Responsible Radical: Reflections on Michael Harrington’s Legacy
BEN KREIDER
Michael Harrington is one of the most influential American political radicals whose name would be unrecognized by most people today. Even bonafide left-wingers are often ignorant of his contributions. Yet in his all-too-brief lifetime, Harrington penned over twenty books, including The Other America, which even mainstream media sources have named one of the most important books of the twentieth century. It is not an exaggeration to say that this book helped spur President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty.” Harrington’s most famous work, however, was just one of his many achievements. Above all, we should remember Harrington not only as a brilliant writer and theorist, but also as a “responsible radical.” While the progressive movement today largely lacks anyone of his stature and mold, there is much we can learn from his life.
Harrington was a true public intellectual at a time when that term held more meaning. William F. Buckley, also a prominent public intellectual at the time, once said that being the most famous socialist in America was “like being the tallest building in Topeka, Kansas.” Unfortunately, Buckley may have had a point. Yet the two men also had a great deal of respect for one another, and they held numerous spirited, though civil, debates. They were men of a bygone era: an era before the Internet, blogs, and the supremacy of cable television. It was a time when the term “public intellectual” held some meaning for a larger portion of America’s citizens. Although only a small number of individuals may remember Harrington today, his impact can still be felt.
It was not just Harrington’s status as a preeminent intellectual that set him apart from both his peers and his radical forebears; in addition, it was his ability to transcend generations and to combine theory with practice. In the turbulent 1960s, Harrington served as an important link between the Old Left and the New Left. He was one of the few people who talked to both representatives of the old guard, such as Norman Thomas, and young radicals such as Tom Hayden.
In fact, Harrington briefly participated in the famous Port Huron meetings, where he attempted to serve as a mentor to the young upstarts. While his input was not fully incorporated into that renowned statement of participatory democracy, the fact that he was invited demonstrates the high regard Tom Hayden and others had for him. Harrington was one of the few who could have served as a sort of mediator between Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the group’s patron, the labor group League for Industrial Democracy.
Today, those on the left generally fall into one of two camps: either they are ivory-tower academics who focus on theory to the detriment of action, or they engage in direct action while lacking an informed ideology. Sadly, few bridge this divide today. Michael Harrington did, however, and we would do well to follow his example.
Today, the best-known figures on the American Left are generally academics such as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, or politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. While public intellectuals still exist, they lack the influence of those from Harrington’s time. This fact says as much about, if not more about, the state of modern American society as it does about the weakness of the left-wing movement. While he was still among us, Michael Harrington was a regular on National Public Radio. Many ordinary Americans listened to his commentary, or at least knew his name or of his work. If only there were a Socialist who was so well-known today! Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornel West perhaps come closest to fitting Harrington’s mold. Neither of them, however, is as closely associated with socialism as Harrington was, and it is questionable whether either is as widely known among the general public as Harrington was.
Harrington knew that a sectarian, isolated Left would become inept and eventually die. YDS, DSA, and the progressive movement as a whole would do well to heed his words by continuing to build broad coalitions with groups in the labor, immigrant, global justice, religious, racial justice, LGBT, and student movements, among others. While I cannot help but rue the fact that I never had the chance to meet Harrington or hear him speak, in the words of Joe Hill, “don’t mourn, organize.” We must study Harrington’s work and learn from his successes and failures, yet we should also be sure to move forward, without remaining mired in the past. That is the way Michael himself undoubtedly would have wanted it.
If I had to nominate one person to take up the mantle of Harrington, it would have to be Kucinich. I read an interview of his in The Futurist recently that shed more light on him for me. He really does have some big (and correct) ideas that need further collaboration, and I think he’s well-liked by his liberal colleagues to get more attention for some of them.
Woah. I would have to disagree in the strongest way possible. Harrington was a Marxist and a serious intellectual (see Socialism: Past and Future) — I don’t think there is even close to a comparison between him and someone like Kucinich.
In general I don’t think that someone firmly within the “liberal” ideological framework would ever have the understanding of social change to fill the void of a Harrington.
Kucinich has never really impressed me too much, at best he’s an ally, not a leader. Harrington was keen on alliances with people to the right of him, but there was a reason his pragmatic democratic socialism never morphed into social democracy.
That’s not to say I don’t like Kucinich, I just don’t see him as a great leader of the American left and I think the peak of his influence is behind him.
Personally out of all the Democrats I was most keen on Edwards in the primaries.
I do not really think ANYONE can take up Harrington’s mantle. Yet I tend to agree more with Andrew on this. While I do not see Kucinich achieving mass influence anytime soon, he is probably the best hope we have today.
There are few others who are in his league–the main names that come to mind are Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, and Russ Feingold, among others. And none of them, for various reasons, have as much potential as he does.
I liked Edwards as well, but I always had some reservations about him, and we all know how his campaign turned out, sadly….
He was the only one who had the guts to make poverty the keystone of his campaign. Too bad Obama did not take up the cause in the same way.
As the end of the article stated, “YDS, DSA, and the progressive movement as a whole would do well to heed his words by continuing to build broad coalitions with groups in the labor, immigrant, global justice, religious, racial justice, LGBT, and student movements, among others”. If you’re waiting around for a Marxist intellectual with the willingness to put himself out at the front of a broad coalition such as this one, you might be waiting a while. Like Rick Pitino near the end of his time with the Celtics, “Larry Bird/Michael Harrington is not walking through that door”. I think the necessity of our cause should be reflected through a more broad vision of social justice, not a desire for someone who understands and articulates clearly the right socialist program.
I think it will be interesting to see what the “Obama Generation” gives us in the way of leaders on the left. Will the throngs who volunteered for him stick with him no matter what? Will they become disenchanted and apathetic? Or will some come to realize that certain interest will always block “change” as long as it attempts to point towards the common good rather than a corporatist or selfish society.
I don’t think anyone is waiting for a new Michael Harrington. Although I do love the sports reference. Heeding his advice, however, is what Ben thinks is best.
We live in a very different world than the one in which Mike Harrington became famous. Authors of policy-related books are no longer mass-media figures. Sure, they can get on Countdown or the Rachel Maddow Show, but that’s about as far as it goes.
So I don’t think that a New Michael Harrington (or Norman Thomas or Eugene Debs) is out there waiting to be crowned Mr. American Socialist. I think we’re just going to have to do without having a Big Name Leader.
(Yes, Barbara Ehrenreich or Cornel West or Noam Chomsky all could have taken up Harrington’s mantle if they had so chosen. They didn’t. It’s worth thinking about why.)
For the record, this is not the real final version of my article-I have asked Chris to post the more complete version.
And Jason-that was precisely my point: public intellectuals aren’t like they used to be.