I don't disagree, Doug. The "progressives" and labor movement gurus have a long and treasured (by them) record of pandering to the conservative side of the spectrum of political views in the working class. But the challenge is whether the Left will relinquish the field to the opportunists and the Right, forfeiting the opportunities to reappropriate the language with which working people can connect, that resonate with their best instincts rather than their most base. Otherwise, we are doomed to remain a tiny pimple on the ass of capitalism -- barely worth of an occasional scratch. Take the matter of "family." I don't have the figures at my command, but my recollection is that single unwed motherhood among African American women is higher than the national average (for a variety of reasons that don't require exposition here). Yet most folks who are familiar with the African American communities of urban centers across the country (and I dare say also in the rural South), recognize that the concept, sense of, and devotion to family in the African American community remains very strong (and in many respect far stronger than one finds in the much vaunted white middle class suburbs). Their definition of "family," however, may not fit the Ozzie & Harriet Wonderbread notion celebrated by the Christian Right. It is far more inclusive and communal. If the Left cannot speak to those "family values," what it has to say about a host of other things will not matter to many African Americans for whom the daily struggle to maintain their families is paramount. One need only look at the extent to which the argument around vouchers has penetrated the African American community to see this point. We have allowed the Right to appropriate this language because we failed to contest in this corner of the ideological arena. While our preoccupations were imperialism, neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism, monopoly, globalization, multi-ethnicity, exploitation, sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. (systemic issues), the Right was busy establishing its reputation as the defender of the American "family" (interpreted through their prism of class, income, and race to be sure). The "culture war" is one in which we have yet to learn the basics of combat. Interestingly enough, in the 1930s, much of the power and influence of the Left was drawn from the fact that it then was quite successful in the culture war of that era. In solidarity, Michael E. At 12:04 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: >Michael Eisenscher wrote: > >>One of the aspirations of the gay rights movement is to establish a >>far broader and more inclusive definition of "family" (as well as of >>marriage). The women's movement has long fought to establish the legitimacy >>of female-headed families. > >I wish that's what's involved with these "progressive" uses of the word >"family," but I'm afraid it's not. It's focus-group driven opportunism. In >New York, the Working Families Party "forgot" to include defense of >abortion rights in their platform, until they were challenged by Ellen >Willis & Katha Pollitt. Sounds like an incident of Nietzschean fortunate >forgetting to me. > >Doug > > >
