Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weathermen?
Sure do! That was what was called the "New Left." I remember even further back than that -- to the "Old Left" of the Thirties and Forties. (Now I am really showing my age!)
The Old Left was very different from the New Left (which I fouond a little difficult to take seriously, as a Doonesburyish product of the Media Age, the Generation Gap, & etc.).
To be confessional for a bit: I grew up in a very New Dealerish family. As a kid, I met labor activists who had actually had their skulls broken in battles with police, black activists who had barely escaped lynching, etc. (Much of what they fought for, it should be pointed out, is no longer considered "radical".) Later, I also ran across Stalinists, who bugged me because they would dismiss my arguments by using the old ad hominem approach: in this case, "You're a bourgeois" (hence you are wrong). Sound familiar?
In the long run, I think, the Old Left has prevailed over the New Left, largely because the latter, given the slogan "don't trust anyone over 30," was limited, time-wise. Members of the New Left, for the most part, long ago grew up and became stockbrokers.
Thus, the "radical left" today, it seems to me, is much closer to the Old Left, for which principles were not contingent on age group. I think Borzou Daragahi's description of today's radical left is right on target:
Message 5936290
Let me add that, in my opinion, there is much that is attractive about these folks. For example, most of them are quite disinterested. They want to Do Good For their Fellowmen, without thought of any personal benefit. They do all kinds of volunteer work, refrain from eating animals, defend the downtrodden, etc. At the same time, they tend to be rather boring and predictable...<sigh>..They also tend to be rather naive about the world. But then, they are not alone in that...
jbe |
