Mick Hume looks at the sorry state of the left in the wake of the Labour Party conference (via Butterflies and Wheels). After pouring cold water on the notion that Gordon Brown – “the political equivalent of a bank manager – and a dour Scottish Presbyterian bank manager at that” – offers some kind of leftist alternative, he neatly sums up the extra-parliamentary left:

The Stop the War Coalition, driven by the Socialist Workers’ Party, has mobilised big (though steadily shrinking) demonstrations against the war in Iraq. But what do these represent in political terms? To my slightly jaundiced eye, it appears that the SWP has gone from tail-ending the trade union movement in the Seventies and Eighties, through tail-ending middle-class revolts against the Tory poll tax or New Labour’s university tuition fees, to tail-ending Muslim alienation (through its RESPECT coalition) today. What basis any of that provides for radical political change is anybody’s guess.

And concludes that “[W]hat little remains of the left has, in short, abandoned any attachment to progress and the future”:

We [at spiked] don’t want to return to the past, but to see those gains of humanity defended and developed in the changing context of the twenty-first century. It is apparent that project will not be pursued through hanging on to the coat tails of Gordon Brown, or imagining that there is any more of a left-wing vehicle for political change today than there is a right-wing one.

There is a pressing need to rise above all this and debate the need for a new future-oriented idea of human liberation. However, this will not necessitate, as people used to say, ‘breaking the mould’ of left-right politics. That mould has already been shattered beyond repair.

Debating “the need for a new future-oriented idea of human liberation” sounds fine, but what does it mean outside of being standard leftist boilerplate? Much of the old left’s problem was precisely this belief that we (the people, the working class, the proletariat) needed liberating, when it was transparently obvious that the old battles had largely been won and that people in Western liberal democracies didn’t (and don’t) regard themselves as being in any need of liberation by some supposedly far-sighted revolutionary vanguard – especially when the language of liberation was the same language that was being used to justify the far-from-liberatory politics on the other side of the Iron Curtain. We don’t react too well when told that human liberation lies in some distant future that we have to struggle towards. We’re already free, thanks. It may not be utopia, and it could and should get better, and we can discuss how that might happen, but what we don’t need is to be liberated.

Many people do, though. Or did. Like for instance people living under the appalling cruelties of Saddam’s tyranny in Iraq. And they were liberated. By, um, George Bush and Tony Blair. Against the bitter opposition of much of the left.

So yes, the left-right mould has been shattered.

Posted in

5 responses to “The Death of the Left”

  1. Sunny Avatar

    Except we weren’t suposed to go to Iraq to liberate but to protect ourselves from WMD. Which, erm, subsequently did not exist. Neither did the link to Al-Qaeda, however many times Bush kept repeating it.
    Only when all other reasons for war were exposed to be lies, we were fed the ‘liberators’ line. That is why, I believe, the left opposed this war. If you want oil, just say so – don’t dress it up as liberation. Sounds much more colonial then.

    Like

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    All about oil? Oh God….

    Like

  3. Sunny Avatar

    I’m not saying it is only about oil, but to assume that the USA does not want to make sure it has clear access to oil supplies would be a bit naive of me.
    The fact that America does not do anything about opressive regimes like N Korea and China is I guess because they’re too dangerous to handle or too lucrative to trade with. So to assume that the west is only looking out for Iraq’s interest when it decided to ‘shock and awe’ its inhabitants is, again, laughable….

    Like

  4. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Well hey, no one would want to accuse you of being naive.

    Like

  5. Paul Craddick Avatar

    “we weren’t suposed to go to Iraq to liberate but to protect ourselves from WMD”
    This claim has become part of the revisionist gospel. It’s not clear if its proponents are simply unable to conceive of a systematic case for war – which would entail a variety of mutually conditioning aims – or whether they honestly believe that liberation was adduced as a rationale only ex post facto.
    Bush’s address of September 12, 2002 to the UN General Assembly was one of the administration’s first, extended statements of the need to confront Saddam in light of the exigencies thrown up by 9.11. It makes for interesting reading now. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/print/20020912-1.html)
    After reviewing the founding aims of the UN itself, Bush pivots, rhetorically, to the instransigence of Saddam. The fulcrum of the case is that Saddam Hussein is the apotheosis of the kind of menance which the UN was founded to confront and overcome. The first example adduced of Saddam’s intransigence is this:
    “In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
    “Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime’s repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents — and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.”
    The middle of the speech considers the other familiar concerns: refusal to account for WMD, ties to terrorism, etc.
    The address ends thus:
    “The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.”

    Like

Leave a reply to Mick H Cancel reply