I Can’t Turn Left!
There’s a Zoolander Problem in American Politics
Yes, the American political landscape has a Zoolander problem: none of its parties are on the left. But before we actually get into it, I propose starting with a definition, if you don’t mind. We are after all supposed to at least pretend this is something of a serious blog.
1. A Definition
To put it simply — i.e. the aspiring academic should cover hisorher eyes — a left-wing political entity can be characterized by the domestic pursuit of egalitarian policies. A consultation with the Oxford Handbook of Political Science (the budding scholar’s budded scholar) reveals that the left-right divide comes from a historic opposition between those parties who fraternized with capital owners (the right), and those who sided with workers’ interests (the left).
The attentive among you will no doubt have noticed that this definition encompasses quite a large range of ideas… as it indeed does. For example, in economic terms, we may well find a leftist party supporting Keynesian ideals (mixed private/public economy, strong welfare state), an other promoting the Marxian brand (or rather the latest looney that tries to interpret him politically), and a third espousing some sort of communal/anarchic system (yes, left-wing libertarians do exist). Not to be outdone, the right possesses broad membership requirements as well — going from such dandy ideas as classical liberalism, all the way to the sinister precepts of racial supremacists.
As a result (partly), the distinction between both sides has historically been made on simpler terms: progressive and conservative. Why? because besides a few exceptions, the right tends to try and preserve current social status quo, while the left goes against it. The forefathers of Anglo-Saxon conservatism, David Hume and Adam Smith, illustrate the term difference perfectly. As related by the Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (the listless student’s serious student), the two always maintained that social change should never undermine the established regime, despite their occasional support of radical, progressive ideas. This marks an important distinction: while they may have been leftists in theoretical terms, both Smith and Hume were political conservatives. So as not to confuse matters more, I should point out that we’ll only take the political side into account.
And there, our problem should by now be fairly obvious: no US political party represents left-wing — or progressive — ideas. By the standards above, Democrats are firmly anchored in the center-right.
2. A Historical Perspective
How could this ever happen? Well, I’m not entirely sure, though it appears to have been going on for quite a while. Indeed, Henry Adams had already diagnosed the problem accurately toward the close of the 19th century:
“We have a single system, and in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.”
Likewise, the ever-elegant Gore Vidal identified the same matter nearly a hundred years later:
“There is only one party in the United States, […], and it has two wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently [Watergate implied] — and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the blacks, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”
Whatever its true origin, I hope you’ll have realized that a certain collusion between business and government has existed, largely unopposed, for a very long time. While this isn’t necessarily an awful or unique thing, it does bleaken hope for reformers — or anyone who sees such unabashed complicity as oligarchic in nature (it is).
This problem resurfaced — emboldened — more recently somewhere between the collapse of the New Deal coalition in 1968 and Ronald Reagan’s winning campaign in 1980; my guess being on the 1976 election, since Jimmy Carter was the first modern ‘centered’ Democrat, and benefitted heavily from the Republican’s momentary loss of credibility. In any case, a significant right-wing shift occurred within the entire political class, effectively muting the true left for the first time since the 1930's. It is worth noting that during and immediately after the New Deal coalition lull (1934–1968 and environs), Republican presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon’s respective policy lines included continuing the New Deal and expanding social security. Yes: at the time, the Republican party was the center-right (leaving Democrats cozy at center-left).
3. What About Now?
Today, the observations above still hold up well, to say the least. For better or for worse, the American political system does not really ever foment dissent. Even between its two parties, cooperation is always promoted over factionalism (an alarming idea: the most effective policy is often the result of bitter debate). While this does much to explain (superficially perhaps) its unique capacity for stability, it also hints at a certain indisposition toward social change — only tremendous crises seem strong enough to force it to adapt (not that that’s particularly different from a lot of other systems, but still).
Regarding Congress, even a cursory glance at party policy (here and here is a good start) reveals, if anything, that major disagreements between our two wings almost never actually occur on a policy itself, but rather on its extent. As obvious as ever, the perfect illustration remains the two sides’ tax promises — where the only actual difference remains that Democrats do not favor cutting taxes on the rich. Of course such comparisons must be taken with a pinch of salt (and a shot of tequila), because legislative decision makers place greater emphasis on personal loyalties — to put it (ti)mildly — than anything else.
So what about the executive branch? Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is where things get interesting. While the clearest manifestation of this right-shift phenomenon remains the Clinton administration’s policy of triangulation (forgive the rhymes) — i.e. say/act like you’re on the left, but win consensus with right-wing policies — a look at the Obama admistration’s current servings should be enough to convince you of our claims… The fact remains that pretty much the same companies pay for both Democrat and Republican campaigns, and each candidate has his own set of competing industries vying for favors (the tech sector had Obama and the energy Romney, for example). And while such things as our president’s evident corruption (yes, it’s legal; yes, everyone does it) are problematic, his utter lack of actual progressive politics should be alarming in itself — healthcare without public option? no financial regulation?! etc, etc…
4. What About Foreign Policy?
While international relations discourse is usually divided between realist and idealist ideologies, a look at recent US history shows that the country’s absence of an organized political left has had quite an influence.
In truth, its impact has been nothing short of tragical; since Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, the only American foreign policy idealists have been conservatives (FDR’s case being somewhat debatable). Today, these are known mostly as the neocons, and basically support a milder remnant of early 20th century imperialist ideology, where such phrases as ‘American exceptionalism’ and ‘liberating mission’ are common finds. Its main difference with leftist (or liberal) idealism relies on the latter’s belief in international institutions (and in essence cooperation) in building a lasting framework for global peace. Thus, in the former the United States are considered sole guarantors of international progress and stability, while in the latter that role is filled by trans-national cooperation.
By contrast, realists see foreign policy purely as power play, where peace is only achievable through a balance-of-power, or the existence of an almighty hegemon. And that’s where the problem is, because a cynical approach to international relations has only ever led to short-term improvements, and more often than not long-term catastrophes. Surprising as that may be, the playing of regional alliances solely in terms of power — without any clear, absolute long-term ideals (be they as sensible as peace and democracy, or as dangerous as conquer and civilize) — has never yielded to stability.
Thus, the United States’ foreign policy failures have always been the result of either right-wing idealist incompetence (the latest ex-president provides adequate examples) and center-right realism. Nixon and Kissinger’s criminal handlings of the Vietnam War, the Chilean coup and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor all count for the latter; as did the country’s support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, and its continuing association with the double-dealing Saudi Arabian and Pakistani regimes. Likewise, president Obama’s recent cock-ups around Ukraine and Syria can be seen in the same vein — and don’t bode particularly well for the future. A terrible lack of alternative, to be sure…
5. A Full-Bodied Conclusion
While there are easily worse things in the world (political or not) than a lack of organized leftist policy-making, the current administration’s troubled management of serious problems, both at home and abroad, leaves an unpleasant feeling. A worrying truth lingers… namely, that unless the political landscape somehow suffers a sudden left-shift, nothing quite exists to balance with the corrupt center-right and its crazed counterpart. Moderate Republicans have been mostly extinguished, while it appears left-wing Democrats are bent on staying irrelevant — if they exist at all. And all this time I thought ambi-turning was innate.
— Simon Mercer (@Tiddlebits)
