THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING RADICAL
EVERY NOW AND THEN something happens which reminds me just how irrelevant and weak so-called liberals can be; something which makes me wonder how committed to resistance they really are. For example, lately, I have heard "progressives" praise Bill Clinton for "coming around" on the WTO (that's right, Michael Moore really said this); and claim that America "has respect for human life" presumably absent from those foreign "terrorists" trying to smuggle dynamite into the Space Needle, or wherever (this from Paul Wellstone--the "leftist" who endorsed Wall Street Bill Bradley); or saying that they "love capitalism" (this in a USA Today letter from "Ben," of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, who's supposed to be a lefty because they named a flavor after Jerry Garcia, or something). In any event, these are examples of what resistance isn't. It isn't about flacking for the President, or voting for the lesser of two evils again, or praising the profit system.
To be "radical" means to seek the roots of a problem, and then, having found them, to focus attention there, and dig until they're exposed and destroyed. Then, to be radical means to replace that which has been uprooted with something better, more equitable and just, where folks aren't subordinated to illegitimate authority--be they politicians or bosses.
Sure, many deride such talk as utopianism. But remember, nothing ever came about that wasn't first dreamt by someone; and none of the contemporary progress we've seen in terms of justice was due to the efforts of moderates, or even liberals really. Even when less militant types have accomplished something positive, it has often required radicals to keep the liberals honest (or at least on their toes).
It took radical abolitionists, like John Brown, to make the more "mainstream" opponents of slavery take a stronger stand. It took the more militant unions and champions of labor naming the system which disempowers working people, to push more "mainstream" unionists--even for a short while--to a position of strength earlier in this century, and to accomplish (however inadequate) the reforms of the New Deal. It took SNCC--with its more systemic analysis of the problem of white supremacy--to push SCLC and "mainstream" civil rights groups, and the same could be said of the effect of even more militant groups like the Panthers, the Nation of Islam, Brown Berets, or AIM.
Likewise, it will take more than mere lovers of sea turtles and AFL-CIO types to stop the WTO and the global immiseration that comes with the agenda of corporate elites.
Those who call ourselves radicals must be clear: the enemy is not the "far right," but the system that limits our choices and the spectrum of thought on so many issues. Were it not for the weak-kneed advocacy of liberals, and the watered-down calls for justice which are their hallmark, the right wouldn't be the threat it is today. Liberals and the Democrats have enabled the right by their tepid resistance to all but the most fascistic of reactionary plans. And "progressives" have enabled the Democrats to enable the right, by continuing to vote for lessers of two evils, no matter how evil the lesser may be.
We radicals must disabuse ourselves of the notion that one more really well-written position paper will make policy makers come around. Elites don't do what they do out of ignorance, or because they haven't read the latest from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They do what they do because it's in their interests and the interests of those they serve to do what they do. We are not, liberal protestations aside, "all in this together." Elites respond to power; threats--if they can be backed up--and mass pressure. Liberals seek to educate elites away from their class interests; Radicals seek to educate masses about theirs, figuring the rest will take care of itself. . . .
Here's one way to think of it: imagine a man standing over another with a boot pressed against the second man's throat. Along comes a conservative who blames the man on the ground for his position, since surely he must have done something to deserve being there. When the man under foot asks for help, the conservative says the man must help himself, as such a thing builds character. And then the conservative walks away. A liberal, seeing this, rushes up, appalled at the condition of the man on the ground, and the mean-spiritedness of the conservative. So he offers the man on the ground a pillow for under his head, so as to alleviate the pain a bit, and offers him a cool glass of water. He even puts a bumper sticker on his car that reads: "Stomping People Under Foot Is Not a Family Value." And then the liberal moves on. . . .
As radicals, let us resolve that whenever we come across this kind of scene, we'll focus attention on the guy whose foot is in the damned boot, and that we won't rest until the boot is removed. That's the difference. And it matters.
TIM WISE is a Nashville-based activist, writer, and antiracism educator. He can be reached at <tjwise@mindspring.com>. This article was excerpted from his ZNet Commentary <www.zmag.org>.