Whither the Left Now?

Prior to the presidential election, a dear friend of mine asked, “How do you keep from being disappointed or heart broken when it doesn’t go the way you know is truly right?” The question, heartfelt, cuts right to the core of what it means to be on the far Left of the American political spectrum. The simple answer is: it’s not easy.

The American Leftist must exist in two political worlds at once: the first is the mainstream, centrist culture, while the second is a small, intellectually-driven, disparate world of those seeking to reform the other one. Learning to negotiate this tension is the frustrating plight of the Leftist. It is an existence filled with more letdowns than triumphs.

It is very difficult to stay motivated when we are sidelined time and again. Because third parties are essentially locked out of a two-party, electoral system, it is frustrating to remain on the fringe each election cycle. It’s almost enough to want to make one quit. Almost.

Being a Leftist in this election was especially trying. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ran dynamic campaigns. The first woman and the first African American to seriously vie for a major party presidential nomination was certainly a spectacle. These two “firsts,” for a variety of reasons, drew many Leftists into the deep-pocketed folds of the Democratic Party. Likewise, rallying cries like “the most important election of your lifetime,” and “we can’t afford four more years of Bush,”—Democratic selling points trumpeted in the 2004 election—also endeared Leftists to the cause.   

While his election marks a noticeable shift in American politics, those on the Left, however, believe Obama’s win to be less seismic and more like a shift of our collective weight from the right foot to the left one. While many of our countrymen celebrated in the streets after he claimed victory, Leftists merely sighed in relief; the ascendancy of Obama makes our job easier, but only just. The centrist Obama’s win is not a victory of the Left, Columbia professor Manning Marable rightly noted.

Adding to the confusion, Leftist loyalties were divided between independent, perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, to say nothing of the Socialist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or the Socialist Worker Party’s nominees. In the end, Nader placed third, McKinney sixth. Combined, Leftist candidates nabbed less than 2% of the popular vote. In a post-election outreach letter, the Green Party crowed about its biggest winner: Richard Carroll elected to the Arkansas state legislature. Worthy achievements yes, but hardly energizing for a would-be movement.

Thus, while it’s been a consumer fad for years now, in 2008—politically speaking—it was not easy being Green. A variety of excuses and justifications were given by liberals for voting for Senator Obama over more liberal candidates. Many were drawn to Obama’s lofty rhetoric, his unique “narrative,” or the transcendent possibilities of having an African American with the middle name Hussein in the Oval Office. Attractive characteristics, indeed, but the “pure” Leftists who voted for Obama did so knowing they had compromised some of their own political principles. Prior to the election more than one person apologized to me for not supporting the Green Party candidate, even though McKinney’s political platform was more closely aligned with their own principles than Obama’s.

Moreover, Leftists, living in very solidly “blue” or “red” states, where votes for the Democratic Party would count for little, still could not bring themselves to vote for Nader or McKinney. In an interview with Amy Goodman, Nader underscored this mystery: “I think the big story for us, Amy, in the progressive world is the hardcore progressive voter in the slam-dunk McCain and Obama states,” like Massachusetts, New York, or Texas, “didn’t turn out for the progressive candidates, for Nader-Gonzalez, for Cynthia McKinney. They didn’t turn out… the hardcore progressive voter is just not turning out for progressive candidates.”

Even stalwarts of the Left like The Nation and Howard Zinn, abandoned their posts to endorse Obama. “There is a difference,” between Obama and John McCain,” Zinn wrote. “Not a significant enough difference for me to have confidence in Obama as President, but just enough for me to vote for Obama and to hope he defeats McCain.” And so it went down the line. The only coordinated effort on the Left, it seems, was a nose-pinching shuffle to the middle.

 Whither the Left now? Clearly some reorganization is needed. Just as the Republican Party has some soul searching to do to heal its own divisions, the Left also must mend its fractures; coordinating a viable, single Leftist party—call it Socialist, Green, or Labor—still remains an utmost priority. Considering our lackluster appearance at the polls in November, however, putting the pieces together seems daunting.

Writing for Dissent online the day after the election, Michael Walzer opined, Obama “will be, I think (and hope), a more radical president than he wants to be.” For now, we are tasked in making sure this happens. We have little choice—at the moment, we don’t know what’s Left.

***

November 12, 2008