Our zeal does wonders when it is seconding our leaning towards hatred, cruelty, ambition, avarice, detraction, rebellion. Against the grain, toward goodness, benignity, moderation, unless as by a miracle some rare nature bears it, it will neither walk nor fly.
Montaigne
When conservatives say "liberals" are "elite snobs" or similar terms, I agree. Some liberals take it as a badge of honor, I think it shows how naive and short sighted some of us are--caught in the ideological fantasy world. I say this as a liberal.
I discovered it six or seven years ago from an exchange with a former 60's radical I've known since the movement. She kept advocating third party candidates believing the two party system is corrupt. She voted for Clinton once, and predictably regreted it--not because of the sex scandal, heaven forbid, she's far too sophisticated for that, but because he "disillusioned" her on the issues. Yet she feels no responsibility for the ever growing ascendency of the right.
Blogging these last five years, I've discovered there are many who haven't re-examined their assumptions since Viet Nam; they have no interest despite all that has happened in the meantime. They won't "compromise" with the "system." It's the same old song and dance masquerading as something new and progressive. Their commitment is to ideology, not politics, but if you tell them that you become the object of their scorn. Their disillusionment IS the issue. They don't see the difference. Moderation hasn't occured to them yet, they still haven't grown up enough.
Forget about the silent majority and the Rove coalition--with "liberals" like them the right needs no other friends. The defection by the 60's generation from the political process has been the single most powerful development in this country since WWII and few recognize the fact.
The dialogue is heating up again with a lot of the same players and issues. Who cares if the stakes are higher? The way it looks now they're going to do the same thing to Obama they've done to everybody else: abandon him. He was put into office primarily by their children and now that he has disappointed them, following in their parents footsteps, very likely he will receive a similar judgement. Polls have started to confirm there will be a low voter turnout, primarily for this reason.
To faux liberals, the current deadlock in Washington is not a reason to fight but another reason to walk away in disgust. Ideology trumps reality. The parties are no different and deserve to be punished. Only a fool or traitor to the cause or somebody on Obama's payroll would think differently. Watch what they say about me.
A week doesn't go by without another batch of faux liberal posts to that effect. A liberal camel's back is made to be broken. Voting for the candidate who most closely approximates their interests is traitorous--not worthy of a member of the elite. The fact that Obama has only had four months in office with a super-majority doesn't matter when the charge is betrayal. It's the "fine" print--too far removed from their morally superior condescension (elite snobbery) to be taken seriously.
The fact that he pulled the country from the brink doesn't matter, or that he has been forced to compromise on almost every initiative he's taken. They can't see the polarization brought about by the election of the first black president. They call it the "race" card--just like the right--too despicable to mention--trumpeting the conventional mindlessness. They love their illusions. When in doubt, blame the guy in charge.
The fact Obama had a choice on staking his presidency on health care legislation doesn't matter, even if it gave birth to a movement that wants nothing more than to take him down--all that does matter is he compromised to get it past. The miracle the Dodd-Frank bill past at all is small change to them. He's beyond redemption. He wasn't the new messiah after all. They point at everything he failed to do--mostly because he couldn't be assured of their support and chose moderation in order to govern.
What can one do or say to combat faux liberal hotheads? The convervatives, fundies, and right will coalesce around their candidate. They instintively understand they are a threatened minority and hence are loyal. If the last 50ty years have proven anything they've proven that. Faux liberals hold their breath waiting for their perfect world.
And then the rest of the middle class will be stuck with another representative of the military-corporate complex, if not another goon like Bush, and the inequitable distribution of wealth will grow. The "elite snobs" will win again without knowing it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Mark Bieter
Pensive Person
Brian Carter
Boomer Bob
Keka
Ranjani Iyer Mohanty
Salon.com
Comments
R♥
I agree. Disillusionment is an art form for many. I wish there were more practicality. The right loves itself better than the left loves itself...and so our country drifts ever rightward.....
Get everything you can, ever inch we move forward counts. And never stop fighting for more.
rated
I'm not so confident. This country has an electorate that re-elected a president who took them to war under false pretenses. That means it is capable of anything and nothing can be taken for granted, especially by so-called liberals.
