Some of my best friends are liberals. Really. But I have found it is best not to rely on them politically.
Bashing the left to burnish credibility in mainstream circles is a time-honored liberal move, a way of saying “I’m critical of the excesses of the powerful, but not like those crazy lefties.” For example, during a discussion of post-9/11 politics, I once heard then-New York University professor (he has since moved to Columbia University) Todd Gitlin position himself between the “hard right” (such as people associated with the Bush administration) and the “hard left” (such as Noam Chomsky and other radical critics), implying an equivalence in the coherence or value of analysis of each side. The only conclusion I could reach was that Gitlin -- who is both a prolific scholar and a former president of Students for a Democratic Society -- either believed such a claim about equivalence or said it for self-interested political purposes. Neither interpretation is terribly flattering for Gitlin.
Perhaps more important than such cases are the ways in which liberals can undermine the left even when claiming to be supportive in a common cause.
The most recent example in my life came when a faculty colleague at the University of Texas wrote about the controversy sparked by the publication of David Horowitz’s tract about the alleged threat radicals pose to universities, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. The thesis of UT classics professor Tom Palaima’s op/ed piece in the Austin daily paper was that people typically don’t give students enough credit for their ability to evaluate critically the statements of faculty members. Palaima discussed me by name in his piece, believing he was coming to the defense of faculty with dissident views who are being attacked by Horowitz.
I saw it differently. My concern about this isn’t personal; Palaima’s piece and Horowitz’s book have had no effect on my professional life. But these attacks and our responses to them have serious political and intellectual consequences more generally.
First, some definitional work: In the contemporary United States, I use the term “left” or “radical” to identify a political position that is anti-capitalist and anti-empire. Leftists fight attempts to naturalize capitalism, rejecting the assertion that such a brutal way to organize an economy is inevitable. Leftists also reject the idea that the United States has the right to dominate the world, refuting the assertion that we are uniquely benevolent in our imperial project. Liberals typically decry the worst excesses of capitalism and empire, but don’t critique the system at a more basic level.
Palaima’s op/ed piece started by stating, “Jensen’s classes have a political content” and that this led to a conservative student group putting me on a “watch list” of professors who inappropriately politicize the classroom. I teach about journalism and politics; of course my courses have political content, as does every course that deals with human affairs. The political views of professors -- left, right or center -- shape their courses in some ways. But by marking me as political, Palaima’s essay implies others are not, or at least not political as my class (and, by extension, the classes of other leftist professors).
Palaima goes on to refer to my “radical opinions,” suggesting students are free to accept or reject them, and are capable of doing so. I agree that students have, and exercise, that capacity. But by labeling my teaching as the expression of opinions, he adds to the perception that I, or any leftist, turn the classroom into a political pulpit. While my opinions shape my teaching -- just as Palaima’s and all professors’ opinions do, of course -- I don’t simply teach my opinions. I teach a mix of facts, analysis, and interpretation. When I offer students my own analysis and interpretation, I support it with evidence and logic.
Remember that Horowitz’s claim is not just that some of us have left-wing political views but that we inappropriately politicize the classroom. Though Palaima doesn’t explicitly endorse that charge, his defense of me seems to concede that point, as he goes on to defend my teaching on the basis that there is a diversity of views on campus. Yet no one -- the conservative student group that targeted leftist professors, Horowitz, or Palaima -- has ever offered evidence for the claim that I am inappropriate in the classroom. I have always invited anyone who wants to make such a claim to come watch me teach; I am confident I can defend my teaching methods.
Finally, near the end of his column, Palaima refers to “political extremists, on the left and the right” in a way that could easily lead readers to assume that he believes that “extremist” is an appropriate description of me. Given that is a term typically used in public discourse for violent factions (such as terrorists) or groups with ideas outside acceptable discourse (such as neo-Nazis), such casual use of it is irresponsible, further marking me as someone who need not be taken seriously.
When I raised these issues with Palaima, I made it clear I didn’t feel personally aggrieved but thought our disagreements mattered if faculty members are to make a principled defense of the university as a place where independent critical inquiry is valued. He contested my reading and said he hadn’t intended people to read the column the way I suggested they might.
Readers can judge for themselves (the op/ed is online at http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/04/6palaima_edit.html ), but I think the most likely reading of the piece -- given that many people’s existing ideas about leftists and universities are negative -- is something like this: “Jensen is a radical who injects his politics into the classroom, but we shouldn’t worry too much about it because students can manage to see through it, and besides other professors are teaching from a different perspective. And oh, by the way, there are lots of sensible professors with less extreme ideas, such as …”
My response here could be seen as taking on the wrong target. Should I not be critiquing Horowitz before Palaima? Well, I have written such a critique and debated Horowitz on radio and TV ( http://www.alternet.org/rights/31986/ and http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0324-05.htm). But just as important: In a political moment in which virtually every major institution in the country is dominated not just by conservatives but by reactionary right-wing ideologues, it’s easy to assume that liberals and leftists should find common cause. Those of us committed to left politics need to evaluate such cooperation on a case-by-case basis rather than assume it is always the best path, for several reasons.
First, in the short-term in this country it is difficult to see possibilities for serious progressive political change. That’s not defeatist but merely realistic. In such a period, when no mass movement is likely to emerge, one important political task is to consolidate a base of activists with common values and deeper commitments. In such a process, making the distinctions between liberal and left is crucial to the project of building a core radical contingent that can be politically effective in the future.
Second, when leftists and liberals form least-common-denominator coalitions, liberal positions dominate. There’s no history of liberals moving to include left political ideas when right-wing forces are chased from power. Think Bill Clinton, here.
That said, we in left/radical movements have made more than our share of mistakes. It’s time for a period of serious critical self-reflection about our analysis and organizing strategies. That process is not going to be advanced by ignoring the differences we have with liberals. We need to be clearer than ever about those differences in thinking about the long term.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book, All My Bones Shake: Radical Politics in the Prophetic Voice, will be published in 2009 by Soft Skull Press. He also is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen's articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.
I dismiss, frankly, the criticisms of the right concerning left leaning teachers in classrooms. As I do those who argue the opposite. A classroom is not a place wherein selective "facts" are taught, it should be a place where all ideas are given weight and the student is armed with enough to make intelligent decisions regarding what they themselves accept or dismiss. Take into account that this is an extreme generalisation and try hard not to nitpick it.....
As to the political climate of this nation, my forty plus years on the left has taught me that there is a very interesting tendency for people to believe that they are in the center politically speaking. Folks seem to believe that, no matter how far left or right their beliefs place them in contrast to everyone else's beliefs, they feel that they are just middle of the road ordinary folks,(and doesnt everyone believe the earth is flat, excepting of course for 'those' extremists).
We also tend to reject that which alters radically the status quo, at least the great majority of us seem to fear change, even when change is so transparently needed. That is where the "liberal" fails to make the leap, in my opinion, and pulls back from the true left.
Just a couple of random thoughts on a very, very intriguing subject, thanks much Mr. Jensen.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 6:50:01 PM
As a father whose son studies in one of the most 'liberal' universities. I have to conclude with sadness that most of the definitions of ' liberal', ' conservative', ' left' , 'right', ' academic'. etc. are bogus in this country. Most of the people are eager to call themselves that way instead of telling the truth and calling themselves who they really are like, say 'greedy', ' ignorant', 'lazy', ' nutty', 'insecure', ' stupid', ' lost',tail-chasing', etc. Artificial environment of the academia in the US according to which as soon as you call yourself a professor and get tenure you can teach whatever you please as soon as you have enough students to pay tuition creates monsters like Horowitz, say. Under normal circumstances such an idiot would not even be considered, he would be ridiculed by real experts but here, where everyone with big mouth is an expert we debate him, define him and even come out with long- term conclusions about ' left' and ' right'. The best way would be to just come out with the new definition like I once offered 'THE ITz's', that would be people on the payrolll of darkness who use the situation for their own puny benefit and hate anyone else. But it is a taboo to specify people that way, right? So then the ' Jensen's' will suffer, sorry, because in the perverted environment perverts flourish.
As for definitions: There are only two categories of teachers: good teachers and bad teachers. There is nothing else. I lived before in the Soviet Union, the country of definitions. And I can tell that if there was a good teacher there he/she would teach any course, including Scientific Communism in such a way that it was useful and very good for the person who studied. And bad teachers, they ... fought about definitions. Judgin from that, there seems to be a lot of very bad teachers in this country. Bad politicians too. Bad doctors, bad military, bad judiciary. Bad people. I am a father. I told that to my son so that he could see through the smoke. Good people are rare.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3358 comments)
on Friday, April 28, 2006 at 8:12:12 AM
As a woman, I ain't breakin' out the pom poms for the hard left OR the hard right as they're all the same to me: woman haters. In '66, when TIME asked, "Is God Dead?," the actual meaning behind that question was "Is Patriarchy Dead?" The short answer: Yes.
This makes for these very dangerous times as men testerically go through their crisis of masculinity bull-pucky, deciding whether they want to share power with women (nope) or keep power over women (yep). The patrisaurus is going through its death throes and unless men get a check up from the neck up on their hateful, ignorant attitudes towards class woman, not to mentioned their delusional concepts of themselves, the entire planet is goin' up in dick-shaped, nuclear clouds. I'm not hopeful.
In 1969, when women in the antiwar movement tried to point out woman are oppressed and viewed as "objects and property," their movement brothers cheered. These "revolutionary" men clearly intended to keep power over women for themselves, betraying their sisters, shouting "Take her off the stage and fuck her!" "Take her down a dark alley!" "Take it off!"
Get over yourselves, boys.
by
Mar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 155 comments)
on Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 5:19:49 PM
It would seem that the political spectrum ranging from "leftist" to "rightest" has been eliminated by history.
The most left of the leftists, the Chinese Communists, have embraced the corporations. Yet we are still faced by fascism. What is fascism? Here is the definition of it by its inventor Benito Mussolini. "Fascism should properly be called corporatism because it is the marriage of corporation power with state power."
The answer to fascism is The United Front. The meeting at Yalta of Roosevelet, Churchill, and Stalin showed that when faced with something inhuman even people holding widely different views can unite. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that political ideology of any kind is a loser. Ideology might be a great arena for academics but it is not going to get us anywhere.
by
gramps (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments)
on Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 9:36:53 AM
Actually it was in Tehran in 1943 when they really met to make a common ground. And in Yalta they traded... It was in that Yalta when Stalin exiled the whole Crimean tatars and Greeks ( later) and no one gave a damn about them ( hey, people of different views understand each other).
I claim to say that in Yalta there were no people of different views. To the contrary, all the parties there had the same view- that view was to quell the freedom arising and to restore their own power. The three were for power, nothing else. In Tehran they fought for survival, in Yalta they traded aces in the sleeves.
And yes, the United Front is an answer. But look at us: we even here can't unite on anything.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3358 comments)
on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 9:59:30 AM
