What's in a Name?

Ok, this is too long. I've written it over several sittings and I'm too lazy to edit it. So here it is in it's awful entirety. If you read to the end, there's a nice surprise. Ok, just kidding, there's no surprise. I've read to the end and all I can say is this: it's a long way down. You can probably skip to here and get much of the point.

Liberal? Progressive? Leftist? Radical? Left Libertarian? Anti-capitalist? Socialist? Anarchist? Democrat? democrat? Social democrat? Radical democrat?

If you read over my postings here, you'll notice that I have a very hard time describing the political perspective/movement with which I like to affiliate. I'm not alone. Political labels are both horribly imprecise and divisive - a problematic combination.

Things are especially difficult if, like me, you want to take an inclusive but also critical view of things. For example, folks over at ZNet talk about dismantling capitalism and folks over at Daily Kos are basically happy with more Democrats like Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone. On the one hand, I get frustrated with the shortsightedness and tendency towards accepting weak reforms instead of real, fundamental change with the "liberal Democrat" crowd. At the same time, I get sick of the "more radical than thou," "You're-all-just-capitalist-pawns-unless-you-dress/eat/talk/live-just-like-me" type of mentality in more "radical," "Leftist" circles.

I have a much more critical stance towards the fundamental characteristics of our society than "Liberal Democrats." I think our current society is built upon racism, sexism, classism and ethnocentrism to a far greater extent than they would like to believe and that this requires a fundamental re-thinking of our history, our present situation and where we ought to go as a society. I think capitalism is fundamentally unjust and ecologically unsustainable, and I think a more democratic, participatory and sustainable economic system is both a moral and practical necessity. I think America has too much power relative to the rest of the world and that a world where power is equally dispersed and where politics is administrated through a dispersed network of local and international democratic institutions would be a more sane and more just world. I also have a much more critical view of the Democratic Party's history than many in this crowd. Certainly, at times in our history, the Democratic Party has been more "worker-friendly" than the Republican Party, but it has never been a "worker's party" and has worked as hard or harder than the Republican Party to crush true Leftist movements in this country.

But I'm also quite uncomfortable with the more "radical" crowd, although my differences with this crowd are less about substance and more about strategy. Once you describe yourself as "radical" (or it's right-wing corollary, "fundamentalist" - more on this in a moment), your interpretation of the world may become crystal clear, but you're also in a difficult position in terms of action. Those on the left who self-identity as "radical" often proudly define it as "going to the root of the problem." So a comprehensive welfare state, for example, is just a band-aid, leaving the more fundamental problems of capitalism unresolved.

What then, does the "radical" do in terms of action? Work to replace capitalism, of course...but what does that entail for today? Should we be opposed to candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader who want to fight for greater government oversight of corporations and for things like national health care, but stop short of endorsing a wholesale "End To Capitalism"? Or, more realistically, should we vote for a pathetic candidate like John Kerry who will simply keep taking us in the wrong direction...but more slowly? After all, affordable health care, good schools and stable jobs just might make capitalism more stable and make it less likely that people will embrace a "radical" agenda because they'll be more invested in this horrible system. Hell, once you look at it this way, perhaps it's a good thing that Bush is going to roll back all the social programs of the 20th century. In four more years, people will literally have "nothing but their chains to lose," right?

But this is absurd, of course. If all of the social programs that exist, even with our relatively weak welfare state in this country, disappeared tomorrow, this would have deadly consequences for a large number of people, and I doubt very many of us are willing to sacrifice the well-being of these people for the sake of "progress." After all, what kind of political stance that believes in the fundamental dignity of all human beings would sacrifice people merely as means to their larger, ideological end?

Okay, actually a lot of political stances do this on the "Left" and "Right." Bolshevism sacrificed the autonomy and well-being of many Russians in the name of a greater Communist future. Likewise, over the past few decades "neo-liberalism" has been used by "economic hitmen" from the U.S. and Europe to rationalize the devastation of Third World governments and economies.

So this is to be avoided. But how? On the one hand, if we can't simply treat people as means to our ideological ends, then democratic change can only come about through democratic means. But on the other hand, this cannot happen overnight and, as we just learned November 2, we still have lots of convincing to do. So where does this leave us in terms of "band-aids" like welfare state policies?

Basically this has been a long-winded illustration of why I have such a hard time with political labels. On the one hand, having a label makes it easier to say "we" and have a sense of collective identity, and this cannot be under-estimated when talking about building movements. On the other hand, labels exclude just as sharply as they include. As a result, to cover my bases, I often end up saying things like "Liberals/Progressives/Leftists" to describe the "us" that are anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-corporate globalization (not that these three things are mutually inclusive either...jeez, do you see what I mean?).

