Vibe Shifts

[Valmy]

I don't think that is true. Sure gay marriage was won in the courtroom ultimately but that was after years and years of political action. It ultimately won because it became popular enough to be successful.

I just disagree with this assertion that nothing at all political was done and that all efforts were placed in the courts ignoring everything else. That is just ridiculous. If anything the fury I see directed at the left is that they are TOO political and TOO activist and TOO annoying because of it. So which is it? Are we annoying activists or people who don't do politics at all, just hiding out in ivory towers of the judicial system?

Why it was done in the courts is the same reason the Right is going full authoritarian. The democratic institutions are just too corrupt and too ossified and stagnant to do much more than maintain the status quo.

[Valmy]

I guess where I am sitting the left finally seems to be emerging from its grave it was buried in back in 1990 or so. I guess I missed the robust and energetic leftwing happening 20 years ago. Even the British Labour Party were pretty much just a right wing party. Though I guess they sort of are today.

But this is obviously from an American perspective. There were pretty much no leftists outside of a few cranks 15 years ago. Now they are some of our most famous and popular politicians.

Interesting.

Maybe my perspective is limited, but to me it seems that the Overton Window in the US has drifted rightwards since the 90s in fits and spurts. At the same time it feels like the left if it hasn't lost the culture war, has at least suffered a number of significant defeats and is fighting a rearguard action in the spheres of culture, pop-culture, entertainment, and academia.

The overton window has shifted away from the consensus. People are just more ready to accept radical solutions now.

[Josquius]

US politics has 100% drifted right since the 80s. Look at Clinton repealing Glass Steagel for instance.

I do get the vibe that the left has grown however. Could just be that I just see this stuff online. But I do get the impression theres an actual decent sized social democratic minority in the US where once there wouldn't have been.

Also notable is fascism ticks a lot more left wing boxes than liberalism. The right has grabbed power through selling hate through appeals to typically left wing groups rather than through liberal means.

I do think some actual left wing policies are the way forward for the Democrats to win. As much as actually using the word socialism is still too tainted.

[Valmy]

US politics has 100% drifted right since the 80s. Look at Clinton repealing Glass Steagel for instance.

Yes, hence why the left was dead for decades.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.

It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the  American system of judicial appointments.

[Oexmelin]

If anything the fury I see directed at the left is that they are TOO political and TOO activist and TOO annoying because of it. So which is it? Are we annoying activists or people who don't do politics at all, just hiding out in ivory towers of the judicial system?

liberal parties elsewhere in the world have all succumbed to the idea that politics is dangerous and what you need is just the right combination of legal expertise, economic expertise, political expertise, and PR expertise.

I am not saying nothing political was ever done. Certainly, many groups fought, and continued to fight. But the "proper" way was almost always the tribunal, the fundraising, the lobbying. Political games were preeminent. The language was always the language of rights - and not without reason. But it was also because liberal parties didn't want to fight on the ground of morals, or patriotism, which they ceded to the right, or other forms of equality, which they were (and still are) wary of.

Again, I am not saying these weren't real fights, nor that they aren't true victories. The proof that they were fights and victories can be seen in the ruthless struggle by Republicans to seize control of tribunals and remove that play from the equation. I am saying they were fights, and victories that abandoned other venues, and when that ground was seized, liberals have no playbook.

I am fully prepared to admit my view is informed by my being in academia, the realm of proper liberalism. Professors have no playbook once you reveal that writing strongly worded letters have no effect, and that you have allowed university governance to shift unopposed to donors and boards. University leaders have shown to be utterly appalling political beings, completely unprepared for a political fight, and showing up to be humiliated and easily outmaneuvered in front of Congressional committees. The only politics they knew was boardroom politics.

[Sheilbh]

Liberals, in the US (and elsewhere) abandonned politics in favor of the courtroom. They scored major and important victories there, which they confused with political victories. They confused a general sense of apathy with assent. Which, again, is also a form of victory: if gay marriage doesn't produce the societal collapse it was prophesied to bring about, then it was indeed okay for most.

