revised Sept. 1 2008

I would like to see an open self-critical space where the left spends some time on itself without thinking of how we wish to be viewed by others or what is our effect.

1. within means not coming from another place on the spectrum, such as the right or the ultra-left, which would fundamentally deny the voice of the left. The discussion space to be opened is not primarily focused on the spectrum view of opinion, and yet due to the us and them division into which American politics has settled, people do at least sort themselves out as one or the other. Another division might develop that would be more helpful than the current spectrum view: those who consider such a critical space valid and those who do not.

2. within means also painfully close to our subjectivity rather than within our collective opinion. This is our Studs Terkel moment, when we speak of our experience, how we came to feel what we do and formulate our opinions, how we identify ourselves, etc. This space would distinguish between inheriting or absorbing political opinions from our family and social milieu and entering into political awareness out of apathy, as in the sudden “radicalization” experience of the New Left period, which still grounds the politics of some older leftists (like myself) and needs to be confronted. The aim is to find where commitment and sacrifice and action is decided, all of which are radically individual and cannot be expected necessarily to put us in a favorable light in relation to others.

3. a space for discussion behind closed doors and yet as fully public as we can make it, as if there were a microphone inside the room that caught it all and projected it out to anyone interested to listen. We share this as unselfconsciously as possible, there are no doubt many who would want to know what is our motivation. This would ignore as harmful the usual effort to hide internal criticism from the outside, as a public relations error. We should not fear that others will take advantage of our supposed weaknesses; that itself is a prime weakness, a notion of politics that we inherit and will defeat us, leaving us wonder how that could have happened. The effort to maintain a front is just another sign that the left finds no way to distinguish itself from the society of the spectacle.

4. a space that is critical, not aimed at a critique. The door to explore is kept open and participatory rather than closed by an artiuclated position that redefines us and must either be adopted or denied. A critical space is not intended to create unity, the political goal and shibboleth the left has largely allowed itself to conform to; this goal itself needs to be examined. Hopefully this process will burst the seams of the unity-of-common-opposition and allow some real debate to take place, in which the good guys may not be all on our side. The left needs to live more dangerously, which means not bend every effort to become stronger. A front of unity and strength defers the real arguments that need to happen, since one cannot aim at becoming stronger without an image of what that strength would accomplish. So this project is neither fully pragmatic nor fully theoretical, but aimed at understanding what we have done historically and individually, today and in the past, in the effort not to make corrections but simply to put ourselves as human beings in the center of our political life. In other words, to begin at the beginning. Obama cannot do this for us, he cannot be what we are; we can only do this fundamental political work ourselves. Without this I believe we are poised not for victory in November but for defeat: absorbtion of our energies into the mediatized mainstream, the splitting of the left into those who are and are not part of the new consensus, and the final shutting of the door to political participation by ordinary and not media-selected people--ourselves. With this we stand the best chance for the left, one that knows not only what it stands for but why it stands at all.

5. This is a space of full contestation, as much face to face as we can muster on the internet, and imagining, if not looking forward to, a time when we can actually meet and discuss. This is not just for those who have devoted themselves to shaping or providing the research for political opinion but open to full and equal participation of all who take their own commitment--and non-commitment--seriously.