Old Left v. New Left

[traininthedistance]

I think the Old Left was more principled and honest in their views. If I have a choice between three socialists, I am going to vote for the socialist who says he is actually a socialist instead of hiding behind other labels.

This.

Anyways, voted Old Left. The New Left is a joke and a bunch of trolls (look at the 60s/70s vile peaces of human trash). They only talk about issues like Gay Marriage, to distract/avoid us from talking about the real issues like how Obamacare is failing and the economy. The Old Left was socialist, obviously but at least they admitted it. People like Obama and so fourth just hide behind other labels.

Yeah.  Democrats only talk about gay marriage.  Not health care.  Not taxes.  Not gun control.  Not defense spending.  Gay marriage.  We're a one-issue party and proud of it.  It's good to see you have it all figured out.

I'm reminded of that crazy far-left homophobe from North Carolina whose name I forget.

Anyway, I will sort-of concur with Al that the premise of this question is flawed not only because of widespread confusion as to what is meant by "new left", but also because we need a solid working definition of Old Left as well.  I guess, even taking these massive caveats into account, I would have to say that either New Left is likely preferable from my POV.  But the legacy of virtually all these groups is mixed lean-FF of course.

[traininthedistance]

1) Old Left (of the New Deal Democratic and old Social Democratic variety)
2) New Left (of the Blairite and Clintonian variety)
3) New Left (of the luddite and identity politics variety)
4) Old Left (of the Stalinist variety)

You seem to have missed what is probably the closest to an "actual" New Left; that is to say (very crudely speaking) the academic and anti-war variety.

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

Al can explain better than I, but for a quite large proportion of rural voters, their short-term economic interest is with the right wing.  "Better off suburbanites" are legitimately a more fertile ground for economic left policies than rural socons for a whole host of reasons, even if it doesn't seem that way looking solely at income level.

New Left - especially if we're talking about the Vietnam War era movement.

How do you oppose populism and count yourself as a member of the Left?

I can't answer for him but for me populism is an often simplistic, conspiracist, and intellectually lazy way to politically gain from fostering an "us versus them" mentality amongst the masses targeting a few people to blame for what ails society. I favour elitism. An educated few know what to do better than most, who in ignorance are too often devoted to conventional or "common sense" ideas. The Left is in conflict against - not in defense of - the past and present ways of doing things.

And I am also egalitarian. I contend that even the most privileged of the current system deserve goodwill and treatment equal to that extended to the subjected and downtrodden. A rich man is no less a comrade of mine than a poor one, and to oppress the former for the latter's benefit would scarcely be any better than if I were to do the opposite. I believe in society being run and resources allocated for the benefit of all - for 100% of the People instead of 99% or proles only.

This x1000.

The problem with populism is that, far too often, it goes hand in hand with hostility towards basically all the values I hold most dear: respect for the scientific method, its practitioners, and its findings; an interest in art (and a willingness to experiment in such), an embrace of pluralism and those who are unlike yourself or your in-group, willingness to break with tradition when necessary, etc etc etc.  I'm not saying that populism is necessarily anti-intellectual, reactionary, and xenophobic (when it avoids those characteristics I am obviously in favor); and obviously many anti-populist strains of thought throughout history (c.f. basically everything "Old Right") have those same pitfalls.  But populism seems to more often than accept not these unacceptable attitudes, or even just be a hollow shell to cover for them.  So I have every right to be wary, and not uncritically accept "populism" as some sort of unalloyed good.  The brand is just too tarnished.

[traininthedistance]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

Al can explain better than I, but for a quite large proportion of rural voters, their short-term economic interest is with the right wing.  "Better off suburbanites" are legitimately a more fertile ground for economic left policies than rural socons for a whole host of reasons, even if it doesn't seem that way looking solely at income level.

Could someone elaborate on this?

There are several reasons:

1) the tendency for rural areas to gravitate towards oppressive and exploitative economic development strategies such as mining and casinos, understandable due to a seeming lack of other options (and, relatedly, that regulations which put a damper on resource extraction, while they do clearly improve the long-term welfare of everyone, also can lead to short-term pain)
2) the fact that in metro areas, it is harder to pretend that government spending does not have a necessary role to play in providing and regulating infrastructure such as water, sewer, transportation, parkland, etc.
3) the "fractional inequality" that occurs in wealthier areas, where say people who are in the top 5 percent of income feel relatively poorer and are more susceptible to class-based appeals than someone in more sparsely-settled areas because they come in regular contact with those in the top 0.5, or 0.05, (or 0.005...) percent.  Recall that Bill de Blasio was from freaking Park Slope, not exactly a working-class bastion.  I mean, okay that's urban rather than suburban, but many/most suburban areas have more in common with the cities than the countryside.