Three Commentaries by John Rensenbrink

[this article appeared in the Fall 2020 issue of Green Horizon Magazine]

ONE

Political Centrism: A Neo-Liberal Sacred Cow

There is a plethora of publications on the news stands, each with their auxiliary website, reporting and commenting on the news of the world and the trends of political activity here and abroad.

They present themselves and regard one another as moderate, centrist, middle of the road. They are well-funded by the big corporations. I am thinking of publications like The Economist (from Britain), the Atlantic, US News & World Report and many, many similar others, including Time and Newsweek.

No doubt about it, The Economist et alia point to real problems, they report about positive things being done; they offer critiques that are often insightful on selected aspects of politics, economy, and culture.

But . . . .

Something is screened out. There is a curious and culpable absence of any inclusion, as a vital factor in the local, national and world situation, regarding the takeover of the political economy and political culture of the nation, and of the world, by mammoth corporations.

The latter have stoutly (and stupidly — meaning, against their own long term interest) resisted even moderate economic reform. They have grossly intervened in electoral politics with gigantic sums of money for the monopolizing benefit and corrupting of the two major parties, converting them into ploys and decoys of deceit to confuse and bamboozle the voter. They have intimidated (shut down) countless intellectuals who, as a result of relentless and soothing intimidation, turn to a typical “willing suspension of disbelief” to protect themselves and millions of people who listen, or might listen — immunizing themselves and their audience from political reality.

Nor have they stopped there. The mass media, the chump of all chumps, has become the mass conduit for corporate-approved news and commentaries done persuasively in the name of freedom of the press and the first amendment to the constitution of the United States. They — the mammoth corporations and their politicians — have blatantly continued, if not intensified, their shameful treatment of nature and the consequent diminishing quantity and quality of the once abundant resources of air, water, land, minerals, and other staples crucial to survival of our species, other animals and of the planet itself.

The resulting suppression of third parties that has ensued has aborted and prevented the emergence of a serious third political force. This is an astonishing fact. Most often it has been the case in the past history of the United States, that when existing political parties persistently failed to address social, economic, and political crises, a serious political alternative was able to emerge. They emerged either side by side with the failing parties or even within one of the them. But that has changed. It is very important that we who long for a better world, and fight for it, realize this, comprehend it, adjust our thinking about politics, and focus our action accordingly.

Wedge issues, especially racism, are shamelessly used to produce division. Consumerism distracts multitudes. Rancid infighting preoccupies new social forces. The slow-to-be-realized threat of species extinction causes it to become a wedge issue. All these, plus others, abound. Especially to be noted and put foremost is the covert (and not so covert) use of race and racism devised and/or supported by scores of corporations, as in mass incarceration, selective assassinations and, over a period of decades, denial of voting power to millions of people of color on the basis of current or previous felon status. This has been a sinister force suppressing the rise of potential black, brown and red political leadership.

All of this and more have left scores of millions of voters out on a limb with nowhere to go. Most have quit politics. A vast weary segment has settled for trying to get help and some sort of steerage by going along with the inadequate Democrats. Enthusiastic young voters get warped back into the prevailing system again and again.

The correlative rampant exploitation, economic oppression, and calculated deception of the majority of the population has given fertile and swampy ground for the rise of cheap and vulgar showmen who in their slovenly way act as saviors of the “masses”. Their demagoguery succeeds in the short term because there is no integrity in the system, only weak and errant opportunistic band-aids for the people.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had opportunity AND responsibility to restore integrity but opted for shallow approaches. Trump and his gang are the fruit of their failure.

We’re dealing with fundamentals now. I have had (and still have) hopes that the pandemic will so shape our attitudes that serious attention to fundamentals will ensue. The corporate funded “middle of the road” publications sadly fail to address the startling absence of attention to the fundamentals of our situation.

* * * * *

TWO

Green Party Coalitions in Europe with Far-Right Parties?

There has been a flurry of reports and articles that in Europe Green Parties and far-right parties have gotten together. As of this writing in mid-July, this political shift has happened in Ireland, Austria, and Germany, and it may happen in other European countries. They cooperate to win elections. Some pundits from both conservative and leftwing orientations comment favorably; others reserve judgment.

Some express consternation. But not loudly, it seems.

