To the right is a Soviet New Year card; I’ve featured these before. If they look suspiciously like Christmas cards, well, that’s just the genre…
As it happens, this New Year isn’t one our counterparts on the left have looked forward to ever since That Man With the Big Hair won a couple of months ago. There have been many recriminations about this. For some of us the question is this: how could you people, who have showered trillions on the population while taking complete credit for it, miss running the table at election time? (Same question in 2000, and 2004…) I think the answer to that question comes in part from the country that produced that New Year’s card.
The left has traditionally had three wedges to drive into Euro-Christian civilisation: sex, race and class. A fourth one, the environment, is used to underpin the other three. This combination is a metastable one; it can work for a while, but can be only maintained with a great deal of propaganda while relying on their opponents to help keep the rickety chandelier together.
One way to simplify things is to de-emphasise one or more of them and concentrate on the others. American conservatives like to characterise their opponents as Marxists. This is not entirely true: there are very few real Marxists on the American political scene, even in academia. That’s because, while Marx focused on one of those wedges–class–American liberals concentrate on sex and race. That was certainly in evidence this last election cycle. Had the American left struck a better balance among the three, Donald Trump–or any other Republican for that matter–would have never stood a chance of winning the White House, and that defeat would have probably taken the Senate with it.
But they didn’t. Instead they took their stand with the pro-choice and identity politics–the latter of which is, in a sense, trying to revive pre-Enlightenment ways of governing society–and ignored the fact that income inequality only worsened under Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders attempted to shift this back to a more class-based dialectic, but his attempt wasn’t entirely successful. And, as we all know, the Democrat party leadership was in no mood to nominate him anyway…
Marx’ obsession with class–and that of his disciples–has its shortcomings. The racism embedded in Russian society never changed during Soviet times. The move to women’s rights didn’t go very far either, even though they had very liberal abortion and divorce legislation. Their environmental policies were a disaster they are still suffering from. But they built a nation to be reckoned with and a great industrial power.
The American left, however, is still pursuing its (or its parents’) hippie dreams of a land with free love and no need to achieve.
I still think that the American left could finish the job (close the deal, perhaps?) To do that, however, will need a lot better leadership then has surfaced up to now. I used to say they needed to find their inner Lenin; I’m not sure they’ve got anyone at this point up to Otto von Bismarck or even Léon Blum.
Which, I suppose, is the best insurance for happiness for the rest of us…Happy New Year, comrades.