By Jason Sibert<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The new book by John Judis gives anyone on the center-left a lot of food for thought. He worked as a journalist for years, well-known for his regular dispatches for James Weinstein\u2019s In These Times newspaper. He was the co-author, along with Ruy Teixeira, of \u201cThe Emerging Democratic Majority (2002),\u201d a book that was partially prophetic, as the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in every presidential election with the exception of one since 1992. In the one exception, in 2004, nearly half of the country voted for Democrat John Kerry. However, this doesn\u2019t translate into a majority in a gerrymandered House and a Senate that give sparsely populated states two senators just like heavily populated states. This book also didn\u2019t take into account the voter suppression we see going on around the country. It was also written before the rise of the populist left and the populist right in various industrial democracies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He has penned, or co-penned, nine books. He was active in a New Left organization Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960\u2019s. Judis exited the organization when the influence of Maoists and Marxist\/Leninists surged and joined a breakoff organization, New America Movement. The NAM, started in 1971, merged with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee to form Democratic Socialists of America in 1982. Judis was the founding editor of \u201cSocialist Revolution,\u201d later named \u201cSocialist Review\u201d and \u201cRadical Society.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSocialist\nAwakening\u201d covers the reemergence of socialist ideas, particularly among the\nyoung, in western democracies around the world. These movements are a reaction by\nyoung people to their dissatisfaction with the current economy, economies based\non what we call Reaganism here in the United States and Thatcherism in the United\nKingdom and in the rest of Europe. Center-left parties adapted themselves to\nthis trend in the 1980\u2019s and 1990\u2019s. Here in the U.S. we saw the rise of\nPresident Bill Clinton\u2019s New Democrats (President Barack Obama was of the same\nschool) and people in the United Kingdom saw the rise of Tony Blair and New\nLabor. Other center-left parties went through similar makeovers in other\ncountries. I was a Clintonite in the 90\u2019s and for years after that before\nreading Lane Kenworthy\u2019s \u201cSocial Democratic America.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This new book covers the history of socialism in the U.S., including interesting content on figures like Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, and Bernie Sanders. It also covers socialism in other countries. This is a very enjoyable feature of Judis\u2019 work. I found this history on the Labor Party in the U.K. to be very interesting. The populist left has different manifestations all over the world \u2013 the Bernie Sanders faction in the U.S. Democratic Party, the Jeremy Corbyn faction in the U.K. Labor Party, and the Jean-Luc Melenchon\u2019s Left Party in France. We\u2019ve also seen more center-left voters moving to the Left Party in Germany or to the Greens. Right wing politics has seen a similar shakeup with the rise of Trump, Marine LePen and the National Front in France, and Nigel Farage in the UK. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The growing power of these populist movements also has ramifications in the pursuit of a world defined by international law and peace. The main audience for the populist left are those with some education (an associate\u2019s degree or bachelor\u2019s degree in the U.S.) who are working in positions that don\u2019t require a degree \u2013 the Starbucks \u00a0barista with a BA (bachelor of arts) . Many felt they would have meaningful work but have seen their dreams dashed. They might have found that meaningful work in the past in a world where technology did not do so much of the work formerly done by college graduates. The main audience for the populist right are members of the dominant ethic group (whites in the U.S.)\u00a0 that have a high school diploma or maybe some college and have seen their dreams dashed by stagnant wages and benefits in the private sector. In the past, they would have had quality wages and benefits due to the power that labor unions had, a little-mentioned fact in the media. These voters are drawn to demagogic appeals based on race, gender, and sexual identity and preference. These movements also attract fans of 1930\u2019s era fascism. These voters are also scared at becoming a racial minority, something that will happen to whites in the U.S. eventually. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
One problem with the populist right is that it is incompatible with internationalism in any form. This form of populism could lead to a less stable and more war-prone world. \u00a0While Judis gives credence to the populist left for raising the issue of inequality, he feels that socialist and social-democratic parties need to discover a respect for the concept of the nation-state. No doubt, democracies are moving away from Reaganism and Thatcherism and to economies with more state involvement. Judis feels that our country\u2019s future will look different than its past in terms of socialism, or I really prefer to use the term social democracy, which amounts to a mixed economy; if I may borrow a term for the 1980\u2019s era Social Democratic Party in the U.K., a Labor Party breakoff group. The young, who make up a good deal of Sanders\u2019 following, do not associate the word socialism with revolutionary Communism, like many in older generations. Future politicians will be able to run under the banner of socialist or social democrat and not be associated with Communism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration,as Judis points