The real political divide is not between left and right, but between institutions that manage injustice and movements working to build solidarity, democracy and Beloved Community.
It was almost predictable. After sticking to "democratic socialist" for a bit longer than the editorial board and senior editorial staff could apparently tolerate, New York Times reporters are now free to use the term "Far Left" to describe the cluster of winning candidates backed by Zohran Mamdani.
As I say, this was a predictable shift. And problematic in multiple ways.
Unapologetic U.S. right-wing media assassins, even London's Independent broadsheet, had already smeared Mamdani with the "Far Left" label way back when his campaign first gained traction. His incredible and impressive win created a grace period in the Times and elsewhere. An acceptable tag in the Times was "sewer socialist," which is actually a high compliment for people who get the reference (I speak as a Wisconsin-born admirer of Milwaukee socialist mayors Emil Seidel, Daniel Hoan, and—in my lifetime—the great Frank Zeidler).
But now it's "Far Left" for Mamdani et al, which comes pretty close to Trump's " communist." And let us note that the Times has been there many times before: sidling up to the very worst haters seems to have been in the newspaper's DNA since its founding in the middle of the 19th century.
But that's not even the real problem. Beneath the smear, and not far beneath, is a deep loathing of the slogan "Free Palestine" within a liberal establishment of which the Times is a major pillar. Peel back still further and you will find a deep fear that Mamdani and other DSA types might actually change things up in U.S. politics. Might actually tax the rich. Might bring back labor rights. Might even—quelle horreur—change the basic orientation of fatally wealth-friendly Democratic Party.
Media moguls and lazy reporters can get away with this shit because they have no actual knowledge of what "Left" means in the U.S. context, and they in turn can count on readers who likewise know nothing. These slugs are the successors of other slugs who couldn't tell the difference between a Jane Addams and an Emma Goldman. Who couldn't tell the difference between a Gene Debs and a Big Bill Haywood. And yes, who once even tagged gentle Victor Berger as a dangerous "Far Left" enemy of the state.
In my religious world we make a useful distinction between liberals and liberationists. The liberals were and are institutionalists: people who occupy high pulpits and high academic perches and who write in prestige journals. Their ranks included people who aligned themselves with 20th century progressive reforms and largely failed to stem the revivalist/racist tide that surged in a major way during the early Cold War years and that continues to make bad trouble today. (As the 20th century ground on, liberals were writing books and filling libraries while revivalists were building radio stations: guess who won?)
The liberationists were and are a much smaller group of Christian folks who build solidarity with empire's victims here and around the globe, who take risks to stop the war machine, and who seek to overthrow the entire underlying culture of violence. In secular terms and in the eyes of lazy journalists, liberationists would constitute an actual "Far Left." But that is exactly the kind of labeling they (I should say "we" here, because I am one of them) consistently and adamantly reject on account of idiocy and destructiveness of the entire Right/Left binary scheme.
Yes, the Rabid Right likes to pigeonhole leftists, and the ignorant media like to follow along, but so does the so-called Left itself. That's partly why the Left is so easy to ridicule. All my life I've been in circles where people spend time and energy asking who is "sufficiently" Left and debating who is taking the "correct" ideological line. Activist groups commit suicide all the time when a hardcore "smash the state" faction gains control. Sometimes it's ideology, sometimes it's naivete, and often it's a combination of both. Been there, done that, and done with all that.
I'll tell you what's truly radical. What's truly radical is what the liberationists (religious and otherwise) seek to do: build a whole new culture, build Beloved Community at the ground level. This is far from a monastic path: local and national solidarity networks that are built on trust and reverence can and do sustain serious movement work everywhere they appear. Liberation, not stale leftism, is the future.
My advice to Mr. Mamdani and my DSA friends: keep your heads down, do the work, avoid factionalism, make friends, have a good time. Forget about old models and old labels. That old Democratic donkey is dying. Use it to get some good kicks in when and where that make sense, but don't ever feel a need to yield to the forces of "moderation." Those are the forces that joined hands with Republicans to give us a "tough on crime" carceral state, a bloated military, deindustrialization, and catastrophic cuts to public welfare programs. Tell James Carville—and The New York Times—they can go fly a kite.
Rev. Peter Laarman is a retired minister who formerly led Progressive Christians Uniting in Los Angeles. A member of the
National Council of Elders, Peter serves on NCOE's
King and Breaking Silence team.
LOVE FILMS FOR ACTION?
We don't run on ads. We're run on community. Donating $5/month makes a difference.
Subscribe here.