In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

120 Chapter 7 Editorial Board of The New York Times,“Howe and Harrington on the Future of Democratic Socialism Beyond the Reagan Era,”New York Times Magazine, 17 June 1984, 24. Introduction In this dialogue, America’s two preeminent Socialists of what could be called the “post-Socialist era” discuss the prospects of a radical rebirth in the late twentieth century. Although Howe was the more prolific and visible public intellectual, Michael Harrington (1928-1989) was far more influential as an organizer and lecturer, doing the hands-on work of keeping American Socialism alive.1 Like Howe, Harrington veered between literature and politics, attaining an M.A. in English from the University of Chicago; unlike Howe, Harrington left literary criticism behind, becoming active in politics for the bulk of his career. Each achieved national prominence in distinct spheres, though their preoccupations overlapped. Harrington remained quite interested in American literature and culture; nevertheless, his greatest passion was for politics. Each of them achieved national standing in the area of his main focus, which exerted a kind of halo effect that imbued achievements in other spheres with distinction. Believing that democracy and Marxism were compatible, Harrington chaired the Socialist Party from 1968-72, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) from 1973-82, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) from 1982-89. Indeed, through his energy and the force of his personality, Harrington largely held together the latter two groups, which worked within the Democratic Party advocating democratic Socialism, a stance that led to attacks from both the Right and the radical Left. Besides being an active organizer and Interview with Michael Harrington, June 1984 121 gifted speaker, Harrington published numerous books and articles on political topics. His best-known and most influential work, The Other America (1962), partly inspired the War on Poverty, which was launched by the Johnson administration in the mid-1960s (a war that was, of course, never won, no more than such later efforts as the War on Drugs). Harrington’s relationship with Howe and Dissent magazine was intense and enduring. He wrote for Dissent from the early 1950s and was a member of the editorial board until his death. By the mid-1980s, however, Harrington’s role was reduced to that of a prophet in the political wilderness, decrying Reaganism and describing the possible circumstances in which a rejuvenated Left might again arise, as in The Next Left: The History of a Future (1986). Still, Harrington and Howe remained respected figures on the Left, more so than any comparable political or intellectual figure today, when ideological tides and polarizing rhetoric have tainted even the word “liberal,” much less “Socialist.” The appearance of this exchange between Howe and Harrington in the New York Times Magazine, for which both occasionally wrote, was significant; it lent weight to the contention that the DSA’s political outlook merited serious attention, implying an endorsement by the mainstream press that a radical critique of America deserved a wider hearing. This interview followed scores of contributions from Howe to The New York Times. His book reviews spanned from the early 1950s through the early 1990s; he also contributed essays as well as innumerable letters to the editor. His range was enormous, covering such cultural topics as Yiddish humor and American movies and such political topics as the history of unionism and the positions of American Jews toward Israel.2 More than that, Howe’s writings in the Times served as a platform for speaking to a general public otherwise unfamiliar with the outlook and style of a (semi)radical New York Intellectual. This interview embodies that tone and style, expressed in a moderate language that voices a fierce moral call for economic justice. Howe and Harrington alternate roles here as interviewer and interviewee. They admit that there is no longer an American Socialist Party, or even a unified American Left, but only a loose collection of sects and fledgling organizations. Early in the interview they seem diffident, if not defensive, as when Harrington states that his criticisms of current policy are “in the name of the national security of the United States,” and Howe adds: “This is not just a rhetorical stratagem, it’s a genuine position.” They are pained by the rightward turn that the U.S. has taken, worried that this might reveal America’s underlying nature, and eager to reassure the vast readership of the New York Times Magazine that they are innovative yet practical—and not too radical. Still...

Share