| For starters, I believe Odum does a great job of picking up immediately on the most interesting, noteworthy and objectionable elements from Darren Allen's piece. There is no doubt that the continual rightward stretch of the spectrum of political discourse in this country is horrific at best. From comparing the Swift Boat Veterans to MoveOn and labeling Clinton as "liberal" Odum is right on the mark about the audacious re-defining of political terms that the media enables and endorses, if it doesn't outright produce.
And, whereas I would disagree that most of the media is actually politically left (as we shall see bellow), I do agree entirely that most of them are relatively liberal, which Odum seems right in his conclusions on, including how it creates for a very curious and complicated political-media environment.
But towards those same ends, lets take a look at where this piece starts to look like it's replicating Allen's tactics rather than taking a stance against such things:
In the very beginning, it's pointed out that "'ultra-left' is clearly beyond simply `left'" which is true enough, except that neither is actually defined. While some things can easily be assumed to be (near) universally understood by the reader, these terms don't seem to lend themselves to that trait- especially given that this confusion of what "left" entails is essentially the premise of Odum's article. In other words, I know my grandfather considers unemployment checks from the government a "crazy scheme of the left" whereas I do not consider any action taken by a capitalist State to be outside of the far right, other than what is occasionally leaning towards the left. A French journalist recently covering Bernie Sander's election to the Senate said something to the effect of "in France, his politics would be considered very mainstream; certainly not on the right but by no means on the far left" (I'm sorry that my internet search skills keep me from actually finding a direct quote or a link; I assume anyone who doubts me will be quick to fact check on their own). Where Odum's piece really confuses me is where he really seems to agree with the self-serving statements that brush aside those whom this piece finds politically distasteful, i.e., "radicals" who are "not to be trusted and have little or nothing to do with everyday political dialogue." It would seem that the actuality of this "left" that we're talking about is being defined in the same manner by both Allen and Odum, with only the slightest of differences. Perhaps both should take a quick trip to Europe, where they might get a slightly broader understanding of "left" that is far more international and historical in scope than anything spoken in either the traditional U.S. media or this website.
I take part in this forum precisely because I have a very real interest in the everyday political dialogue of Vermont, and I assure you, I fall in your (and many other's) definition of "ultra-left"; so much so that there are those that call my views "post-left" (so far left I'm right! ;-}).
And while I know that Odum was only listing examples that came from a google search, I do have to point out that "Marxism" and "anarchism" could, with little debate, find themselves being called "far-left". However, for those few who actually study the politic that carries that dubious distinction, Lenin is about as deserving of the title as Clinton. Lenin orchestrated horrific slaughters of literally millions of people, often by wretched means such as cutting off the food supply to vast regions where he had little support, which hardly seems populist and "left" to me. Regardless of the incredibly successful efforts by both capitalist and Marxist interests to paint the Soviet Union as such, neither Lenin, nor the Soviet Union, came anywhere near being a communist state for the Russians. Lenin and the USSR were unquestionably nothing more than a State-run capitalist dictatorship, as with North Korea, China, and Cuba today.
Perhaps these points could be ignored by Odum's search for the "real spectrum of American discourse"- it's irrelevant what France calls left or right, only the major pockets of political opinion here, non? But how could this be? The whole point of the piece is that Odum objects to the narrowing definitions of the political spectrum. If so, then aren't we better served with the broadest of spectrums, so that every idea for how best to interact as a social species can be discussed and debated based on merit? Should we demand the spectrum be broadened so as to place our own opinions somewhere other than on the undesirable fringes, but use those same fringes as proof itself that those we disagree with are wrong, in fact "crazy"?
Which isn't meant to be some sort of proof that I'm not crazy, but there's no way to deduce from that that my ideas are as well.
And while Odum seems to champion some sort of idea of "progressive" values, I wonder if he recognizes the history of such demands. There was, after all, an incredibly fruitful and successful Progressive Era in this country several generations ago. Back then, when they fought for such crazy ideas as public education for every child, child labor laws, health care, decent wages, a minimum wage, worker's comp, safety standards on the job, etc, guess who were the social heroes, the leaders who played no small part in helping to organize the working class so that we were capable of accomplishing such victories? Those "radical, crazy, not to be trusted and have little or nothing to do with everyday political dialogue" "ultra-leftists" such as Emma Goldman, "Big Bill" Haywood, and Mother Jones. A visit to Karen and her husband (who's name I always forget) at the Aldrich Library in Barre will also provide some great stories about the not-so-small part that Vermonter's, particularly those from Barre, played during the Progressive Era. The "conservatives" of those progressive movements were often "merely" Marxists, to say nothing of the anarchists and communists, who despite not being worth our trust, managed to get child slavery, I mean labor, outlawed and established the 40 hour work week. In fact, with the 40 hour work week increasingly abused by our present-day economic realities, perhaps we should start bringing some of those untrustable, "outside-the-acceptable-range-of-debate" ultra-leftists back into the conversation so that we can re-establish our human right to not labor-away our lives with no time to enjoy the fruits of our toils.
Finally, my least favorite liberal myth, that of the "objective" media. There never has and never will be such a thing, and thankfully so. We're probably all aware of the continual consolidation of the media, but lets not forget that this consolidation began long before Bush or even Nixon. A hundred years ago there were often dozens of different newspapers in any given city; New York City alone had something like 30 at one point. And each and every one was very clear about the politic that it espoused and the political slant of the reporting that was being done. In this, a very broad spectrum was covered and you consumed the media knowing what the angle was, free to pick and choose as you saw fit. It is a rare and in fact very sterile story that reads entirely factual, like a lab report, with no human inference. And yes, sometimes a story is objective and better for it, but seldom in political matters. Hunter S. Thompson would remind us that the journalist is in fact a character in the story he or she is reporting, and therefore the only honest thing to do would be to let that be known explicitly to the reader. I have countless friends who may scoff at my continual consumption of sometimes dubious media (from Fox News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, that really obnoxious True North Radio on WDEV that makes me NUTS but for some reason I listen to almost every day, the Burlington Free Press, etc) but I have a very good understanding of where each of them are coming from, who their target is, and what their agenda may or may not be, so I can understand so much more than if I were to simply accept that some (or all) of these media sources were reporting in an objective, "fair and balanced" way. The same holds true for when I listen to Democracy Now! or read the magazine Northeastern Anarchist; I understand that these media are providing me with an opinion that is shaped by their politic, and I can take what I may from them because I know and understand their slant, not because they're promising me that they are objective and neutral, like the form my doctor fills out when I get a check-up.
One last note, which is that, OK, this diary clearly cements me as the token "ultra-left" pinko-commie on this site. I'm fine with that. I am here because I find the opinions and stories interesting, informative, and valuable. I do not mean to be attacking Odum as a person here in this diary and I hope no one takes it as such; I don't even know Odum, but from what he posts on GMD I know that I sometimes agree and sometimes don't, BUT, and more importantly, Odum is clearly a thoughtful, well-meaning, rational person, which seems to me far more important than political agreement. Cheers. |
