Naming the Rose

In order to settle on proper labels, it is important to consider the context in which the labels will be used. While one can use words any way one likes, even invent them freely and whimsically, such uses confuse those unfamiliar with the inventor. Eccentric or obscure definitions usually slow down communication in the same way that tourists have difficulty in foreign lands. So, accepting ordinary uses is important. On the other hand, overused and inaccurate words fail to convey one's meaning.

Left v Right is an entrenched distinction, having arisen at the start of the French Revolution after the Tennis Court Agreement and the seating of the Estates General. In the beginning, the Left was the peasants (petit bourgeoisie) and the Right was the Nobility, Generals, Bishops and landlords. In the beginning of modern democracy, it was the masses of the people on one side, and the political, social and economic elites on the other. Nothing much has disturbed this almost timeless tableau since the last days of Louis XVI.

These days, the Right, or Conservatives, have a certain advantage because they have jealously defended the meaning of their political labels. Conservatives conserve; meaning they stand against changing the old order. Reactionaries are those who would change the old order, but only to go back to a previously existing order (the Ancien Regime).

The Left has not only confused the use of its words, but allowed Conservatives to load them with inaccurate and pejorative meanings. Thus, "liberal," a root word in modern politics, has been turned into a sneer when applied to the Left, and praise as applied to the Libertarian philosophy. This last meaning of "liberalism" confuses ordinary people, as they don't know its history. Liberalism was Charles Dickens' outlook, and the views of those seeking to improve society during the Victorian era. The liberalism of that time is similar to present-day Libertarianism in its emphasis on "free markets" and "free societies" as invented by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and others in the English line of political philosophy. 19^th century liberalism has had little to do with liberalism in the United States since the New Deal. The New Deal and its successor programs were statist in nature, following the model of Bismarck's implementation of social programs in Germany. Moreover, American liberals were influenced by, although not committed to, various European socialist and Marxist ideas, perhaps because the American lower classes were recent (first and second generation) immigrants from Europe. So, "liberal" became a term representing a confused admixture of various ideals and programs, having different origins and purposes.

In their current state, "liberal" and "liberalism" are terms best not used. I avoid them. I think it is best to connote Victorian liberalism by its modern equivalent, Libertarianism. I believe Libertarians accept that usage and all that it implies. Libertarians are in favor of free (unregulated) markets and opposed to big government. They are true philosophical descendants of John Locke, Adam Smith and the Scotch Enlightenment. From that Libertarian point of view, the United States was best governed in the late 19_^th century, after Reconstruction until the Spanish-American War. During that Gilded Age, taxes were low, the Federal government was weak, and Congress was supreme. There were no major social or political upheavals in progress. The bourgeoisie and Plutocrats were in their heyday. I think government under the Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, generally represented Libertarian ideas. In any event, I bequeath to Libertarians the term "liberalism."

That legacy certainly makes life difficult for lots of Democrats and their fellow travelers, who think of themselves as liberals. However, Conservatives have so loaded the term with emotional propaganda (please recall the Willie Horton ad) that it is better surrendered. In fact, "liberal" is not well used these days among Democrats. The more enlightened among them have adopted the term "Progressive."  Progressive is more accurate, as Mirriam-Webster defines its secondary meaning, "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action." I think that accurately describes most Democrats. Unlike many Greens and other people on the Left, including myself, Progressives favor moderate political change, not the sort of radical restructuring that may be required to solve problems (which I propose). Progressives are not radicals, so I grant this label to the Democrats.

"Progressive" is apposite to "Conservative" as both represent deviations from an assumed central axis. In other words, Progressives and Conservatives have in common a reference point: the way things are now, the status quo. They are not radicals. Reactionaries and Leftists are radicals, sometimes even revolutionaries. Radicals have a conception of how things ought to be which is not necessarily dependent on the status quo. Neo-cons are radicals, and so am I, in exactly that sense of having a different understanding of the world and its proposed construction.

