Liberals and Radicals

Since I started reading Crossleft, it's become of interest to me to see where I am on the left, whether I'm more liberal or more progressive. It's been great reading everyone who regularly posts, and I've noticed on certain issues the divide between the two camps is more obvious. I found a good definition of liberalism in the book American Reform and Reformers, edited by Randall M. Miller and Paul A. Cimbala. They write in the book's introduction:

"This dictionary's interest rests on reform rather than on radicalism- on the reshaping and redirecting of society rather than on its uprooting. In emphasizing reform over radicalism- indeed, in distinguishing between the two- the dictionary borrows from Raymond Williams's Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York, 1976) in recognizing that such terms as "reform" and "radical" are fluid and sometimes interchangeable, and that their meanings are rooted in particular historical contexts. However much American reformers might not deserve the label "radical," many of them were regarded (and in several instances regarded themselves) as radicals in their own day and proposed substantial changes in social structure and the redistribution of power. In fact, the lines separating reform from radicalism have remained blurred and porous, so that clear distinctions between reformer and radical have often proved problematic. One generations;s radical outcast might be embraced as another generation's reformer hero or heroine. The abolitionists, for example, were so transformed in Northerners' collective extimation from the 1830s through the 1860s.
From Thomas Paine's day onward, radical ideas have inspired reform efforts, and reforms have become radical. Antislavery, for example, moved from the cautious, gradual abolition strategies of the Quakers and the Revolutionary era generation to the immediatism and moral certainty of the evangelicals and Garrisonian abolitionists...

Still, reform and radicalism were (and are) not wholly synonymous. They have sought and have achieved different outcomes. One of the striking common characteristics of American reform over time has been its combination of idealism and realism. Reformers expected to change society by argument and action. Understanding American society and beliefs, adapting to political realities, and appealing to public conscience and self-interest forced reformers to consider the practical aspects of how to enlist popular support for their ideas and programs... They were not just writers or advocates; in most cases they were also builders and coalition seekers. Where true radicals were alienated from the larger American society, which they considered beyond redemption, reformers commonly sought alliances with powerful elements and the general public in a culture they hoped to redeem."

The best definition that I found for today's sort of radicalism is in Howard Zinn's book Postwar America: 1945-1971. He wrote:

"The American system has allowed enough change to ease discontent, but not enough to change the fundamental allocation of power and wealth. That which can be termed progress has taken place within the narrow boundaries of an economic system based on profit-motivated capitalism, a political system based on the paternalism of representative government, a foreign policy based on economic and military aggressiveness, and a social system based on a culture of prejudices conserining race, national origin, sex, age, and wealth.

So far, the major political conflicts in the United States have stayed within these boundaries. The American Revolution itself, while winning independence from a foreign ruling group, substituted the rule of a native group of slave owners, merchants, lawyers, and politicians; the new Constitution legitimized the substitution and created a larger arena for the elites of race and class that already dominated the colonies. With the Civil War, the nation outlawed slavery, while maintaining a general climate of racial subordination. Farm and labor movements succeeding in achieving reforms, but mostly for privileged minorities within their constituencies, and inside a larger framework of corporate control of the nation's wealth. The political fluctuations, even the violent clashes represented by the farm and labor upheavals, had the look but not the reality of a choice between radically different alternatives.

All that I have said here supports the 'consensus' interpretation of American history, which states, I believe, a profound truth about our society, that its great 'progress' and its political clashes have kept within severe limits. What is missing in the consensus analysis is the persistent strain of protest that shows up repeatedly in American history and should not be ignored- the voices, the ideas, the struggles of those who defy the American working creed, who will not let the nation forget the rhetorical promises, who keep alive the vision, the possibility of a society beyond capitalism, beyond nationalism, beyond the hierarchies that are preserved in a man-eat-man culture. The existence of this strain justifies the work of the 'conflict' school of American history, which insists that Americans not forget the black abolitionists, the Wobblies, the Socialists, the anarchists, that we keep in mind Tom Paine, John Brown, Emma Goldman, Eugene Debbs, Malcolm X."

When I first started reading Crossleft I didn't know very well the distinctions between the two modes of left wing thought. It has been fun and educational for me to learn as I've read these posts and researched in the library various books. In reading various books and Crossleft posts, I think I'm like bluegrassrambling in that I straddle the liberal/radical divide. What I love about Crossleft is that the source of their leftwing politics is the Bible and the message of Jesus. Whether one is radical or one is liberal, they both have as a goal the closing of the gap between the high ideas of America and the realities of America.

Like many people here, I'm grateful to find Crossleft. The discovery of this site came at an important time in my life. I had gone through an experience at a church 6 years ago where a group of people were trying to do my thinking for me, and since leaving that place, I've been learning to think for myself again. Crossleft has been important for showing me a place where it's o.k. to think independently and still be a Christian, where people can derive their progressiveness from their Christian faith. I especially have learned of the diversity of progressive Christian thought, and am glad to participate in a site where I feel safe to say my true opinions and disagree when I oppose something and not worry about any retaliation.

I've learned a lot about from reading the writers of Crossleft these past 6 months. The recent testimonial of Frank by his daughter was very inspiring, and I've learned a lot from the posts of Frank, Bill, Janet, David, Stephen and all the rest. I don't know about how Kety and Stephen founded Crossleft, but I'm glad they had the vision and the perserverance to create such a site. I think all of us are grateful to have such a place to read similar minded people and learn about how they apply God in the world.