Yesterday I was apparently upsetting sensitive Republicans, and this morning I find Mike Glyer holding me up as an example of the “left wing” of the sf community. I suppose I could make some crack about only in America is someone who is neither a gun-toting Libertarian nor a religious fundamentalist regarded as a raving Communist, but that’s not actually the way it works. Many of the Americans I know have political opinions that are pretty close to those of the Socialists I know back in the UK (most of whom would happily lump me in the same political group as Jerry Pournelle, Mike). But Americans generally won’t self-identify as Socialists, regardless of how collectivist their political views are. And more importantly the right in America has become so obsessed with opposing civil rights that anyone who stands up for women or LGBT people or people of color is immediately identified as a dangerous leftie. The economic debate is completely off the radar.
8 thoughts on “Comrade Cheryl Strikes Again”
Comments are closed.
Heaven forbid I should cite the Wikipedia to you, but do you really know what is meant by the “left wing” in American politics? See, for example, “Left-wing politics,” under the “Today” subheading. I guess if the Democratic party fits into the definition of the “left wing” — which is consistent with the rather mild assertion I was making about the views you express here (but involves no claim that you are aligned with any party at all) — there’s no reason for you to find that label any more controversial than if I cited you as an example of “oxygen-breather.”
And collectivism is such an ambiguous term, both historically and currently, it is no wonder most people you know subscribe to it. Depending upon the context it may be advocated by an anarchist or a monk, a communist or a fascist, or even someone who merely favors the concept of public utilities while opposing any other form of government ownership of the means of production.
I think you are just proving my point, Mike. “Left wing” means something totally different to an American than to a Brit. If you really must read Wikipedia, I refer you to this page about Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution and its central place in that party’s ideology.
Us Brits can’t help but be amused by the way the term “left wing” often gets thrown around in America, usually meaning little more than “not Republican”. I’ve even seen Barack Obama described recently as an “extreme socialist”, which conjures an image of someone reading a life of Aneurin Bevan while skateboarding down a mountainside.
Gore Vidal: “But then, I say very mildly, we have only one political party in the United States, the Property Party, with two right wings, Republican and Democrat.”
Odd that left and right wing was discussed at all in Mike’s post.
OTOH – I always considered left to be liberal, right to be conservative. How liberal or how conservative you are is just how far to either end.
The Wiki article seems much more complex than most people I know would say it is.
Overall – much ado about nothing.
You’re not a raving Communist?! Alas! How can we be friends?! 😉
Matt:
I’m friends with China and he’s a raving Trotskyist. (Well, perhaps not raving. Quite sweet actually as Trots go.)
Stephanie:
Communists tend to be deeply conservative people, Matt excepted, of course. But you are right, it was very bizarre of Mike to bring politics into the LHC debate (which is why I chose to tweak his tail over it). I guess is shows just how much a hold the Fundies have on the American political landscape: ignorance about science has become a political statement.
Sounds like a lot of USians wouldn’t know a left wing from a buffalo wing. But I suppose when you have a polity that insists that all its representatives share the same imaginary celestial friend, things are going to get somewhat skewed.
Its such a word debate. I know left-wingers who scorn the liberals…generally it seems that progressive means centrist, liberal means a little left of that, and left-wing means “commie pinko” or anarchist or something similar. Speaking as a card-carrying socialist, I understand that thanks to people conflating socialism with communism, people have a Cold War image problem with the word, hence they don’t identify with it even when it fits their values. That said…I also think folks are more wary of labels now, when Republican and Democrat in *some* contexts can be a similar as Pepsi and Coke.
And yes. Both parties play to the middle and propertied classes who pay for their ads, and the Rs especially do everything they can to cut the poor out of the voting base, whether through redistricting or malicious robo calls or preventing anyone with a felony conviction from voting ever again. The only time populism really comes into it seems to be to split votes along racial lines, sadly enough. Then again, Americans also seem very unwilling to identify themselves as poor even if they need support…
But it seems silly to drag this stuff into fandom. Darnit, fandom’s supposed to be antivenom for the soul, I thought. Or at least I try to do that, although the more time I spend in it the more “real life” leaks in.
I admit I’ve tried to keep myself thinking the antivenom bit by avoiding anybody who seems the slightest bit libertarian or conservative in fandom so we don’t end up having an argument. Which is probably rather cowardly. And that cowardice is rather American too, I venture.
I don’t think the cruddy system over here will change until money is removed from the equation and everyone gets the same ads and coverage. Bloody unlikely, really.