 |
Dr. Wes Browning |
At the risk of frightening away some righties, I’m going to admit, just for today, to being a lefty, and talk about lefty political strategy.
I want to talk about a subject we lefties (speaking about myself, not Real Change) feel a little uncomfortable talking about. For us, talking about this subject is like priests talking about sobriety, or social conservatives talking about chastity, because it deals with a value we cherish far more in theory than practice. I am speaking of solidarity.
Solidarity was invented as solidarité by French lefties gearing up for the French Revolution. Being a colossal dramatic mess that got everyone’s attention, the French Revolution branded revolutions. So whenever anyone talked about revolutions, up until that even messier one in 1917, some form of French was needed. Had the 1917 revolution been the brand, we’d be talking splochennost.
When lefties imagine social, political, or economic reform, they usually think of the word “revolution” as the Marseillaise marches through their synapses, even when they aren’t thinking of armed revolution. It has become a metaphor for change itself. That’s the power of a good brand.
Solidarity can be an organizing goal. If you want a revolution, you want it to succeed. So you want all the allies you can get. So you organize across classes, ethnic groups, occupations, and religions, to get the broadest possible base of support. Ideally the base should be 100 percent, so there won’t be any resistance to the revolution at all. This never happens, because Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin always wreck it.
I’m personally all for cross-class solidarity, so long as I don’t have to use salad forks, or eat snails. Where it starts getting trickier is when we are talking about solidarity in opposition: aka, the unified front.
The way the unified front works, we all have to march together in the same direction to the same beat and shout the same slogans in unison, or we’re being obstructionists, or even counter-revolutionary. We have to speak the same speeches, and use the same talking points.
The idea that good-working solidarity requires a unified front has gained support among lefties in recent years owing to the remarkable success that the Bush Administration has had employing it. Bush got us into an amazingly unnecessary and illegal war, just by having his chorus of ninnies repeat “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” over and over again.
But just because someone else has succeeded in building a house out of discarded toilet bowls doesn’t mean you need to build your house out of discarded toilet bowls. Just because the Ponzi scheme works for Ponzi doesn’t mean it works for you. Just because Michael Jackson got himself a giraffe by being pale doesn’t mean you need to be pale, or that you need yourself a giraffe. The unified front is not, strategically, the best front, although it may be the best front the Bush Administration can manage. For the rest of us, though, working with what we have, we need multiple voices.
In fact, speaking in unison, in one voice, defeats the whole purpose of having solidarity. If you all say the same thing together, it sounds like one speaker blessed with an amplifier. Who, with a brain, listening to the Bush Administration, doesn’t hear it as just one person with many mouths? The only question is, which person is it? Cheney?
What we need, as a mass movement, is to appear as a mass movement, by speaking with all our voices.
Questions for Further Discussion:
1. Name three French things about revolution other than solidarité. The word “revolución” may be one of them, I don’t know.
2. Research topic: Find an article by Michelle Malkin, and try to justify it in public. Let us know how that went.
3. The author was planning to mention madrigals and Renaissance polyphony. Pretending to be one or both of your parents, write that paragraph for him or them. |
