Where Left Is Right / The Old Site

Over at Online Journal, Michael Hasty is making provocative noises about the need for a complete reassessment of the American political landscape.

Hasty doesn't let the right wing off the hook, and he has no confidence in the ability -- hell, the inclination -- of the mass media to represent the "truth" in any form truly worthy of that noble ideal. About the right wing, for example, he says:

...the losers of the two most important wars in American history—the Confederates and the Nazis—now occupy the White House.

And, regarding the purveyors of "truth":

...the media's adamant refusal to address the very real irregularities of the 2004 vote is a deliberate act of psychological warfare. It is the same tactic they've employed in all the other Bush scandals, from Florida 2000 to Harken Energy to Valerie Plame to WMD deception—a tactic that, in its most arrogant form, can be reduced to three simple words: "Get over it."

(Whatever else you can say about the substance of his argument, Hasty certainly knows how to turn a phrase to quicken a lefty's pulse.)

Hasty is calling, as he readily admits, for a revolution. But he does not advocate violent overthrow of the government; rather, he advocates a reasoned, measured, but thoroughly "revolutionary" movement in the direction of -- dare I say it? -- common sense and decency.

He says:

For a revolution to be successful, there needs to be a consensus on the movement's common goals and vision for the future—the "spirit" of the movement which forms an emotional bond among the participants.

This seems inarguable to me, particularly the emphasis on spirit and emotion as liberal touchstones. And then he cites the "ten unassailable principles" laid out by Lucian Bohne, in another Online Journal piece, "Reaffirming Democracy":

1. Support for secular democracy as stipulated by the Constitution.
2. Demonstrable, active respect for international law and for the treaties signed in our name because they are the 'supreme law of the land' as the Constitution admonishes.
3. Cultivation in foreign policy of 'the good opinion of mankind [sic]'.
4. Criminal prosecution of terrorists through domestic and international legal means.
5. Promotion of world peace by rejecting war as a means of settling international disputes.
6. Endorsement of policies and treaties for environmental responsibility.
7. Support for full civil rights for all people in the US.
8. Support for economic policies that promote economic justice at home and abroad.
9. Support for reproductive rights.
10. Solidarity with the people of the planet and respect for their right to self-determination.

Now, one can quibble with the details of this list. (For instance, I think item 9 is too specific to qualify as a "principle"; it's on the order of -- to take Florida as a sorry example -- constitutional amendments to guarantee a specific minimum wage, or to build a "bullet train" between Orlando and Miami: like, these are initiatives of a "constitutional" nature?)

Quibbles aside, though, I find Hasty's -- and of course, Bohne's -- list to be a terrifically exciting starting point.

One particularly thorny issue which Hasty raises: Is the Democratic Party, well, useful anymore?

Unfortunately, we cannot depend on the "establishment left" to provide a dependable infrastructure for an independent revolutionary movement. This does not mean that these organizations cannot provide meaningful and valuable help to make this movement come about. But as institutions, they are too centralized and "corporate" in their structure to embody the truly democratic infrastructure a successful progressive revolution will require.

We also cannot depend on the national Democratic Party, which shares with progressive NGOs the quality of the empty suit. There's not much of an actual public body behind the party's consultants, lobbyists, research associates and fundraisers. This is not to say that a friendly (or hostile) progressive takeover of the Democratic Party shouldn't be part of a revolutionary strategy. But at this point, the party is dominated by "Vichy Democrats"—collaborationists who accept the legitimacy of the 2004 election, thus ratifying the unconstitutional Bush regime (this group would include most elected Democrats, including—or especially—John Kerry); and "Charlie Brown Democrats" who, after three stolen elections in a row, nevertheless harbor the naive belief that the Lucy Party wouldn't dare snatch the football away yet again.

"Vichy Democrats"; "Charlie Brown Democrats": yowza. But if Oliver Willis's "Brand Democrat" project has made you, like me, feel energized -- renewed -- this vein of thought may make you -- like me -- a bit squirmy. Can we afford to turn our backs on the party? Or can we afford not to?

Ambivalence aside, the question needs to be asked, and ultimately answered. I think I'm in a holding pattern for now, waiting to see the outcome of the DNC Chair selection process. If that process reinforces an institutional unwillingness to represent small-d democratic principles -- yes, as embodied in Oliver's campaign -- in favor of conventional centrist philosophies and policies, it's going to be real hard for me to work up enthusiasm for the capital-D Democratic "platform," whatever it turns out to be. Real hard.

Note, btw, that Hasty has presented this as only the first part of a series of such meditations. I for one eagerly await future installment(s).

[Thanks and a tip of the hat to BartCop, for alerting me to Hasty's piece.]