55.7 F
The Villages
Friday, March 29, 2024

Reformers and Revolutionaries

Jack E. Brush

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi – a seemingly odd couple in the Democratic Party. Recently the contrast between the two was portrayed publicly in the media when Ocasio-Cortez organized a demonstration in Pelosi’s office! Many observers see this as a new development within the Party, but if we consider the Party’s history, we will find that these two women represent alternative democratic ideologies, both of which are rooted in the decade of the 1960s.

Historians still puzzle over the events of the 1960s. What were the causes of the various social and political movements of the period? Why were there similar movements in the US and in Europe during the same decade? All of this can be debated, but one fact is abundantly clear concerning the situation in the United States. The decade began with reformers and ended with revolutionaries. At the beginning of the decade, the Students for a Democratic Society were expressing their vision of American society in a document called “The Port Huron Statement”; at the end of the decade, the Weatherman faction of the liberal movement was destroying property through rioting and bombing. Within a span of ten years, many students of the Port Huron Statement who had admired the philosophy of John Dewey had turned to the Neo-Marxism of Herbert Marcuse. Some readers may still remember the name “Herbert Marcuse”. He was a German, Neo-Marxist immigrant who obtained teaching positions at various US universities; his most famous student was Angela Davis who has been an active proponent of revolution.

Significantly, the Neo-Marxism of Marcuse had an interesting twist that made it possible to unite the reformers and the revolutionaries. Instead of advocating the overthrow of American capitalism directly by violent means (in classical Marxian style), he argued for a cultural revolution that was calculated to bring about an erosion of societal and governmental structures. Specifically, Marcuse maintained that the most effective method for accomplishing a cultural revolution was to instigate a sexual revolution. By removing virtually all restraints on sexual activity, he hoped to throw the tradition American understanding of sexual relationships into total chaos. The idea was just as simple as it was diabolical: Destabilize the culture and capitalism will crumble on its own accord.

For those who accepted Marcuse’s idea, it was a short step to the identity politics of the Democratic Party. The “reformer faction” of the Party could view identity politics as a matter of defending human rights. The “revolutionary faction” could view it as a means to an end. That is, they could harbor the notion that identity politics would eventually lead to an overthrow of capitalism. But there was a problem. The attempt to change the sexual attitudes of an entire nation required money, and it was the capitalists who had the money. The universities had to be transformed; groups supporting identity politics had to be funded; demonstrations had to be financed. So the Democratic Party entered a type of Faustian deal with corporate America. I am not suggesting, of course, that this was a conscious decision on the part of the Democrats, but the fact is that they were glad to accept the money and support of the corporations. As for the corporations, it was an ingenious move on their part. Not only did the wealthy elite see the possibility of distracting the Democrats from the plight of the American workers, but they also saw an economic gold mine in the movement. The sexual revolution and the focus on identity politics were bound to open up new markets. Remember how corporations threatened a boycott in 2016 over the transgender bathroom issue in North Carolina? The opposition of the corporations was certainly not a matter of conscience since legal entities don’t have a conscience. It was a matter of money and market share. Many Democrats were glad to accept the corporate support in this case, but I suspect that the more revolutionary spirits in the Party were disturbed by the events. How can the Party ever hope to transform an economic system to which it has become hopelessly enslaved?

In my estimation, the Democrats have arrived at an impasse. They have totally forsaken the working class. They have overthrown 2,500 years of family life tradition. They have created chaos in our culture by destabilizing basic institutions such as the universities. And there is no indication that they have a viable plan for moving forward. Identity politics has done its work. So what’s next? This is the dilemma of every revolution. It’s much easier to destroy a culture than to create a new one.

Villager Jack E. Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com

The world knew we had a strong leader in Trump

A Village of Fernandina resident looks back on the record of former President Trump. Read his Letter to the Editor.

Neglect of golf course maintenance now costing us millions of dollars

In a Letter to the Editor, a Village of St. Charles resident argues that neglect of golf course maintenance is now costing residents millions of dollars.

Karen says her intent has been misinterpreted

A Village of Belle Aire resident who stirred quite a discussion with a previous Letter to the Editor, follows up to say that her intent was misinterpreted.

Our amenities are being used by families with kids

In a Letter to the Editor, a Village of Citrus Grove resident says she is not happy about families with kids using amenities paid for by residents.

Finally allocating funds to the golf courses!

A Village of Hadley resident said he is happy that more money is being allocated to the golf courses. Read his Letter to the Editor.