What's tricky about labeling your political position is that it's not a purely personal thing. In arguing about what it means to be a "liberal," for example, you're not only describing yourself but also describing a larger group/movement. You have to define not only what you think, but how and why that fits into some category. And when you say "I'm an X," this comes with a sense of solidarity with others in that category - even if you're really just a relatively isolated, lazy, non-activist typing at his keyboard like me. This is why something as simple as asking "what describes me" can turn into a presumptuous diatribe on what "we" stand for - as if there's any real group discussion going on here or as if I have any sort of authority over defining "we." And my problem, as I hope I've described here, is that I want to have my cake and eat it, too. I believe there is a broader movement, or perhaps a "movement of movements," that consists of a diverse coalition of allies against the right-wing neo-Machiavellians running our country today and I want to identify with that movement. But I don't want the label for such a broad movement to limit my own personal views. So basically I've got a tall order: a label that describes this broad movement but is also consistent with my particular positions. So...what am I/are we? A few candidates:

Liberal: This word is problematic from both ends. "Moderates" don't like it because the Right has managed to turn liberal into a four-letter word in our culture and have basically equated it with "socialist" (another four-letter word in American politics that I'm side-stepping in this discussion). "Radicals" don't like "liberal" because it implies an acceptance of capitalism and a "reformist" approach to politics. Fortunately, it's also one of the most flexible words available. I'm being way too long winded already, so I won't go into the myriad of ways people use the word "liberal" now, but suffice it to say that there's nothing inherent in the word "liberal" that prevents it from encompassing everything from moderate reforms to overthrowing capitalism. If it's taken loosely as a respect for the individual liberty, dignity and equality of all people, it works quite nicely. Another point against the radical criticism of "liberal": to most people, you're "liberals" too. The definition you give of "liberal" is not necessarily accepted by most self-identified liberals and is certainly not the one accepted by right-wing critics of liberals. To them, radicals are not "left libertarians" or "anarcho-syndicalists" but are "really, really liberal."

Radical: Ok, if not wishy-washy "liberals," then how about "radicals"? Problems: It doesn't apply to this whole movement at all because large portions of it are not "radical." In fact, I tend to think it's a poor choice to describe even "radicals," as I've been doing throughout this posting so far. "Radical" is just an adjective. It says you are "going to the root of the problem." But what problem? And what's your solution? Is the decline of Christianity at the root of the problem? And is the spread of Christianity throughout the world through state coercion the solution? These types of "radicals" are usually called "fundamentalists," but the two words are basically saying the same thing. "Fundamentalists" just believe in different "roots" than us. Perhaps something like "radical democrats," gets us closer to something useful.

On the other hand, there's great value in emphasizing that every aspect of society should be open to criticism. But like I said earlier, I'm not convinced that simply saying you are a "radical democrat" goes very far towards answering the question, "Ok, so what do we do today?" Given the present realities of our political climate and the structural constraints of our political system, "radicals" will have to "mix" with the more "moderate" elements, so we're back to square one: is there any sort of unifying identity here? Even if our goal is to "radicalize" the "liberals," we gotta find our common ground first.

Progressive: This is a popular one nowadays. It has a nice, historical legacy in the "Progressive Movement" and it's a nice, logical contrast to "conservative." "Radicals" don't like this one because they like to point out that it's just a new way of saying "liberal." It's also kind of devoid of content. What does it mean to be "progressive"? That you believe in "progress"? What does that mean? Substantively, like "radical" and "fundamentalism," it doesn't really tell you much. Strategically, it doesn't tell us much because, as I discussed above, Bolsheviks and Neoliberals believe(d) in progress, too. On the other hand, in a time when pessimism about solving social problems is so pervasive, suggesting that progressive action that can solve these social problems is desirable and possible is something that all of "us" have in common.

Leftist: Using "The Left" is an obvious choice, but "Leftist" has problems. It takes a spectrum and smashes it into a dichotomy, implying "all the way left." First of all, what does that mean? Does it mean you're a communist? A socialist? An anarchist? Or just a liberal democrat? This tendency with "leftist" is bad all the way around. It gives right-wingers a way to paint anything left of center as being extremist and dogmatic, while it simply gives even more reason for those on the Left to argue over who is more "leftist" than the other. Any word that leads so easily to an argument over purity should be avoided. It also reinforces a dichotomous view of politics that is problematic. But, of course, one could argue that both of these objections apply to any of the words here.

democrat: "...with a small d." This has two big problems. One, the damn "Democratic Party." Two, "democracy," as Arundhati Roy put it at the ASA's this summer, has been so "butchered and bled of meaning" over the last century that it's virtually impossible to discern exactly what is meant. When everyone is in agreement that "democracy" is "good," then what is democracy? On the other hand, the word's power also means it's worth fighting over. At root, it's a combination of demos, people, and kratos, power. No matter how many times George Bush invokes "democracy" to justify his actions, the fact that they are profoundly opposed to the joint meaning of these two concepts, people and power, cannot be ignored. To simply give up on this word is the equivalent of saying it's okay to say 2+2=5.

I don't have an answer to this. And perhaps it's not as important as I'm making it out to be. One could argue that all labels are harmful for many of the reasons I've given here against particular labels. Maybe I'm better off having "Jon's beliefs" and nothing more and associating myself with "people who think like me" on any given issue. But it's really, really hard to even talk about things if that's the case, let alone actually feel solidarity with some larger movement or cause.