For me the question is: what kind of basis in theory and in party principles is being offered in each case by the Green Parties? A correlative question is whether or not that basis rests in traditional conservative thought and outlook or is an invention of temporary convenience. A third question might and should be: what are the long-range consequences of this shift? A fourth: is any of this relevant to U.S. Greens?

To answer these questions in depth would take a bit of time, space, and thought. For now, I have these observations.

Traditional conservatism (or as sometimes it’s called, “Tory Radicalism”) goes back well into the 18th and 19th centuries and recently in various times and various places in the 20th and the beginning of this millennium. Edmund Burke is a leading conservative voice who spoke in British Parliament on behalf of the struggle of the American colonies for independence from Britain, contrasting their revolution to the French Revolution which he described as harsh, self-righteous, and hideously out-of-control violent. Continuing in that theme and thrust was Alexis De Tocqueville in France, Benjamin Disraeli in Britain, Charles De Gaulle in France, and Edward Goldsmith, a keen British Green Party member about whom Steve Welzer wrote respectfully in a former issue of this magazine. There are many others, of course, among whom I would place Johann Wolfgang Goethe of Germany, poet, philosopher, playwright, and statesman.

Their emphasis is on conservative values, which they honor. Or say more bluntly they believe in a conserving approach to life — not by way of throwback, but to address the future by honoring the past. They believe in finding and backing policies that meet the other guy maybe even half-way, not cancelling them as just beyond the pale, not as someone to be resisted and if necessary trashed and killed. They believe in local vitality, thrift, self-reliance, and in taking account of the interest of the whole. One could go on and on in this vein, but one gets the drift. In Maine we have had, and continue to have in shrinking numbers, what might be called “downeast Republicans.”

Is there any connection between their conservatism and the Far-Right rhetoric of the parties entering into coalition with the Greens? I see none at all, none whatsoever. Just like Trumpism’s reactionary focus in the US. They are consumed with hatred of foreigners and immigrants in their countries and people of color generally. They are screaming upholders of “law and order.” They seem like xenophobes to me. Edmund Burke et al mean nothing to them, assuming that they might even know who they are.

The far-right are not conservatives. They are reactionaries moved by bitterness, fear, and resentment. They enjoy and revel, if one can believe this, in assaulting, ridiculing, hating the opposition. They get a rise out of other people’s pain. They double and redouble their penchant, which has become a habit, for causing pain and harm.

I would be extremely worried and negative about going into coalition with the Far-Right Parties anytime anywhere. Greens who do so, or contemplate doing so, need to think again. They risk not only doing harm to themselves and their own party, but also to other Green Parties. Most of all they risk great harm to the common good, to the conservation of the planet, and to the hope that the world will eventually pull out of its doldrums and find a solid way for peoples to live well and peacefully together.

* * * * *

THREE

The Person and Identity Wars

This may or may not be helpful in the current debate among Greens and others about the issues of identity and the relationship of one identity with another and the various implications thereof for both political strife and political unity across different identities.

I start with a simple observation: A person is not the property of an identity, but identity is the property of the person. Your identity does not possess your identity, it’s you who possesses the identity. A crucial distinction, don’t you think?

For example, one is born a person, a whole person in a whole body. As a person, I have identifiable biological characteristics that go along with being a person: male or female or transgendered. But no one at birth is already definitely and inevitably male or female or transgendered. There is no determinism there. In maturing and growing up, a person may want an identity that is different from the one they have grown up with. It is a matter of choice; a matter of growing awareness; and/or a matter of the pressures of the culture (and of its upholders) one has grown up with and in.

My concern in all this is to retrieve conceptually, culturally, and politically the notion of person. Person comes first. Identities follow via choice, personal awareness and culture.

I am thinking just now of the historic 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Note the distinction: persons are citizens, not citizens are persons.

The word person leaps out of the page. It appears again and again in the Constitution and in our common general discourse throughout our lives.

When you stop being male and you become female does that mean you stop being a person? When you stop being female and become male, does that mean you stop being a person? When your identity is neither male nor female, but transgender, does not mean you are not a person?

For analogy: When you stop being a white and become a black, does that mean you stop being a person? When you stop being a black and become a white, does that mean you stop being a person?

Ridiculous question, right?

Think about it. How can unity be fostered among the many identities that abound? A focus on the person is relevant and can be a source and foundation for unity.