Why America Needs a Left: A Historical Argument Paperback – October 7, 2013

At a time when conservatism is so hegemonic that even liberal presidents like Obama are trapped within its logic, Zarestsky demonstrates the need to revive a real left. Since the Reagan regime, American political discourse has treated liberal and left as synonyms, equating opponents of capitalism, militarism and empire with supporters who believe the survival of a capitalist empire requires state intervention and appeasing the non-rich with social services. Zarestky makes it clear that the real left never dominated in the United States and does not expect it to assume power in the foreseeable future. However, he believes the absence of a left weakens liberals. If the only people whom they debate are far right, centrists (called leftists) will argue on rightwing turf and not even propose policies, which are feasible under capitalism and serve the 99%. For example, every advanced capitalist country, except the United States, protects its citizens with a medical care system underwritten by the state. Instead, America has Obamacare, which is basically a subsidy to private insurance companies, but has actually been labeled communist. Even citizens, who are not attracted to true leftist values, should listen to Zarestsky's advice. American capitalism faces a crisis, comparable to one Roosevelt confronted during the Great Depression. Then, there was a real left, whose existence allowed FDR to adopt policies, which are inconceivable today. Ironically, the rumbles of anti-capitalists allowed Roosevelt to save capitalism from itself. Whether you are a leftist, a liberal or a conservative, the suggestions Zarestsky makes in this book are well worth considering

First, I have to note that as a history book of three American social upheavals, this book is marvelous. Unlike some other history books, the text of this one really pulls you in, and Zaretsky does a great job getting the reader to feel each respective "left's" contribution to the struggles to end slavery, respond to the Great Depression, and fight against American imperialism. That said, I oscillated between giving this book a 3 and 4 star review, ultimately giving it 4 stars for the reasons just mentioned. Yet, the book is not without flaws; namely, that the author fails to really give a persuasive answer to his quesiton: why America needs a left.

Why do I say that? Because while he skillfully paints the pictures of the abolitionists in the middle 1800's, the leftist New Dealers (those leaning toward some sort of socialism) in the 1920's and 30's, and the "student movement" New Left of the 1960's, the author really paints the latter two groups as a fringe who may have succeeded in partially changing political culture by nudging it 'leftward,' but as groups that, ultimately, had only an indirect effect. Particularly with the New Dealers of a socialist bent, the author suggests that these were the folks who 'nudged Roosevelt leftward' after the (arguably) moderate "first new deal". Various socialist groups argued that the "first new deal" did not do enough to enhhance the role of labor unions, secure 'economic rights,' and create a robust welfare state. But, at best, the author shows that these socialist groups had an INDIRECT influence, influencing those in power to move a bit leftward, but never as far leftward as these "leftists" wanted.

And while the history of the "New Left" of the 1960's is a really interesting one, readrers could be excused - as we are looking on the movement in hindsight - for asking what this group really accomplished of their goals. Is there less corporatization today than in theirs? Less of an imperialistic military? Is there any more 'participatory democracy'(a vague phrase, that, which the New Left never really defined) existing today than in the 1960's? At best, like the socialists of the 1930's, the left our author uses as his template for what we need today had, at best, a marginal impact on things.

I think I understand the author's overall case - very briefly givein in his introduction and conclusion - that we need a left largely because American politics and culture simply tends toward the center, and (my words) our inborn 'status quo bias' means that, without a left, society might remain quite static. Also, the author, a leftitst himself, I think, wants to see the United States move toward a more equalitarian and 'democratic' ideal. (We can debate that value judgment, of course.) And while the author certainly makes the case that these three lefts have had some impact (the abolitionists having the most, surely), one wonders whether, in the end, two of these three lefts were more or less marginal players.

It seems pathetic that someone feels the need to make an argument, an historical one no less, for the continued relevancy of leftist thought in American society. Don't the concepts of civil rights, social and economic justice, and participatory democracy stand on their own and carry permanent weight with most (all?) societies?

Sadly, they don't; their influence ebbs and flows over time and location and they can be extinguished absent resistance from an active leftist movement.

Author, Eli Zaretsky, in "Why America Needs a Left: A Historical Argument" makes a plausible argument that the Left has had a crucial role in shaping American political and social identity especially during three major crisis periods-the Civil War era, the New Deal era, and the social and cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 70's.

Each of those crises had potential resolutions which presented options for society-a retreat to traditional authority forms and hierarchies or an advancement towards greater democracy, economic and social equality, and a more just society. It was the Left-the abolitionists (racial equality), the New Dealers, (economic and social quality), and the New Left (participatory democracy), respectively, which influenced the structures and identities of an evolving society in the direction of greater rights and democracy, the noblest vision of America in Mr. Zaretsky's view (although millions of others think just the opposite.)

America likely would be a much different place without the influence of the Left, he argues-more authoritarian, corporate, national, intolerant, and perhaps, even fascist (sort of like the Patriot Act, the "no-review" drone killings, and the like?)

The author is a professor of history at the New School for Social Research. He analyzes economic, political, social and even cultural sources in the context of these crises events. He writes for the educated general reader and for college undergraduates. Like any historian, he marbles the text with large amounts of primary and secondary materials-quotes, excerpts of written materials, and data and statistics.

Readers can differ in opinion over the quality of his evidence and interpretations but his argument is plausible. While clearly sympathizing with the Left, Mr. Zaretsky presents his material in a fair-minded way. The book is not an easy read but is not a brain-crushing slog like some historical works can be.

His primary intent is to speak to the present using historical lenses. While the abolitionist and the New Dealers were relatively successful in shaping American society, the New Leftists were not. While they helped facilitate a cultural revolution in the arts and general society they failed to significantly develop the participatory democracy they wanted which for them meant equal participation in society including civil society, the public sphere, the family, and personal life free of a host of traditional authoritarian hierarchies.

Where government and aggressive conservative elements once represented the repressive force in society, in the post Kennedy/LBJ period a form of new corporate repression and dominance developed as the primary structural element governing society, resulting in class divisions, inequality, and suppression of real democracy. We have receded in terms of democracy, equality, and justice since then, he argues, including the failed promise of America's first black president and a democratically controlled Congress. He hopes for a renewal of leftist thought-the Occupy Wall Street movement, perhaps?-to reshape American society again during this current financial crisis towards more equality and social justice.

Like any good or valuable nonfiction book "Why America Needs a Left" provokes thought and questions:

Is there really any place for leftist thought now that global corporatism and its ideology of neo-liberalism has amassed so much power and influence? Is there really any Left left, or only a scattered bunch of uncoordinated and idea-lacking organizations and groups? What does equality really mean, or should mean, in a modern society or does its meaning vary with political and social perspective?

Like most books lamenting the demise or fecklessness of the Left, the author expresses a wish for significant change but puts forth no plans, ideas, or programs. That's not meant as a criticism as the book is not designed for that. In any case there is a real vacuum of new ideas from the leftist perspective. (Interested readers in a practical program may want to take a look at "Occupy World Street" by Ross Jackson.)

(FTC disclosure (16 CFR Part 255)): The reviewer has accepted a reviewer's copy of this book which is his to keep. He intends to provide an honest, independent, and fair evaluation of the book in all circumstances.)