out, drives support for the populist right. He feels the nation-state has the right to control immigration and brings up the issue of employers using low-skilled immigrants to undercut the labor of workers who have lived in a particular nation-state. This is a real problem for the populist left, as it sometimes sees the immigration laws of that nation-state as illegitimate. This allows the populist right to stir up fear around the issue. Judis feels that the Left needs to move away from views on immigration that are defined by few if any means of regulation in the area, or the idea that once one sets foot on U.S. soil, they are legal. This doesn\u2019t mean that the left needs to engage in racism light to try and capture populist right votes. In 1977, President Carter advocated an immigration policy that legalized those in the country illegally, made it illegal to hire illegal immigrants, and supported the enforcement of immigration laws on the border. None other than President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 where these ideas became a reality. President George HW Bush legalized even more illegal immigrants. Keep in mind, companies who hire illegal immigrants do so to avoid following labor laws, undercutting the power of workers already here. I remember a news story in the last year about a Walmart store that hired illegal immigrants. Of course, the store wasn\u2019t following labor law. A 90\u2019s Clinton administration committee, chaired by Barbara Jordan, the first female African-American congresswoman, echoed a similar set of policies. The commission supported the government setting a number on the immigrants our country admits per year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nLeft\u2019s immigration policy should stress that those here illegally are not\nhardcore criminals, like murders or rapists. Those who entered the country\nillegally should pay fines and do community service – that\u2019s all. Some on the\npopulist right claim immigrants don\u2019t want to assimilate. However, wave after\nwave of immigrants have assimilated into our culture. Social democrats should\nmention this fact. Social democrats must also support the right for people to\napply for refugee status, a right under international law. The populist right demagogues\nrefugees – we should not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Judis, the Left should move away from slogans like \u201cabolish the police\u201d or \u201cabolish prisons. How could we have arrested Derek Chauvin and imprisoned him if there were not police or prisons? Social democrats should work on taking on the prison-industrial complex. Journalist Eric Schlosser thoughtful piece, \u201cThe Prison-Industrial Complex\u201d (The Atlantic, December 1998) pointed out that. many of the people in our jails are not hardcore criminals. \u00a0We imprison more people than the People\u2019s Republic of China with all of its \u2018ideological criminals\u2019. If one is sent to prison for petty crime, they often find it hard to find work in the regular economy upon release. Then they return to more petty crime! There\u2019s an endless cycle that costs the taxpayer lots of money. However, there\u2019s money to be made in constructing prisons and running them if we\u2019re talking about a private prison company. Congressmen and congresswomen looking to create jobs in their districts sometimes look to prisons. There\u2019s also a class connection to petty crime, as those involved in petty crime are usually poor. Lifting people out of poverty would be a great way to combat petty crime! Recent laws legalizing marijuana are positive as far as petty crime is concerned. It must be added that the Clinton administration\u2019s crime policy federalized certain petty crimes, increasing the prison population.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Left, he argues, should return to some sort of economic nationalism, or the idea that we produce more of what we consume here in the U.S., an idea associated with the Democrats in the Reaganite 1980\u2019s. \u00a0In the Covid-19 pandemic, we found out how dangerous it was to not be able to manufacture ventilators and other essential items here in the U.S. Social democrats should work to relocate manufacturing essential to our security within America\u2019s borders, and becoming less dependent on China would be good considering current geopolitical tensions,. Of course, this would create jobs. Hillary Clinton carried 30 percent of the white working class in 2016, but Joe Biden carried 35 percent of the white working class in 2020, an improvement. If the Democratic Party could carry 40 percent of the white working class and add this to their current coalition of educated professionals, minorities, and union members, the party would have a winning coalition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This\ncarries over into the struggle for a world defined by international law and\npeace. Trump\u2019s foreign policy was defined by alienating our country from allies\nas well as from foes. We could easily return to that policy in the future, if\nsomeone similar wins the presidency. The various nation-states of the have much\nin the way of dangerous weaponry. Spreading more geopolitical tensions around\nthe world increases the likelihood that these weapons will be deployed.. Social\ndemocrats must campaign hard for a more orderly international system and the\npositive outcomes it produces for the security of people in our country. It is\nessential that we find a form of internationalism that works for our future.\nOtherwise, our future looks pretty scary! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jason Sibert is the Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Jason Sibert The new book by John Judis gives anyone on the center-left a lot of food for thought. He worked as a journalist for years, well-known for his regular dispatches for James Weinstein\u2019s In These Times newspaper. He … Continue reading