Except that democratic politics isn't really about some massive, collective, spontaneous movement, and it turns out people are also apathetically okay with many, many things, if you don't actually relentlessly fight to tell them, and show them, it's worthy of fighting. And a fight that is fought using only one type of weapon, and one type of arena, and one type of fighter (law, courts, lawyers) leaves you empty-handed when they are taken from you.

I totally agree. Two slightly unrelated thoughts.

I'm not sure if it's cause, consequence or where it comes from. But I think particularly in America on the liberal side of politics (though I think it's absolutely an issue in the UK right now too) in the last 20-30 years an ambivalence emerged towards political power and its exercise. I don't fully know where it came from but I think there's almost been an obsession with constraints for their own sake (I think this is also present in Eurozone politics). I'd add to law, the institutions, the technocracy, the quangos (and indeed the NGOs).

I think you see this even in the focus on law in the US. There is no equivalent to the conservative legal movement which is one of the most successful political enterprises of the past 50 years. They have an analysis of power within the legal system, what they needed to do to achieve it and they have executed that. I don't think there's anywhere near that equivalent of thinking in the US. I'm reminded of Peter Hennessy's phrase for the British constitution (but I think it applies to all constitutions) operating on a "good chaps" theory of government rather than an analysis of how power works in an institution (which, the good chaps absolutely have).

The other totally unrelated thought is that I think there is a purely social element to politics that we should celebrate and want to encourage. And I don't know what the disdain for "politics" does for the political in that social/"man is a political animal" sense. In the UK you have not gone canvassing if you do not end up in a pub at the end having a pint. I'm not joking when I say that I think a big part of Trump's appeal is that the rallies look fun (if you're into that sort of thing). I think a big structural advantage the Republicans have in the US with Christians is very simply that these are people who take the time meet up, in person, in a physical space every week and do something together (and that's assuming they're not involved in any of ancillary stuff going on around a place of worhsip). That's a really powerful base for mobilisation, just as the unions and friendly societies and workers' libraries were for the left. And I note Mamdani spent the last few weeks touring churches on Sundays.

I don't know how that interacts with the class cleavage of those who can work remotely (broadly, better educated and I think probably leaning on the left in most countries) and those who can't (the opposite, with exceptions - especially in the public sector).

[Neil]

You know, that's an excellent point.  The tendency in the US has been to avoid legislating the big changes post-Great Society, but rather to use the judiciary to 'read-in' the desired changes into constitutional law.  This was an extremely powerful play, especially since the more conservative forces (either Republicans or Blue Dogs) had the ability to block their legislative attempts, but now it seems that the shoe is on the other foot and the thoroughly politicized judiciary is going to be kicking in the other direction. 

Canada is a totally different animal, with the Constitution being fairly recently added as a liberal project, and there being no chance of the judiciary changing their politics any time in the foreseeable future. 

[Valmy]

Valmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.

It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the  American system of judicial appointments.

LOL? The amount of money the Democrats blow on elections is truly mindblowing. If a lot more funding was directed towards legal fights all those attorneys must have golden palaces on the moon by now.

The notion that somehow the leftwing has been focusses squarely on the courts is insane. The Courts have not been favorable to them since the 60s. Sure they got the Gay Marriage thing through, but that is about it.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.

It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the  American system of judicial appointments.

LOL? The amount of money the Democrats blow on elections is truly mindblowing. If a lot more funding was directed towards legal fights all those attorneys must have golden palaces on the moon by now.

The notion that somehow the leftwing has been focusses squarely on the courts is insane. The Courts have not been favorable to them since the 60s. Sure they got the Gay Marriage thing through, but that is about it.

Take a look at the budget for the aclu. Now consider it is but one left wing litigation interest group.

[grumbler]

Because it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.

Money eventually poisons everything.

[HVC]

Because it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.

Money eventually poisons everything.

It's like the Simpsons beer quote.