above: An Exhausted Hillary Clinton after the Shock Donald Trump Presidential Victory
'Political Correctness' is a common bogey deployed by the Right in order to wedge the Left ; But here 'Anti-Political-Correctness' is the much bigger problem when viewed in perspective ; (As effectively argued by former Keating speech writer, Don Watson) At the same time the Left needs to 'return to class' ; and engage with opinions we don't like. The 'political pressure cooker' alternative may blow up in our faces...
Dr Tristan Ewins
In response to the surprise Trump victory in the US
Presidential election I’ve written a
couple of letters to Australian newspapers : though neither published yet. Before engaging in a broader examination of ‘political
correctness’ and ‘anti-political correctness’ (which I thought I’d deal with in response to
some negative commentary) – here are the letters in their original form.
First to ‘The Age’:
Hard as it may be to believe
there’s a silver lining to the US Election result. Instead of being taken for
granted one way or another, both Republicans and Democrats will now have to
take account of the needs of the US working class. Bipartisan support for the
neo-liberal interpretation of globalisation will need to be re-thought. In the
mid-West and elsewhere the industrial working class and its sons and daughters
have long suffered a deindustrialisation which robbed them of social and
economic security and identity. The Right also increasingly uses narratives of
‘Left elites’ and ‘political correctness’ to drive a wedge against the
progressive Left. An unambiguous return to class politics could sweep the rug
from under that strategy. The old Left made the mistake of taking working class
support for granted. Some in today’s US Democrats make the opposite mistake of
‘writing white male workers off’. What we need is a strategy to build a
multi-faceted electoral bloc based on a politics of solidarity, mutual respect,
and mutual liberation.
And also to the ‘Herald Sun’ ( a counter to Andrew Bolt):
Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory “a revolt against the Left’s
arrogance” (10/11). But reality is more complex than this. A neo-liberal
consensus - a particular INTERPRETATION of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed
around much of the world, facilitated by BOTH the parties of the Right and of
the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class people who had lost their identity,
as well as their economic and social security with the destruction of their
jobs – gravitated towards a promise to restore America’s industrial base.
Trump’s old school protectionism might not be the answer, but Nordic-style,
targeted industry policy might serve better. Policies which promote high value-added
manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information
and communications technology industrial development. Instead of taking their
orientation for granted, the US Left needs to actively court the working class
– including white males – with policies that offer the respect and security
which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling back Trump’s
support base.
After I had posted one of these at Facebook I got the response from one reader:
“I see, so white males are the most important in all of
this are they?”
I was surprised at this as I thought many on the Australian
Left could see the problems with US politics ; that is – the lack of a clear
class perspective; and hence the political alienation of a great many American
workers. Great swathes of the American
working class have been co-opted by Conservative interests who play ‘divide and
conquer’. This is similar to the situation in
Australia. For instance where certain
media outlets play the working poor off against some of the most vulnerable
welfare recipients.
That strategy is detestable ; but has proven quite
effective.
The best response it to build solidarity – and promote the
rights and interests of both those on benefits AND the working poor. More robust labour market regulation and social
wage provision for the ‘working poor’ is a crucial strategy in response to those
Conservative ‘wedge strategies’ in Australia.
In the US, however, the Democrats have allowed themselves to
be wedged by propaganda which emphasizes themes of ‘political correctness’ , ‘Left cultural
elites’ and so on. (also similar to
Australia) What’s more, modern identity politics has paved the way for this
strategy’s success. The class perspective
was abandoned. There has been an
emphasis on the privileges of white men – but where class just never comes into
the picture. At its most vulgar and
simplistic this is interpreted by some as suggesting there is something just ‘essentially bad’ with white male identity,
sexuality and status.
Race and gender no doubt need to be seriously taken into account when
constructing a critique of privilege and power in modern capitalist
societies. They are a big part of the
overall picture. We need greater
equality in the labour market, the public sphere, sport, the home, and so
on. We need a women’s movement which
demands these – and more.
But as former Keating speech writer Don Watson effectively argued on QandA
recently (I paraphrase) : ‘political correctness can be bad’ ; although ‘anti-political
correctness is much worse!’.
The lack of tolerance for real engagement with more
conservative social perspectives : indeed the tendency to supress debate for
fear of being vilified or shamed – actually plays into the Right’s hands. It can create a ‘pressure cooker’ environment
which can finally explode with the rise of a Trump-like character. And if people are already disengaged because
no-one is speaking to their economic and social interests ; and because they
are prejudged as ‘red-necks’ – that just facilitates the Conservative agenda. (not that Trump is ‘traditional Conservative’)
But sure - the monopoly mass media does
the same thing – but in reverse. Mostly
it fails to engage with progressive perspectives. Systemically excludes them on any significant
scale. Often it facilitates that strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. It facilitates intolerance, fear, ‘downward
envy’ and so on. Often it is intellectually
dishonest.