The last two paragraphs imply what makes the current Washington political environment so difficult. Progressives and Conservatives might find room for agreement. They might be able to "get together and solve the problems," or so they think. But the debate in Washington is not between Conservatives and Progressives. That is a fact most Americans, especially Democrats and the non-committal, simply fail to  understand. The Radical Right is in charge. They hold all the offices. They are doing whatever they want without restraint, certainly without consideration of objections. The only people responding appropriately to the Neo-cons and Religious Right are the Radical Left - people like Cindy Sheehan and millions of immigrant protestors, and old Berkeley Radicals like me. This difference of opinion cannot be compromised: it has to be one way or the other way. If necessary, it has to be settled in the streets.

Last night, I talked with an old friend about things like this. X has generally Progressive views. Like most Americans, X does not think badly of others just because of their political affiliation. X is often an admirer of Sen. McCain. X doesn't like the Bandit. X finds it very difficult to accept that people actually make some of the mean and dangerous attacks aired on TV, so X doesn't listen to them. X doesn't follow politics and government affairs closely, so finds it very hard to believe that some things are much "harder" than they appear. For example, X bought the government's propaganda that Bird Flu is not a great concern, even though West Nile virus wiped out bird populations that used to visit the neighborhood.

In other words, most people are gentle and forgiving. They aren't hard liners. They don't get involved much in politics. They want to believe what the authorities tell them. All of that makes it very difficult for most people to come to grips with our present circumstances. They refuse to believe Fascists have come to power. They refuse to believe Karl Rove really said, and means it, that he intends to wipe out the Democratic party and all liberals. Most people rely on their old model of the world, constructed in 9^th grade Civics, in which Policemen help people crossing streets, Firemen teach CPR classes, and the Post Man is a spry guy who doesn't mind the dog tearing his trousers; the world of Sesame Street. Most people are not prepared for a world in which policemen are the enemy, while the government  is tapping phones.  Rather than deal with this unpleasant and overwhelming reality, people retreat into their comforting fantasies.

But, I digress. We can distinguish Conservatives and Progressives. There are Radicals and Revolutionaries of the Left and Right. There are Libertarians, Reactionaries and Neo-conservatives (neo-cons) on the extreme Right. What shall we call those on the Left? I hope you have noticed that we don't have a term, except the diminutive "Lefties," for those on the Left. I looked in the dictionary, where I found an old artist's term, "Avante Garde." I rejected that and "vanguard of the proletariat" as too elitist. "Populist" means 'of the people,' but doesn't convey any particular political stand. Socialist is too specific, as are Communist and several other labels, capitalized or not.

I had to think, what are the most important things that distinguish the Left from the Right? Is the Left so inchoate, so amorphous, that it defies any naming except 'Left' or (while pointing) 'Over There'? Finally, I considered that Time is a major axis of distinction, so it seemed to me the Left is imbued with a desire to go forward, to advance. That led me to the thought that, during modern times, it is people on the Left who have been the movers and shakers, especially in politics. The Left claims Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi amd Albert Einstein and a long list of giants who invented the world in which we live. Conservatives may have made fortunes delivering radio, TV and computers to market, but it was some quirky intellectuals - mostly Lefties - who thought the thoughts that made it possible. The Left is peopled with Advancers and Futurists, people capable of having a new idea. They are Changers who bring about new worlds.

What all those aspects of the Left have in common is built into an old, now disused word: Utopia. I think the word solves my problem, partly because almost everyone else disowns it. Therefore, let us have Utopians - the people of the Left - who believe in Utopia, the state of our intentions. I think this term better fits the group than "Left."

I hope it will not be too distracting and difficult if, henceforth, I talk about Utopian politics and Utopians. This will serve to distinguish those on the Left from those who are not. Who is not a Utopian? Easy: Conservatives, Reactionaries, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Progressives and even some Greenies. Utopians aren't a big group in America or anywhere. Despite that and being highly dispersed, they almost always know each other when they meet. Maybe it's time to get more organized as the Utopian society; or, maybe not. The main thing is being a Utopian is an honorable calling which should be recognized as such.