What this reply misses is that the wealthy he refers to don't think beyond
their own situation to realize the macrocosm they operate in and it's
effects on the population. Everybody loves their own family, Hitler,
invidious comparison albeit, loved dogs and his community. So what?
He accuses the left of not availing itself of "the wealth of human ability
that exists in this country in the form of people who have achieved high
levels of affluence and power." The point is those people aren't using it
to a greater good. That's the left's fault?
lightman@frontiernet.net
----------
>From: Chris Shugart <profcdavid@redshift.com>
>To: sixties-l@lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: [sixties-l] No left in America
>Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2000, 6:52 PM
>
>I thought Don Monkerud's essay "No Left In America" was an honest and
>succinct summary of where the left generally stands on many issues. It also
>serves as a stellar example of why I and others can't get behind the left.
>As I see it, the basic division between left and right comes down to how
>one views human nature and humankind as a whole.
>
> >>During his tenure, Ronald Reagan organized extremely conservative and
>wealthy forces to turn America back to the 19th century when laissez faire
>capitalism ran hegemony over the public agenda. As a result, the public
>today more often champions opposition to government than opposition to the
>multi-national corporations that control every aspect of our lives and
>redistributes wealth to the rich.<<
>
> >>Our political climate is held hostage to advertising that convinces us
>that corporations have our best interest at heart, while they control our
>economic life.<<
>
> >>Unless people begin to see their interests as different from the
>interests of the corporations that control our economic and social lives,
>America will be held hostage to corporate interests well into the 21st
>century.<<
>
>If I were to accept D.M's. view I would conclude that America is being run
>by people whose primary purpose is aggrandizing their wealth and power
>while subjugating the rest of us. I would further conclude that such people
>are criminal. Can it be true that we're under the control of evil overlords
>devoted to keeping us enslaved, taking great measures to prevent us from
>flourishing and prospering?
>
>Perhaps that is ultimately true, but the reality is that people, by and
>large are not criminal. And here's where we may differ: Oppression is just
>as often the result of incompetence as it is criminality--perhaps even more
>so. It's true that the corrupt activities of a few can deprive us of
>prosperity and justice. But the criminal does not reside exclusively in any
>political or social group.
>
>I've met some extremely bright and capable people in my time, decent beyond
>reproach. Some just happen to be rich and powerful. Success and prosperity
>don't preclude one from also being devoted to family, community, country,
>and their fellow man.
>
>If the left is headed for failure, it will be due to an inability to
>recognize, or an unwillingness to avail itself of the wealth of human
>ability that exists in this country in the form of people who have achieved
>high levels of affluence and power. I, for one don't automatically view
>such people with suspicion and disdain.
>
>C.S.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 03:52:40 CUT