Donate today and get a free, signed copy of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > May 5, 2005

Left Out

By Jody Kolodzey

The "inside/outside" dichotomy surfaced throughout the conference—suggesting that the left is out of touch.
Tags   

During the closing plenary of the 2005 Left Forum—the conference formerly known as the Socialist Scholars—Bogdan Denitch of the Institute on Transitions to Democracy asserted, “Ninety-nine percent of the American people are to the right of us in this room.”

Granted, in context, the remark was to be taken as a wake-up call. Yet, there was something self-congratulatory about it as well, a sense of “we’re better than they.” It brought to mind those old Mensa buttons that bragged of the wearer’s IQ in relation to the rest of the population by simply stating, “2%.”

Denitch’s assessment was also debatable, so it was remarkable that no one else on the dais challenged him on it.

The official theme of the conference, held April 15–17 at the City University of New York (CUNY), was “The U.S., the World, and the Next Four Years.” Unofficially, it was, in the rhetoric of the speakers and the musings of many audience members, “inside/outside.”

Of what? For the most part, the Democratic Party. But the inside/outside dichotomy surfaced in other instances—suggesting it is the left itself that is in trouble and out of touch.

Inside the CUNY center, the conference-goers were mostly middle-aged, middle-class, white, highly educated and dressed respectably, conservatively even, in natural fibers that ran the chromatic gamut from beige to brown, except for an occasional outraged or outrageous t-shirt, some Green Party buttons and Medea Benjamin’s pink coat.

During the same closing plenary, Benjamin, of Global Exchange, asked how many people present were under 30 years old. A tenth of the audience raised their hands.

It was even worse at the opening plenary, where Michael Albert of Z-Net observed that the average age was probably 54. “In the ’60s, we used to applaud when someone over 50 attended an event like this,” he said later. “Now it’s just the opposite.”

Outside, on the corner of 34th Street and Fifth Avenue, the tourists and vendors who mingled on the sidewalk in front of the Empire State Building were more diverse culturally, chronologically, linguistically, ethnically and economically. And a heck of a lot more colorful.

And who’s to say what their politics were? Or could be?

Such demographics were not lost on all of the speakers. “The left is too white,” said New York City Councilman Bill Perkins during the panel “After the 2004 Elections: Progressive Responses.” “It is a great conceit bordering on arrogance for us not to be responding to what the people want,” he continued, accusing the left of being somewhat intentionally “disconnected.”

One reason for that disconnect might be that the left too frequently disregards the mainstream media, as Danny Schechter of Mediachannel.org observed during a panel on “Media in the Context of Globalization.” “We don’t watch it, we don’t see how flawed the coverage is, how superficial,” he said. “We don’t get exposed to the information sources of most Americans.”

Likewise, the poet Amiri Baraka, during the packed panel “Freedom Dreamin’: Imagining Socialism,” noted, “The bourgeoisie not only rule by carrot and gun but by making popular forms carry imperialist messages.”

“We have been too content merely to criticize imperialism,” Baraka said. “The majority [of Americans] already know this [political system] is bad. The question is, what kind of alternative have we, the intellectuals, created that they feel magnetized to?”

Also missing, as Denitch astutely noted, was the left religious community.

Denitch’s own presence at the podium raised more than a few eyebrows, however, considering the schism that had led to the establishment of the new conference in the first place.

The Left Forum was conceived as an alternative to the old Socialist Scholars Conference, which Denitch had headed for 19 of its 23 years. As one person “inside” the defecting team explained, about half the old conference board felt left out of the decision-making process and therefore left the organization. There were supposed to be two conferences this year, but the one that kept the name Socialist Scholars Conference didn’t happen, and Denitch was invited to speak at the new one, albeit as something of an outsider.

The final speaker at the closing plenary, Ron Daniels of the Center for Constitutional Rights, was talking about the Democratic Party when he said, “The best way to influence the inside is to have a strong outside.”

But perhaps we need to step outside as well.

Jody Kolodzey is a journalist and ethnomusicologist in Philadelphia.

More information about Jody Kolodzey
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Indeed we do need to step outside as well.  I’ve not seen an ITT column with this kind of thinking in a long time.  I’ll be watching Jody Kolodzey’s column’s in the future.

