Which only reinforces the point I made at the outset — what’s significant about this “debate” is what is being left out, what I believe Mr. Prager and Mr. Dershowitz both share in common and in silence. Let me be so bold as to say that the real subject matter of the Dershowitz-Prager dispute, the flesh and blood of it, if you will, is none other than the concept of the "Left” and of the "Right,” respectively. I submit further that to understand that is to understand the hidden dimensions of American politics; you’ll never be able to view the modern political landscape in the old way.
What is the Left, or the Right for that matter, you may ask. There are many traditional responses to this simple question, many of which may have satisfied in the past and which still reverberate with a semblance of truth. One thinks here, for instance, of a coalition of sorts; a group of like-minded individuals, usually of the same or similar political persuasion, mobilized around one specific issue or set of issues, with the result that they’re perceived to be speaking with one voice. Or, one could point to the exponents of the view or views thus represented; the few select individuals who seem to stand head and shoulders above the rest, and who are being looked up to as standard-bearers. Alternately, one might wish to include here even the channels (or the outlets) more or less dedicated to spreading the message, and which are commonly identified (or associated) with it.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of these answers per se; even now they’re satisfactory to a point. I’d like to argue, however, that they’re partial at best; that they no longer capture the full meaning; that concepts such as the Left or the Right, by the same token, have evolved beyond their original formulation or understanding to be properly represented by these simplistic, one-sided definitions; that a more comprehensive definition is required in order to fully grasp their present dimensions. To that end, I’d now like to trace their evolution from inception to the present.
Prior to the '60s, such terms as the Left or the Right were virtually nonexistent and absent from our political lexicon. True, there were always divergent views on the American political scene: the abolitionists, the populists, the progressives. But these labels, aside from referring to some specific issue or pet program or project, were, relatively speaking, short-lived. Once their raison d’être was resolved one way or another, so were the groups or coalitions about which they centered. Which isn’t to say they didn’t command public attention while they were hot, only that the longevity of those groups (or political blocs, if you will) was directly related to the longevity of the issue itself. (I am excluding the Communists and any socialist-based movement from the general discussion because they were “un-American,” to use Joe McCarthy’s phrase, and always part of the fringe.) The Vietnam War changed all that. For the first time, we began to hear such terms as the radical, the Left, or the New or Radical Left.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy D
Roger,
Wow! I read it. It was pretty amazing. Now I'll have to think a lot.
Exciting ideas.
2 - Roger Nowosielski
Thank you, Cindy. It blew my mind to once I got into it. Never gave it much thought before. Things are way clearer now. Baronius and Dan Miller steered me in that direction, and I'm thankful.
Roger
3 - Dan(Miller)
Roger,
Good article! I don't agree with everything you say, but then I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
I will withhold further comment until after Part II appears.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Roger Nowosielski
I am glad, Dan. In a sense, I was conflicted about breaking it up into two parts, but the alternative was equally unattractive. As it is, I don't want to reveal all my cards, although I fail to see how some of you astute individuals will fail to see where I'm going with this.
Roger
5 - Cindy D
Roger,
Did you come here as a child or adult?
6 - Cindy D
(i'm trying to figure out why flower power is distinguished from hippie)
7 - Cindy D
And I know I might sound picky. But,it's not. I can't really understand something if I don't attend to every word as carefully as I can.
8 - Roger Nowosielski
No distinction, Cindy, just alliteration.
Re: your other question, I had a delayed adolescence. But I ain't disclosing my age. Let's just say I was coming of age; and it was the best of times.
Roger
9 - Cindy D
lol
well i know we have the same birth day within days.
mine is Nov. 15
10 - Cindy D
age shmage. my husband is 67
11 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, so you're a Scorpio?
Let's just say I was in a PhD program in 1971 (NYU and the New School) and had a privilege to be exposed to the best minds of the latter 20th century - philosophy, sociology, mathematics, you name it.
12 - Roger Nowosielski
"People in power have been noticing your accomplishments for a while -- they approve."
That's the horoscope, by the way, if you believe in any such thing.
13 - Cindy D
wow new school cool.
you an astrologer?
SDS is active again, i'm sure you know, right?
14 - Cindy D
you should have attached the soundtrack to ohio to your article. (sorry, only i do things like that)
i had to go dig it up.
15 - Roger Nowosielski
New School was great, especially for its interdisciplinary seminars: Chomsky on linguistics and politics (he was young and handsome then), Leontieff, a Noble Prize Winner in economics, things like that. And so was NYU - it was a seat of learning then and great fun.
No I'm not an astrologer, just thought I might throw that in from Yahoo homepage.
Why O-hai-O? Are you there?
16 - Cindy D
NO WAY!!!! you took classes with Chomsky?
17 - Cindy D
He's still handsome now.
18 - Cindy D
lol :-)
19 - Cindy D
you know about looks...
they depend on the person. that's what i've found.
whoever i have ever loved was always the most beautiful.
sort of like a person is something then that makes them look wonderful.
20 - Roger Nowosielski
His hair was jet black, like a shoe polish; and he'd comb it back, like Tyrone Power!
No, just sat on a couple of seminars.
21 - Cindy D
haha nah, not an astrologer. i was a card carrying skeptic. now i am a skeptic without a card. michael shermer was very disappointing when he decided capitalism is some sort of expression of evolution.
and he only though he used to believe in the supernatural
22 - Cindy D
he teaches some classes for Zcom u know. there is this seminar thing. maybe i'll do it one day
chit..know what happene to me today? an amazing thing
23 - Roger Nowosielski
Re #19,
But I grew up with an image of movie starts when there were still heroes: Gable, Power, Robert Taylor, not to mention the leading ladies. Even Bogart had charisma.
Who is Michal Shermer? NG, by the way, was a Wicca. She dropped a curse at my feet. Read all about it in my novel. But I shouldn't be telling you what's ahead. In due time.
24 - Cindy D
I just bought a book. literally on wednesday. it's called wobblies & zapatistas
it is a dialogue, between a marxist and an anarchist. andrej grubacic is one of the authors (the anarchist). so i get in my e-mail from zmag/zcom/znet the next day--they have a interview with andrej grubacic about the book. okay that's cool.
i go to the site and i see, he has a page on the site. so i befriended him and he accepted. now i can ask him direct questions. how cool is that?
25 - Cindy D
NO! a wicca? how do you imagine i am like a person that could be a wicca? lol that is hilarious