Emerging political realignment in the United States
Although I no longer support or participate in electoral politics, I remain an observer of it. The ongoing mainstream political dialogue is the landscape that the rhetorical battle to raise a widespread revolutionary class consciousness is waged on. I couldn’t ignore it any more than I could ignore punctuation; perhaps less so.
So, anyway, Ron Paul had his ever-so-slightly overhyped press conference at the National Press Club today. While many who were hoping in vain that he would mount his own last minute candidacy were disappointed, I think it’s important as a hopeful harbinger of more in this vein yet to come. The logic of political realignment is inescapable. As Ralph Nader noted:
“This is the beginning of the realignment of American politics.”
I’ve been talking about this sort of thing for a while now, actually, but that’s not the point.
On the right — the royalist party of the ruthlessly mercantilist and imperialist status quo.
On the left — the supposed party of “change”; soft-core socialists, free-market liberals, decentralists, reformers and rebels and still others all demanding this monstrous criminal regime be broken up somehow, finding points of unity wherever they can.
We’ve been here before…
UPDATE: There’s been some confusion about which group is on the left and which is on the right above. When you imagine yourself as the document (the image file), the Tories are shown on your right above and the Whigs on your left. I’m surprised that this surprises people who think I got them backwards. Rather, I’m remaining true to the metaphor.
The whole “left vs. right” wing metaphor began in the French Assembly way back in the day. For example, Proudhon the anti-state socialist and Bastiat the free-market liberal were both seated on the left. Royalist, revanchist and reactionary groups (conservatives) huddled together on the right for companionship because everyone else knew they had cooties (well, maybe not that last part).
Anyway, diagrams such as this are all based on the idea of seating charts. The speaker or chair’s podium was always placed center bottom of the seating chart (or map of the room) and rear entrances to the chamber were always placed at the top of the map. The right of the deliberative body would be the left of the document as observed (mirror-like, from the podium-centric perspective) by the reader and vice verse.
Share This
It’s a choice with which I’m a little more enthused.
Having Nader balance out someone like Paul in rhetoric makes me feel more comfortable.