THE DIVIDE ON THE U.S. LEFT AND WHAT’S BEHIND IT

The broadside against liberal politicians Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders by comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore has opened a vitriolic debate among leftists. Dore called on Ocasio-Cortez to force Nancy Pelosi’s hand by insisting that she open a debate on Medicare for All in the House as a precondition for supporting her reelection as House Speaker. When this didn’t happen, Dore lashed out at her by calling her a “sellout” and a “liar” and “standing between” her constituents and health care. He also lambasted Bernie Sanders, though sparing him the harsh language used against OAC. 

I, like Bernie Sanders’s former press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, am in agreement with Dore’s “Force the Vote” proposal. But I totally reject his language as it basically labels AOC and Bernie Sanders part of the problem, rather than the solution. Their decision to work within the Democratic Party to an extent defines their positions and limits their messages. But there is nothing incompatible between viewing struggles within the Democratic Party as important and necessary and supporting the building of a third (progressive) party. 

But there is an elephant in the room which is being largely sidetracked in all the discussion on the left about Dore versus AOC. The elephant is nothing other than U.S. foreign intervention. While Dore, in my opinion, is wrong to not recognize the progressive credentials of AOC and Sanders, he is correct in pointing out that the moderate leftists (who he denies are on the left at all) have largely ignored foreign policy issues. And their refraining from raising these issues is much more than just a trivial omission. It is a major shortcoming and should be forcefully questioned. After all, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and elsewhere have had a devastating impact on the entire population of those countries. And U.S. “democracy promotion” programs bolster the position of those who oppose necessary change in their respective countries of the South and condemn them to continuous underdevelopment. And the enormous U.S. military budget, including the 800 U.S. military bases outside of the U.S., prod China and Russia into increasing their budgets in what has been an unannounced arms race with a ripple effect reaching all countries, large and small. 

It is not unfair to question the role of those progressives in the public light who avoid raising these issues. One example is the Young Turks podcast, which I listen to nearly every day. They provide excellent and entertaining coverage of domestic issues with cogent analysis, but they completely avoid issues of U.S. foreign policy. One may ask whether their audience consisting of tens of thousands of people would otherwise be listening to programs which do deal with such essential issues as U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. 

In short, Dore (in my opinion) has gone overboard in his language, his all-encompassing condemnation of progressives who aren’t radical enough for him, and his displays of sectarianism. But he is right in taking a close look at those on the left who avoid the issue of U.S. interventionism lest they be considered unkosher. Similarly, it is necessary to rebuke those who carefully and conveniently balance their criticism of U.S. foreign policy with criticism of governments such as those of Venezuela and Cuba, thus taking the edge off the anti-interventionist message. This aspect of Dore’s critique of the moderates is spot on.