corporate interests, from Goldman Sachs to Citibank to Aetna/Pharma to Halliburton/KBR to Microsoft--you name it. It is a hydra-headed government-corporate amalgam, the nightmare of BOTH the left and the right united into one amazingly horrifying beast. Yet the nascent opposition is in the position of the proverbial blind persons groping at the front and back of the elephant, perceiving different aspects of the same phenomenon. The left sees its corporate tool-ness. The right sees its statist gigantism. What I’m suggesting is that maybe we could unite, as per Grayson-Paul et al., in order to see the whole elephant. What we all need to see is the hydra-headed state-corporate monster in all of its glory: the 'big government' of the right meets the left's corporate neoliberalism run amok. But it's neither the government by itself nor the corporations. It's the mutant hybrid, stupid!
All we need to do is to agree strategically to disagree on some things, esp. cultural issues. Stuff hovering around religion. Environmentalism, probably. (It seems hard to imagine not needing serious state and even global action to combat this particular threat). But this is a convergence, not a harmony. Some issues are not going to be productive and ipso facto are not "convergence" items. E.g., gay rights is a moral issue of equality and respect for persons for the left and it is often some kind of religious morality issue for the right (though pure libertarians are actually strongly with the left on this issue). But let’s just bracket that stuff strategically for the moment. That is what real politics are about: coalition building. One continues to fight for one's issues but one doesn't met them break the coalition--or allow the predatory elite to use them as they do their perennial "wedge" issues. As political theorists have long recognized, self-gagging on selective issues can be a precondition for potent alliances, even strong ones. World War II anyone?) We know we will disagree in the long run. Fine. But in the meantime, we can make those in power answer for themselves. We can clear the way for an honest debate and a more sincere politics.
Let’s face it: no matter how much I might hope for it and no matter how warm and cuddly it makes me myself feel, I have to recognize that the Grayson-Sanders-Grijalva progressive left isn’t going to accomplish much on its own. But neither is the Ron Paul libertarian right. However, TOGETHER, we just might have something! Imagine what even 20% of the electorate could do. Off the cuff here, I would nominate Dan Carlin (of "Hardcore History" and "Common Sense" fame—check out his lively podcasts), a fiery outside-the-box type, who recently proposed that we need a "Clean Party" that brackets much ideology but targets corruption. . There have been such movements in American history and maybe now is again time for one of them (this is the rhetorical pose Ross Perot tried to strike in his own silly fashion, "time to take out the trash"!). When I try to think of what the power elite would actually fear, I think it would be this: some NEW coalition that could lay claim to a sizable percentage of the electorate, a new force that could actually shake some things up. It would also deny the DEM-REP monolith the rhetorical tropes of "maverick," "change," and so on that they cynically throw out to us each election cycle. It is much harder to get anyone to believe you’re the choice for "change" in the presence of a viable actual choice.
I post all this very tentatively and respectfully. I sincerely want to hear your opinions about if there is anything to this idea. Like many, naïve or not, I’m still getting over my disappointment over Obama. I want to figure out what to do to combat this massive fraud, this chillingly cynical "bait and switch" he and his henchmen have perpetrated on the American people (Obama dead-enders, please spare me the hate, okay, and just move on to another diary). I’m seeing this left-right convergence idea as having some real potential. I want to take on these greedy nihilists. I want to take them down. Ultimately, personally, in the long run I still say it’s "socialism or barbarism." But I’ll sit down with some honest barbarians if it’ll help us prepare for the sack of Rome which, of course, wasn’t built in a day and won’t be sacked in a day either. This is a long-term project. What do you think?