Ask Auntie Pinko
February 20, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

What do you think personally about Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and others on the "far left"?

Do they and other "dissidents" help or harm the cause for change in the American political process and foreign policy?

Just curious.

Desmond,
New York, NY

Dear Desmond,

You raise an interesting point. What IS the "far left?" For convenience's sake, let's postulate the spectrum of political ideology in the modern United States as a scale from one to ten. We'll place the most leftward ideology at "one" and the most rightward at "ten."

Auntie Pinko is willing to bet that if you give this description to a random sample of your friends and acquaintances, and then ask them where they stand on the scale, the overwhelming majority of the answers you receive will be fours, fives, sixes, and sevens. Our culture teaches moderation as a virtue (generally,) and while many of us acknowledge a bias on the left or rightward side of some mythical absolute center, we tend to see our views as normal and correct and virtuous, and thus tending to encompass that center.

In my youth, I saw myself as a solid "two." Experience and age generally exert a centerward pull, and I am probably closer to a "three" these days. Now here's the interesting part:

Both of the gentlemen you mentioned as being "far left" are, in fact, intellectual and ideological role models of mine. I see them in roughly the same place on the spectrum as I occupy myself - somewhere between a "two" and a "three." I don't see them as "far left," because I do not see myself as "far left." Like you (probably,) Desmond, I see my own views as being not all that far from the mainstream of American culture.

However, let's put aside a specific assessment of Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Zinn, per se, as representative of the "far left," and simply address the issue of dissident expression and the contributions to the national dialogue that come from the "ones" (and even from the "tens," for that matter.) Do they help or harm the cause for change?

Auntie Pinko has noticed something about nurturing the change process, Desmond. What is, or is not, effective in facilitating change varies greatly depending on scale. That is, what works to change an individual is not the same as what works to change a community, or even a whole culture. And the approach we take to large-scale change should dictate the tools, and the rhetoric, we use.

What makes change happen, Desmond? Is it the product of a few influential leaders or pivotal events or technological innovations? Or is it the product of a collective need, a popular will, as it were? How do those two factors interact? Do leaders change how people think? Or are leaders those who can most effectively actualize the thoughts of the people?

I think, though, that it is safe to say that the "ones" and the "tens" make a profound contribution to the process of change, simply because what they say or do generally tends to differ so clearly from the majority of the discourse. We may find some of them easy to dismiss. But some we cannot so easily turn away from. Some of them excite profound "contrarian" responses - and that in itself is a contribution.

Even if all they do is force us to re-examine our own assumptions and the basis for our own self-chosen position on the spectrum, that can be a considerable force for change. I am not saying that, (for example,) a Mr. Novak or a Mr. Limbaugh is going to change Auntie Pinko from a "three" to an "eight" - or even a "four." But in the process of examining their rhetoric, I learn about what makes them, and those who admire or emulate them, "tick."

That helps me communicate with them. And if we can maintain the process of communication, we can maintain the process of change. Thanks, Desmond, for asking Auntie Pinko such an interesting question!