What is the “post-left”?
I realize I sling the term "leftist" around a lot, and I’m not the only one. Still, the question needs to be asked: what is the political left? What does it stand for?
Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr. wrote an interesting examination of what he calls "the post-left," or, more generally, "the anti-Western left." The essay is full of twists and turns and probably isn’t for everyone, but in my experience its at least a fair assessment of a certain trend in modern left-wing thinking.
One fascinating aspect of Brahm’s analysis of the left is how well it coheres with the diagnosis of the left often made by those who call themselves Objectivists.
According to Brahm, the anti-Western left can be characterized by the following features, along with my synopsis of Brahm’s explanation of each (hence, any errors are mine, not is. I highly suggest people check out the original piece):
1. Inverted Exceptionism: that is, the idea that the United States is the root of all evil in the world.
2. Post-Zionism: Israel is also the source of much evil; its right to exist is severely questioned.
3. Third Worldism: "The wretched of the world…are not just unlucky but morally superior to the earth’s beneficiaries." Everyone from Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden can be lionized as a heroic warrior fighting against the evil Americans.
4. Cultural Revolution: Redeeming the world means everything has to go, especially bourgeois culture and its corresponding moral constraints.
5. Totalitarian Ideology: This is complicated. In the absence of the patchwork of moral constraints that have evolved through the invisible hand, the post-left wants to substitute a comprehensive ideology that explains and rationalizes any phenomenon in terms of "the same demons [and] the same victims." E.g. "Is something wrong with the world? It must be those damn Americans again!"
6. Islamism: Islamism appeared as the perfect synthesis of all of the above points. It’s anti-American, anti-Zionist, originates from the parts of the world the left tends to admire, aims to overthrow petty bourgeois morality in exchange for a comprehensive ideology, and provides a totalizing explanation for all the injustice in the world.
Some on the left refuse to take Brahm’s rebuke lying down. On his blog, Dr. Dawg provides an extended critique of Brahm’s thesis.
As for me, I’m not going to generalize. But I’ve spent enough time on left-wing message boards to realize that Brahm’s description is not entirely inaccurate of a certain subset of the left (or those who describe themselves as on the left, anyway.)
I’ve also known leftists, especially in the United States, who do not celebrate Chavez and Bin Laden, and who do not think America is the source of all evil in the world. Dissent Magazine provides excellent examples of leftists of this type. So it would be wrong to take Brahm’s thesis and apply it too broadly — something I doubt he would be comfortable with, anyway.