You may also note this post, which takes the matter on fairly directly I think, has now had over a hundred readers, and only two ratings and comments. Most posts on OS have been by those who have defected, not by moderates, and the editors also chose to ignore it.
Sorry for not being clear Ben.
Our system, a system which promotes individuals over party standards, creates situations in which candidates use buzz words and double speak to prevent intelligent choices.
I think that each candidate should have a written platform on which he/she runs. There is nothing wrong with changing a stance, but it should be accompanied by a good argument for why the stance has changed.
I'm not sure what a moderate is whether moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Individual issues are typically polemic. But, there can be moderate grounds. Take the subject of abortion. At one extreme are those who say that life begins at the collision of egge and sperm. Others say there is no life until a term baby has been born that can survive on its own. A compromise, a moderate stance, was the notion that life begins at the point when some babies have been able to survive with the best medical care outside the womb. Another definition of moderate is an individual who supports some issues in a platform, but agrees with the opposion stand on others. Moderate is not well defined. On some issues moderate conservatives might support the liberal view and moderate liberals the conservative view.
Moderation is generally despised by either side since it is seen as compromise and to be avoided. Compromise, however, is necessary to keeping the peace and the system running. R
All human progress has been made through liberals who stuck to their guns. From George Washington who refused to be crowned king to the abolitionists who refused to compromise on slavery to Martin Luther King who gave his life to stand for civil rights. We live off the fruits (only) of liberals every day.
It was only the liberals who stood for democracy in the Russian revolution, it was only liberals who opposed Hitler (who had a 80% approval rating) and it's only liberals today who stand for social justice, the repeal of torture, economic equality, end of war, etc. We've always been a small minority but truth is on our side.
It's not enough to say you support only a half Holocaust - and believe you me a holocaust is being waged on the poor every day of this country and anyone believing it's getting better deceives himself and betrays the weakest members of society. The dirt has merely been swept under the rug setting up another even worse collapse. Obama trusts in greed as much as anyone, he thinks that's American.
Either you stand for doing right or not. It's not complicated. If no one else decides to join then that's on them. That does not change right and wrong as so many conveniently like to portray. MLK says it so much better:
"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. "
So to my mind it's not moderate to judge the parties "per se" i.e. as they are at any one time in history, and demonize them as the ideologists do in order to gain control.
But it is important to make a choice where one's self-interests are concerned, otherwise the fear-ridden and those mindlessly attached to solutions that no longer apply will win again and again and again. I think this is especially necessary for the new generation to learn.
Modern "liberals" aren't voting. That is my point. I talked to an OWS supporter last night and he simply assumes the "system" is corrupt and won't particiate in it. Obama'a original coalition is badly shaken, and the question now is whether moderates will come to his defense.
I think it is even more important not to take anything for granted in the coming election. A threatened class used to being in control can be a very potent adversary.
I was following you until you got to: "Obama trusts in greed as much as anyone, he thinks that's American."
You could well be the type of faux liberal I'm addressing. You're not making sense, presenting personalized conjecture as if it's fact. Obama is a politician, boobie, doing what politicians are supposed to do under some very difficult circumstances.
Such a gross generalization damages any credibility you may wish to have in my estimation, but you spell well.
If I am misrepresenting what you are saying, please let me know.
Unfortunately, I think the die has already been cast. I understand there are lots of people who seem to think the Republican field is so miserable, Obama will still manage to eke out a victory—with some actually expecting a landslide.
MY OPINION: Obama is toast. He will be a one-term president. His base is sitting on the floor kicking its heels…holding its breath until it turns blue. They are more determined to “teach him a lesson” than the right is to unseat him from an ideological perspective.
In another thread today, I referred to liberals as lemmings. With a few exceptions (you being one of them) they are.
I think they will get their way. The coalition of disaffected, disenchanted liberals and Obama hating conservatives will sweep someone into office who will jerk this country even further to the right.
Be afraid…be very afraid.
I have the same opinion. Romney will be especially effective with "independants" who think it's fashionable to shift parties every election because they don't trust either, and they have no other vision or understanding.
The best I figure we can to is keep plugging along on the so called "liberal" side since there is little to no reason that can be applied to a right that has been whipped into an apocalyptic frenzy. I'm not sure at this point if OS is going to be of any service since I don't see many moderate views represented on the cover.
