The Noughties proved it: the American Left is dead

The corporations run the show and the only opposition now comes from Christian populists

Column LAST UPDATED AT 12:24 ON Thu 24 Dec 2009

Hazlitt got gloomily drunk for a fortnight after the battle of Waterloo, accurately anticipating that decades of reaction lay ahead, now that Boney had been definitely put away, with the Holy Alliance in the saddle and the French contagion safely bottled up. Smart fellow, that Hazlitt. He should have stayed drunk for a month.
 
Sometimes, on the edge of a new decade, things look dismal but one has the feeling that something good just might be around the corner. Take the 70s for example: at their onset, Nixon was in the high noon of his first term, presiding over frightful slaughter in Vietnam, while his attorney-general John Mitchell pored over plans to lock up the Left at home. It looked as though darkest night was falling.
 
And yet there was a certain edgy, desperate hope in the air - and four short years into the 70s the hopers, no longer desperate but exultant, saw Nixon clamber into a helicopter and take off from the White House lawn towards his version of St Helena, in San Clemente; and nine months later, on April 30, 1975, Gunnery Sgt. Bob Schlager and 10 other Marines finally caught the last helicopter off the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon.
 
Ah, those raucous, wonderful 70s. Those who missed them will never know the sweetness of life, as Talleyrand said of the ancien regime. Sweet and sharp.  I spent them in New York. No better place to be. There was an exciting edge to life.
 
With the Eighties you could feel the air beginning to seep out of the tires. For one thing, Death kept missing his appointments in Samarra, after years of rigorous punctuality with Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Kennedy brothers. He'd already fumbled two dates with Gerald Ford, when his chosen messengers, Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme, messed up. On March 30, 1981, another of death's chosen messengers, John Hinckley, tried to shoot Reagan and failed to get his man.
 
That would have been a game changer! We'd have had three months of Ron instead of eight weird years when America plunged into fantasy, where it still resides. We wouldn't have heard Ron give the Star Wars speech, or Nancy just saying No. Or Ron saying he expected Armageddon to come in his lifetime. Or Nancy running the country with the help of Mrs Quigley, her astrologer. We'd have had George Bush Sr, surely a one-termer. It would have all been different...
 
But would it really? Clinton and the Nineties suited each other fine, and Bill gave us our last known dose of politics as fun with the Lewinsky affair. But the decade would have had the same general contour – though a Republican president would have had much bigger problems getting the poor tossed off welfare.
 
And then in 2000 we had Bush and Gore to choose from, and the American people very reasonably couldn't figure out which one to go for. The folks who knew Al best - the voters of Tennessee - went for George. And then in September of Bush's first term we had a game changer here in America. Death finally rounded up a gang of messengers with a real commitment to getting the job done.
 
But game changer isn't quite the word for the event that launched the Noughties. 9/11 just speeded up basic tendencies which were already in train. The invasion of Iraq? The onslaught had been in full spate through most of Clinton-time via a lethal embargo - and the course of Iraqi politics had been set back in 1963 when the Kennedy administration okayed CIA complicity in the overthrow and murder of the Iraqi nationalist, General Kassim, setting the stage for the CIA's man, Saddam Hussein.
 
The Afghan mess, now about to get messier, was set up in the late 1970s, when the Carter administration supervised the overthrow of Afghanistan's one shining moment of hope, the left reformist governments that took power in 1978. That's when Osama stepped onto the stage of history, as one of the CIA's men. Israel? The Palestinians? Rewind the decades back to Truman and beyond.
 
What made the American 70s exciting was the Left - in its broadest antinomian contours - had life in it, still pumped up by successive radical generations all the way back to the beginning of the century. The last time we saw that Left in action was in the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.
 
In 1992 the Left went hook, line and sinker for Bill Clinton and lost all independent traction. By 1996 it had become a habit. Same story in 2000. Same again in 2004 (all in behind the Democrat Kerry, in case you forget) and finally, most deliriously, with the salesman of hope in 2008.

The Left is dead and gone as a vital force in American political life. The corporations run the show and the only vivid opposition comes from Christian populists, who've brought several million copies of Sarah Palin's memoir.
 
The Teens? Raise your glass along with Mr William Hazlitt. · 

Comments

Left, right, and center will all be merged as one in the early years of the next decade as Gov. Sarah Palin leads the USA forward to permanent peace, prosperity, and unparalleled power.

This explains Cokburnt's previous reality denial re climate change - the damage done when all hope is shattered by conformity and venality. Hazlitt, as you said, had it right - get yourself to a well stocked cellar, Alex, there'll be nothing to see here for the next decade or so. And I dread to think what'll be the scenario when you/we emerge.

Your post is so spot on I don't have to write one myself Bryan Harris.

"communist enclave" ???

Honestly, where do you live? I wouldn't even categorize China as a 'communist enclave' any more. It's all about business. In Canada we've had socialized medicine for ages, but are further right in our politics than ever. At least the controls on our banking system saved us from the lunacy that swept the U.S. last year. Time to rein in the paranoia.

I must disagree with Bryan Harris' assessment of the American political status. We still have a left and right. The problem is they are both at the extreme end of the spectrum. There is no meeting ground. There are a few of us left who believe there should be a middle where we can discuss issues and decide what is best for the country. The right is led, and has been for a good many years by the fundamentalist Christian leadership who learned years ago how to play the role for their own financial benefit. The left tries to counter their stand by moving as far left as possible making statements and decisions that no intelligent person could possibly agree with; all in hopes of garnering votes and support. Of course, our government is corrupt and always has been. It's just bigger and better at it today. This is a very wealthy country -- even the huge debt we now face does not come close to the value of this country. My wish is that the remaining intelligent educated populace could step forward and give some leadership. I know they are out there. That's my dream.

Sorry - but where do people come up with these ideas that are about as far from reality as you can go.

America, and the world have lurched heavily to the left until we are all living in a socialist come communist enclave.

The corporations may be calling a lot of the shots, but that's because the dumb socialist political elite allow them to do so for their own benefit..... for the time being it is useful for the political elite to prosper from what the corporate world can give them... but eventually, the marxists will take them on or control them or be them.
That time is too far away.

Comments are now closed on this article