Are they too post modern to be defined?

Submitted by Erich Wieger (United States), Jun 23, 2010 at 12:10

Thank you very much for the link to "left-facism". The review of Levy's book there, was very helpful. Your attempt to define what the neo-progressives really want is a heroic effort. I've read elsewhere that the "new left" has studiously avoided being so pigeon-holed! My understanding is that they understood themselves to be so repressed by repressive structures in the System, that all they could intelligently manage was to tear down the system through criticism and deconstruction, without yet defining further goals. This position is very adolescent, and allows them freedom from any serious review of their goals. On the other hand "sustainability" is an oft-repeated goal...or mantra.

I think the comment titled "Its not what they believe, its who they are" makes an excellent point: there is a great difficulty in defining what beliefs guide a conglomeration like "the Left". At the same time, there is an intelligentsia of the new left that will probably begin to produce uniting texts that define their over-all goals in more positive way. We should watch for this. One may expect that the vacuum will be filled by some burning minds. I think, on the other hand, many American conservatives could agree on coherent statements and texts as uniting standards. These two sides are not mere coalitions of the incoherent, however difficult definition may seem. What people believe does change who they are.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".