    Posted by Ben Manski on May 5, 2005 at 7:29 PM

    TO THE FAR LEFT:

    I wish to communicate something to you I feel very passionate about.  Pardon me if I come across preachy.  You can be, in my opinion, an important force in resuscitating genuine democratic impulses and advancing the further devlopment of democracy.  But you can’t do it the way you have been going.  From this report you seem to be beginning to realize that.  You can be a powerful ‘outside’ by becoming able to penetrate and understand and touch deeply a culture not disposed to democracy even though its deepest conviction is that it is the model of democracy.  Wow!  What a task!

    How useful or un-useful the far left critique may be should not be the focus of attention. Relevance is the central issue. Forget morality and self-confidence rooted in feeling you are right.  There are no existing blueprints.

    Aristotle laid down a fundamental pragmatic principle: “Whatever is reeived is received according to the disposition of the receiver.” For the most part--very, very most part--the various dispositions of the American people abide within the realm of a virtually closed hegemonic culture, not a democratic one. (By democratic I mean roughly open-minded, concerned about common matters, compassionate, disposed to dialogue, wanting informed opinion, and focused on the solutions that a community can come to agreement on.)

    Becoming relevant, in my opinion based on 25 years of experimenting with developing a small democratic culture entails putting intense effort into finding out how to connect to people within this virtually closed culture.  This becomes priority #1, #2, and #3. Expect it to take 100 years.  Know that humility must over-ride FEELING sure of yourself and your opions.  Very, very few of us are predominantly democratic in our personalities.  We carry our inherited culture deeply within us. The process of developing democracy as much as possible in our country must bring us into deeper understandings of what it means to be democratic in our hearts, minds, and behavior.  The two are inseparable.  Non-dogmatic self-evaluation is a life-long process.

    This prodigious effort of self-work and finding out to connect with the so undisposed audience is worth it, well worth it.  There is a democratic tradition in our culture that is still breathing although it is buried within hegemonic dimensions of overwhelming passivity, consumerism, Chistian Coalition and Corporate America predominance.

    I hope this is useful.

    joncehart

    Posted by joncehart on May 8, 2005 at 6:25 AM

    Reading ITT online is usually a good antidote for having to live in right-wing Republican Idaho.
    However, I find joncehart’s comments more relevant than anything you wrote in your report on the recent 2005 Left Forum. Your report is chatty, but it says nothing about politically relevant views that might have been exchanged at this forum, although having seen the escalating irrelevance of the far left to anything communicable to ordinary folks in this country, perhaps there was nothing of relevance actually said there!
    The far left is still mired in straightjackets of ideology, unfortunately.

    Baraka—“The question is, what kind of alternative have we, the intellectuals, created that they feel magnetized to?” --made the crucial point.

    Likewise, the postmodernist, post-colonialist critics have the same problem that Baraka points to here. They are also irrelevant to the growing perception among all kinds of citizens that we have a lousy political system that is malfunctioning and corrupt. These intellectuals have nothing to offer. What does the Left have to offer in the way of remedies today?

    Posted by jo on May 9, 2005 at 9:02 PM

    At this time the most viable ‘remedy’ would be to forestall the momentum of our retreat to the nineteenth century and halt any further erosion of the rights and sensibilities we once cherished.  Damage control in the form of a meaningful and authentic opposition.  For that to happen, people have to have the courage to speak up in defence of their beliefs and stop waiting for someone else to it.  Despondency and complacency are killing the left.  Get off your asses and be heard.

    Posted by trouble in the Heartland on May 11, 2005 at 4:32 AM

    A progressive rennaissance in this country is, first off, inconceivable under current social conditions.  The current political lineup, class structure, and reigning political discourse can only be changed after a period of prolonged economic and social turmoil.

    That having been said, such a crisis period, while not uncommon in the history of capitalism, does not at all guarantee a progressive revival. 

    What the Left has to do to take advantage of such a situation is to consolidate and expand its power at the grassroots level, getting out its message to receptive communities (particularly working-class neighborhoods long taken for granted by the Democratic Party) through low-cost information distribution techniques and community organizing campaigns.  One example is the successful mayorship of the late Miguel Contreras in Los Angelos.

    That way, when the shit finally does hit the proverbial fan, there will be an institutionalized alternative to the current ideologies.  Otherwise, the only alternative available to victims of conservative policies and ideas might be a rabid nationalist in the vein of Pat Buchanan.

    Posted by Matthew Klauber on May 12, 2005 at 10:28 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 11 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Jody Kolodzey

Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

Popular Discussions