Compared with so-called ‘political correctness’ the ‘anti-PC’ movement is so frightening as it could facilitate a
full-on political and social Reaction : perhaps even fascism in some instances. There is a disposition to wind back past
gains: social security and welfare ; affirmative action and women’s right to
choose ; the welfare state and social wage. Civil and industrial liberties are
mocked, belittled and trivialised.
Here I had chosen in one of my letters to mention white working class men
specifically because of their strategic importance ; but also because they
matter as human beings ; and should just not be ‘written off’. Karl Marx argued for the human liberation of
ALL working people. Facilitating the
fullest possible human development of all working people ; and the amelioration
(and finally abolition) of alienating forms of human labour under conditions of
material abundance. That is: Marx
critiqued physically and/or mentally punishing labour with people treated
people like ‘cogs in the machine’. Where
labour was for subsistence ; and its fruits are taken by capitalists in the
form of a surplus. So emphasising
peoples’ class interests could be ‘the foot in the door’ – to gain peoples’
trust for a broader strategy of mutual solidarity ; and of building an
unbeatable electoral bloc.
I like to think of the strategy I propose as one of ‘mutual liberation’. The aim, here, is not to write off or
humiliate those demographics who are considered ‘problematic’. But rather to suggest that the liberation of
each is interconnected with the liberation of all. This should involve a real conversation:
about democracy, and about class, race, sexuality, liberal rights, education
and civic activism, and gender.
In Australia right now it could be argued we’re wrapped up in veritable ‘cultural
revolution’ with regard to gender and sexuality. Broadly this revolution is a good thing. But arguably sometimes ‘the Left’ gets it
wrong. Privilege can be conceived of in
a overly-simplistic way: not only neglecting social class , but also age,
disability, body image and so on. What
is more: real privilege is complex. If
we are to employ an approach of ‘intersectionality’ (ie: the various forms of
privilege and the ways in which they intersect) we need to use those more
complex variations on that framework : which look to specific experiences. Not ONLY the large scale social relations of
inequality and oppression ; but ALSO the highly individualised
experiences. When we accept this we can
see that we ought not judge any person until we fully understand their
individual circumstances. Without
accepting this we are left in the position of unnecessarily alienating some
people: people who might otherwise be convinced if there was a strategy of
respectful engagement.
But where the project of liberation is subverted into becoming a project of ‘turning
the tables’ this also can fuel a political and social reaction. It can ‘blow up in our faces’ with exactly
the opposite consequences to what we aspired towards.
So the Trump electoral result is a real wake-up call for the broad American
Left. ‘Class’ has to return to the front
and centre of progressive American politics.
Promotion of working class interests is a good thing in itself ; but
also ‘a foot in the door’ for a broader engagement on the project of mutual
human liberation.
Active and targeted industry policy is a desirable strategy to engage with the
needs and aspirations of the traditional industrial working class. To achieve full employment ; and the creation
of secure, well paid jobs. The movement
for a $15/hour minimum wage needs to be fully embraced – and even updated to
account for inflation and a rising cost of living. Industrial rights and
liberties are paramount. The
neo-liberal interpretation of free trade and globalisation needs to be
re-thought in a way which does not undermine popular sovereignty. While nonetheless encouraging nations to take
advantage of each others’ specialisations and comparative advantages. And
making the most of everyone’s ‘skill
sets’ ; not leaving them on ‘the labour market scrapheap’. And the benefits of
the social wage and welfare state need to be sold to layers of the working class
which used to enjoy such benefits provided through the private sector.
Finally I should mention the fact that despite
being slaughtered in the electoral college vote, Hillary Clinton won a clear majority
of the popular vote. In this scenario
the ‘industrial rust belt’ really was critical to the Trump ‘electoral college
landslide’. That’s the sense in which we
have ‘a silver lining’. That those
displaced by a decades-long process of deindustrialisation must finally be
taken seriously. That workers’ interests
more broadly will be embraced as being of real strategic value. That the working class will no longer be practically
‘invisible’ in American politics.
The question of Trump’s ‘mandate’, however - and the ‘mandate’ of the
Republicans more broadly – needs to be viewed in this context. Also it is cause to apply a critical eye to
the US electoral system. It demands constitutional reform.
Finally: although Bernie Sanders will not likely re-emerge as a Presidential
candidate in four years time, nonetheless the movement he helped create is far
from exhausted. If anything it may gain momentum if Trump’s failure to deliver
disillusions parts of his base.
Economically Left: they are in a position to appeal to workers’
interests.
Hillary Clinton has not ‘shattered the glass ceiling’. And indeed while her victory would have been
of great symbolic importance – it is actually POLICY and how it affects
specific groups which matters most.
Clinton will not likely return ‘for another shot’ in four years’ time. But also it really is only a matter of time
before a woman ‘takes the top job’. Also
she was the first woman candidate to run in a US Presidential election. And she won the popular vote. Regardless of her flaws: that will go down as
history.