It may be time to find out what sites the new generation is on and find out if there are any listeners.
Thanks for contributing.
f.
Grown-ups, on the other hand, understand that politics makes strange bedfellows -- and in the end, most of those bedfellows have to lie down with whores. For instance, while I am repulsed that whores like Geithner were given a seat at the table, I understand full well why they were given one. And I wretch at the mere thought Bush and Cheney got away with torture and murder -- tho I understand the political reasons why justice and decency could not be pursued.
That said, I have long questioned Obama's tactics. Moving to the middle at the outset and then meeting the enemy halfway between does not strike me as any way to negotiate. That, methinks, is a sign of inexperience on the part of Obama and his staff.
Of late, they seem to have learned their lesson in dealing with a "loyal opposition" loyal only to its own destructive means and selfish ends. Let us hope that lesson hasn't come too late for them -- and for us.
r
Remember Obama promised to try to be a moderator during the campaign, and he stuck to that. I also think it was a bit unconscious on his part, and speaks to who he was at the time and how he got as far as he had up until then.
I think he's grown, and that's another reason I like him. He's adapted. That's the mark of a leader, rather then digging in and simpy dismissing the opposition, as Bush did.
It's also encouraging in my view that more are getting that he's going to come out fighting this time. If he doesn't get that super majority this time, however, he's going to be fucked, and so I think will the interests of the middle class.
I don't want to be that way. If Obama does something wrong (signing NDAA into law, for example), I'm not going to shut up about it. I won't give up my right to comment on something that important. Such a comment is not contributing to the "ever growing ascendancy of the right." Signing NDAA in the first place is doing that.
The primary process going on right now will weed out the craziest of the current batch of Republican candidates. We are most likely going to end up with Mitt Romney, who is as bland and unthreatening to corporate interests as Obama was and continues to be (helped, of course, by millions and millions of dollars to each candidate from the same companies).
I will vote for Obama, and I'll even encourage others to vote for him. Don't expect me to love everything he does.
You say that not a week goes by without comments like the above from "faux liberals". I guess I'm one of them now in your book. But not a week goes by without people like you scolding us for saying anything at all. So, you're not saying anything original here either.
You're clearly not who I am speaking too. I don't know where I said anything about discouraging calling Obama on his shit. I'm just as upset about many of his decisions as I bet you are, but punishing him in the climate is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Also, I wouldn't discount Santorum. The voting block he appeals too i.e. fundies and white working class males is easily the most loyal of all, and they hate cake eaters like Romney almost as much as the fear smart black men with Harvard educations and sophisticated wives.
Thank you for participating. I'm not sure who you are referring to who's as hard on faux liberals as I am, but tell me so we can become friends.
With regard to Santorum, what I think what will happen is what Matt Taibbi describes in his latest blog. If he continues to gain traction, the big money will go toward discrediting him and also toward propping up the corporate candidate, who I believe is Romney. I almost never make political predictions, but I feel pretty sure about that one. (You have my permission to gloat if I'm wrong.)
I think it really is all about the money. And white, working-class males don't have it.
The money proved its usefullness most effectively in Iowa with Romney's adds that knocked Gingrich out of the box. He'll do that again.
The Romney/Santorum split is almost a perfect reflection of the parties breakdown into the traditional "country club" republican's and the new coalition with fundies and white males. That is Rove's contribution. Bush won because he encompased them both.
Romney and Santorum may need each other to bring them together again. The question may really boil down to who takes what place on the ticket.
I think your predictions are as good as anybody elses at this point. It's been fun.
Obama said he'd put on comfortable shoes and join union members in their fight if their right to collectively bargain was threatened, yet he didn't set foot once in Wisconsin when it was a battleground for the right to collectively bargain, and he's been silent on Occupy Wall Street, too -- after all, to oppose the Wall Street weasels is to oppose his advisers.
You have it backwards. Faux liberals SUPPORT Obama because he uses the "Democrat" brand name.
Real progressives don't want to encourage the continued punking of America by frauds like Barack Obama, who promise "hope" and "change" but deliver only more of the same.