by Tamara K. Nopper
Red-baiting is by no means the sole preserve of the Right. Leftists of various stripes sometimes resort to red-baiting to distinguish themselves from those whose politics are even less compatible with prevailing opinion. Red-baiting is also a weapon to “shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to...demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional.”
On Progressive “Red-Baiting”
by Tamara K. Nopper
This article previously appeared on Ms. Nopper’s web site.
“Progressives critical of racism, poverty, corporations, and government officials have their own ways of red-baiting.”
In response to a critic, a popular progressive figure commented, “I’m defender of republican democracy, US Constitution and liberty and justice for all. I’m progressive dem, not authoritarian leftist.” While perhaps correct in the self-description, such comments hint at an intellectualized version of red-baiting.
Red-baiting of course is not new and today many people throw the word leftist as well as radical, revolutionary, Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist, around like they are accusations rather than oppositional, albeit diverging, positions against capitalism, the state, and for some of us, white supremacy. Most of the people who are the most vociferous in publicly denouncing leftists are white conservatives, including corporate news personalities and members of the inherently racist and white nationalist Tea Party. Yet progressives critical of racism, poverty, corporations, and government officials have their own ways of red-baiting.
Not all of the targets of this red-baiting of which I speak are associated with Marxist organizations or have specific organizational affiliations. Nor do most progressives publicly use pejoratives such as “Commie” or “Pinko.” Yet some will easily use terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radicals” or “revolutionaries” when trying to deflect questions posed by people unimpressed with their political positions but whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed as driven by white supremacy or conservatism. In the process, these progressives often avoid having to explain why they are committed to the positions they take by calling their critics “radicals” or “revolutionaries,” thus situating their positions as logical or natural as opposed to ideological. Such gestures are consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to hate such terms due to the aggressive campaigns by the mainstream press, most academics, and the state to demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional.
For example, consider the path and reaction to Barack Obama’s historic election. Many people, from a variety of backgrounds, who wanted him elected openly castigated people as “radicals” and “revolutionaries” for not supporting Obama or for not understanding how politics “is done.” Those critical of Obama for being too conservative were expected to keep quiet or were carelessly labeled these terms. These labels, which are really badges of honor rather than insults, were thrown around to isolate and treat as irrational those who made supporters of Obama uncomfortable.
“It is not uncommon to hear authors go out of their way to ridicule 'radicals' and 'revolutionaries' for taking issue with Obama.”
After Obama’s victory, many of us were expected to hold off on expressing critical views of the election so as to respect the euphoria. Whereas after 9-11 those critical of empire were supposed to remain silent so as not to cause more pain for the victims and the nation, after Obama’s election we were supposed to keep quiet until the celebration was over. Even as Obama reveals himself to be, as one friend puts it, an operative (as opposed to simply being “scared” of whites), many people writing books and commentaries about the significance of Obama’s election defend their positions with red-baiting. It is not uncommon to hear authors go out of their way to ridicule “radicals” and “revolutionaries” for taking issue with Obama. That they never have to identify what they mean by these terms or why they are ridiculing such politics speaks to the ease in which they can engage in such red-baiting among their audiences.
Other examples of progressive red-baiting include 1) the difficulty of getting or keeping a job in progressive non-profits or in progressive academic programs if you take a critical stance on capitalism as opposed to “class inequality;” 2) the wholesale dismissal of armed struggle, direct action tactics, street protests, and marches by many pundits and scholars quick to remind their audiences that they only support (or condone, really) non-violent resistance; 3) the re-narration of political and intellectual history in which certain oppositional figures and organizations are celebrated or remain icons but their confrontational stances against capitalism, the state, and the American project are left out or treated as ephemeral, naïve, or a bitter emotional response to discrimination or bad treatment in certain organizations; 4) the re-posing of revolutionary political organizations for mass consumption where they are sanitized as less threatening and thus more compatible with the American dream as well as the non-revolutionary white left; 5) the need to make sure that one’s audience and critics know that one is not too far left and the use of certain code words to do so; and 6) going out of the way to rescue some figures from the “accusation” of being a Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist. Regarding the last point, while it is unfair to Socialists that President Obama has been depicted as one and everyone appreciates being remembered “correctly,” such gestures often reveal a shared red-baiting among those who make accusations and those who respond, as seen in some of the recent defenses of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. on whether he was a Socialist or Communist.
“Terms such as 'authoritarian leftist,' 'radical,' or 'revolutionary' are basically code for being too oppositional against capitalism and white supremacy or being Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist.”
There are of course important ideological and analytical differences and sources of contention among all of those thrown under the bus by these progressives, with some not necessarily having a particular organizational affiliation or having to critically engage limitations within the organizations we are a part of, especially around issues of racism, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, and gender politics. And critical engagement and reflection among the left is important and sorely needed. Whatever the case, terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radical,” or “revolutionary,” while perhaps confusing to some, are basically code for being too oppositional against capitalism and white supremacy or being Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist. The term is also a code for being dogmatic, too aggressive, socially inept, unwilling to listen to ideas, and having a difficulty integrating useful nuances into, or dealing with contradictions in our ideological frameworks. While yes, I have met leftists of all stripes who possess all of these tendencies—and I could easily be accused of the same—I have also met and seen and read and heard thousands upon thousands of capitalists, pro-capitalists, and progressive democrats who also possess these traits.
Yet for some reason, perhaps because it is more compatible with the capitalist party line and more appeasing to whites, being an authoritarian progressive who is anti-leftist or anti-radical or anti-revolutionary is not considered by many as a form of dogmatism, but rather political “common sense” and purportedly more humanistic than, let’s say, openly confronting or naming the sources of millions of people’s misery. It also means you are more likely to get published and keep a job or be offered a new one by those who run progressive institutions that seek to serve as alternatives to the political climate at most professional jobs. Being dogmatic about one’s progressive tendencies may result in being targeted by white supremacists who troll the internet and watch corporate news (and who will attack with a vengeance anybody who doesn’t believe in the inherent inferiority of non-whites or the sanctity of the free market)—a stressful situation that can result in real personal losses, to be sure. Indeed, most people critical of the right wing or even moderates are subject to scrutiny and attack, and people of color, in particular Black people, experience this backlash in degrees far greater than whites and often have less institutional support to counter such witch hunts. Yet too many progressives, despite having significant points of disagreement among them, seek to protect themselves, insulate their positions from interrogation, or gain currency by relying on red-baiting tactics and distancing themselves from those they publicly dismiss as “authoritarian leftists,” “radicals,” or “revolutionaries.”
Tamara K. Nopper earned her Ph.D. in sociology and currently serves as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University in Philadelphia. More of her writing and academic research can be found on her blog, Bandung 1955.
Our guest is Craig Mokhiber. He is an international human rights lawyer and former director of the New York Office of the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Human Rights. He stepped down from that…
Lawrence Hamm, of the People’s Organization for Progress (POP), joins us from Newark, New Jersey, to talk about Black politics in that city. The late Sharpe James was mayor for a record-setting 20…
Ajamu Baraka spoke with Garland Nixon about the need to oppose U.S. foreign policy in Africa and in the Middle East.
The same corporate media talking heads who told us to ignore Biden’s failing health are now cashing in with books revealing political cover ups while also covering up their own role in…
“It is a lie that slavery has been abolished. It has only been modernized.”
