The Protests Against the War in Gaza Show the American Left's Strength and Its Weakness
Protests against American support for Israel in the War in Gaza have occurred on college campuses all over the United States. The protests showed the strength of the students’ political commitment and also its weakness. The strength comes from the movement’s ability to mobilize thousands of people in support of its causes[1]. The weakness is that the mobilization is momentary. It expresses moral outrage over an event, but it has no connection to an ongoing struggle for justice in the United States, and for that reason, the mobilization will not last. It will disappear as the moral outrage dies down. We saw a similar process in at the time of the Black Lives Matter protests. The death of George Floyd at the hands of the police touched off a national wave of protests, but the protests died down as the moral outrage faded.
Leftist Movements Are Unconnected to One Another
Why is this cycle of outrage so typical of the left in the
United States? Why is it so hard for the American left to sustain its
movements? The answer is that the American left lacks an organizational core.
We have no broad leftist movement. Instead, we have a number of groups focused
on specific issues. We have environmental groups; we have groups focused on
racial justice; we have women’s groups. But we do not have a broad leftist
movement that unites these them all.
Issue Groups Are Unconnected to the Labor Movement
One reason why we do not have a united, leftist movement is that there are
no connections between the labor movement and the various issue groups. A
strong labor movement must always be at the core of a united leftist movement for two reasons. First, the labor movement has more members and more money than
any of our issue groups. Second, the labor movement’s goals are at the heart of
the
supreme issue that underlies the various issues that motivate our issue groups.
As Wisconsin’s senator Robert M. La Follette said many years ago,[2]
The
Supreme Issue, involving all others, is the encroachment of the powerful few
upon the rights of the many. This mighty power has come between the people and
their government. Can we free ourselves from this control? Can representative
government be restored? Shall we, with statesmanship and constructive
legislation, meet these problems, or shall we pass them on with all the
possibilities of conflict and chaos, to future generations?
Unfortunately, our issue organizations do not see the
supreme issue that unites their separate struggles. They see their issues as
unconnected to one another. What does fighting climate change have to do with
fighting for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? What
does “Black Lives Matter” have to do with the
suffering of working-class women? What does the fight for a decent national
healthcare system have to do any of those things?
The Supreme Issue
A part of the answer is that underlying many of these issues
is a question about money. Who will pay the cost of the changes that are
needed? Wealth and income are extremely highly concentrated in a small upper
class. This class dominates our political system. The wealthy know that many of the
changes that are needed will require money, and that means higher taxes and
increased regulation of business which inevitably affect profits. Such changes are opposed by the wealthy because they know that they will bear much of the cost of making the changes. Thus, underlying the various, specific issues that motivate our issue
groups is a fundamental class conflict between the interests of the moneyed few
and the interests of most of our people.
The Wealthy Use Cultural Issues to Divert Attention From the Need for Social Change
Second, as I wrote in an earlier post, the wealthy use cultural issues to divert attention
from proposals that might lead to higher taxes or regulation of business. Is
there a danger that we might have a real national healthcare system? That
danger can be averted if people an be persuaded to vote their feelings about
abortion. Is there a danger that businesses might be required to invest in
reducing their carbon emissions? That danger may be averted if people can be
persuaded to vote the feelings about “critical race theory.”
We Have Separated Economic Issues From Social Issues
So, we have separated economic issues from other political issues. Students are demonstrating against Israeli actions in Gaza, while at the same time, the AFL/CIO is working on organizing workers in southern automobile plants, but it does not occur to the students to support the unions, and neither does it occur to the unions to support the students. We have also separated cultural issues from other political issues. So, it does not occur to the women’s groups to support either the students or the unions. The unions have an organizational base, and so does the women’s movement. So, their respective struggles will continue, but they will be weaker than they would be if we had a united leftist movement. The protests against the war in Gaza will probably fade away, and the political left will continue to be weak because, because it lacks a united organizational base.
[1] I
put “causes” in the plural intentionally. The students’ views of the war run a
gamut. On the one hand, there is the view that, while Israel is entitled to
defend itself, it has gone too far in Gaza. On the other hand, there is the
view that Israel is a colonialist enterprise that has no right to exist at all.
[2] Robert M.
La Follette (author), Ellen Torelle (editor), The Political Philosophy
of Robert M. La Follette as Revealed in His Speeches and Writings, Kindle
Edition, Section: “The Supreme Issue.” Page numbers in the Kindle edition are
not useful because readers may set different font sizes. So, I have used the
section title to indicate where each quotation may be found in the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment