Wishful Thinking on the Left

Faith and Theology posts an op-ed piece from an Australian newspaper in which the author has the temerity to suggest that conservative politics are in global retreat. The author fails to note who is in power in France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Mexico, and Japan. That might, let us say, throw some cold water on his enthusiasm.

At least Scott Stephens has the good sense to admit that New Labour in Great Britain, whose death he obviously wishes for, fine-tuned Thatcher’s policies instead of throwing them out and returning to Old Labour policies. But if Stephens means to imply that a return to Old Labour policies is the answer, he is, of course, completely deluded.

It’s not clear to this NYT reader / NPR listener what leftist-minded Aussies are up to, now that they are in power, besides apologizing to the aborigines. From the op-ed piece, it would seem that they are up to no good in the sense that they are not pushing truly conservative policies of the kind Stephens – from the Left - appears to support.

As far as the incoming Obama administration is concerned, signals so far indicate that change to come will be moderate to very moderate. Obama is unlikely to do more than fine-tune the economic and social policies of Reagan (neo-capitalism) and Clinton (welfare reform, tax credits for the poor), not throw them out altogether.

I don’t see why someone like Stephens is chirping happily about the current turn in political events. Obama looks to be another Tony Blair in the making. One might imagine worse, far worse, but why an anti-Blairite like Stephens is pleased at the moment is beyond me.

Stephens is right that conservatism in the good sense is virtually dead. Don’t expect either the Left or the Right to uphold “real family values of saving, thrift, responsibility, and fair reward” - Tory Chris Patten’s words (Patten is now chancellor of Oxford University). The GOP in the US over the last 8 years showed little interest in upholding the family values of which Patten speaks.

In the US, politics on both sides of the spectrum is currently typified by the actions of people like Abramoff, Rangel, DeLay, Byrd, Jefferson, and Stevens. Thieves and companions of thieves. That, furthermore, is not the deepest problem. The deepest problem is that “change we can believe in” is destined to be very meager fare, because a commitment to conservatism in Patten’s sense and liberalism in the sense of a bottom-up approach to economic and social policy are conspicuously lacking in the arguments and approaches of policy-makers and opinion-makers to both sides of the center today.

In terms of foreign policy, the situation bodes a bit better. The prospect is, as David Brooks calls it, continuity we can believe in.

The conservatism I was raised on, that of John Wesley, is not inimical to capitalism but exploits it for its own ends. Wesley famously said: “Earn all you can; save all you can; give away all you can.” 50 years ago, of course, Wesley’s dicta were already practiced very little, even among Wesleyans, especially the last part. When I was younger, I explored the possibility that Wesley’s conservatism was not radical enough, that an anti-capitalist approach was necessary. It did not take too long of a time as a member of the Communist Party in Italy to disabuse myself of the notion that socialism amounts to a viable alternative. I don’t remember meeting a single practicing socialist in the PCI. Almost everyone I met was petit-bourgeois in most senses of the word, including the sense of seeing politics as a means to advance (petit-bourgeois) class interests.

How shall we characterize the culturally dominant “ism” of our day? “Steal all you can; spend all you can; watch feel-good shows like Oprah, Martha Stewart, and Ellen on TV.” What a wonderful life.

Comments

[Ben Myers]

Thanks, I appreciate your post. But I'm afraid your criticisms of Scott have got the wrong end of the stick. He's definitely not "chirping happily about the current turn in political events" – in fact, his point is precisely the opposite! This is the same guy who vehemently criticised Obama's campaign in an earlier post, and who argued (convincingly, to my mind) that a vote for McCain would be the only real "vote for change".

So anyway, I don't know what most "leftist-minded Aussies" are up to these days. But folks like Scott and me are more interested in showing that one can be Marxist without being leftist. This is as about as far removed as you can get from any "happy chirping about the current turn in political events"!

[John Hobbins]

Ben,

Thanks for helping us understand Scott Stephens' point of view more fully, and your own as well.

BTW, sorry to have missed you this year at SBL. We talked briefly the year before. I'm the guy who insists people read Karl Barth in German (no offense to Bromiley's accomplishment).

As someone who once upon a time read deeply in Marxist sources (especially Gramsci), I don't know quite what to make of the notion of a non-leftist version of Marxism.

Presumably that is not the same thing as current policy in China, or a version of neo-conservativism (also rooted, in part, in old-style socialist tropes, such as "Fascism means war" [war is the proper response to fascism]).

But it does make sense to me that a non-leftist Marxist might prefer McCain to Obama.

[Todd Albertson]

Great insights! When we replace thoughtfulness with emotions it is hard to define any real difference.

Many people I know voted for O because they liked him. Many others voted against him because they did not. Very few had actually looked rationally at anything he said. His policies, as are almost all the politicians, are "feel good" in nature: Change without pain.

Wesley had it right when he said a Christian should: “Earn all you can; save all you can; give away all you can.” His advice wasn't followed by most in his day and certainly is not by most in our day.

Then as now, true changes occurs only through an active willingness to change. Talking about it, feeling it, watching it on TV won't cut it. Change hurts (at least temporarily). Anyone who has gone on a diet, stopped smoking, lived on a budget understands this. Without meaningful and permanent change, we die as a society, as individuals, and as a Church.

[Existential Punk]

Todd,

You said, " His policies, as are almost all the politicians, are "feel good" in nature: Change without pain."

At no time did Obama say or infer there is no pain with change. He is not idealistic but believes in the human spirit. He is an exhorter, like Barnabas, and intelligent to govern and lead. He has said over and over change won't come easy, that we will have to sacrifice, and change won't come easily or overnight.

[John Hobbins]

"An exhorter, like Barnabas, intelligent to govern and lead."

Mythmaker, mythmaker, make me a myth. Find me a find. Catch me a catch.

It might be wiser to understand Obama, not as a blank slate on which we can write whatever we will, but as a mortal like any other, with strengths and weaknesses all of which will impact the course of events in the next few years. To do otherwise sets him up for a terrible fall.

[Todd Albertson]

Existential Punk, I am not going to get into an Obama debate. I am thoroughly tired of those conversations. JohnFH is correct in analysis, we don't know a lot of what Obama believes. That is why I call it "Change without Pain."

He may end up being a decent President, But Obama, like most politicians, has made lots of promises to a lot of constitutes. Not all of them can be kept. It is impossible. Had he said: "We're going to have change, and that means we're going to cut Social Security by 10% and social programs by 25% and increase taxes" he never would have won the primaries let alone the general election.