"There's a saying over at Treasury: 'No peacocks, no jerks, no whiners'."I hope you will indulge me in sharing one of my occasional personal essays on this blog, but I think it is germane to the current political culture in which we find ourselves.
—President Barack Obama, speaking at the announcement of Jack Lew's nomination as new Treasury Secretary
While I never had anything on the likes of FireDogLake or Huffington Post, throughout my 20s I subsisted on a regular diet of outrage and victimization. I listened to Pacifica, read Chomsky and Parenti, and believed that the world ran on hidden conspiracies designed to subjugate us. I was in a state of perpetual anger.
But the thing is, I never did anything about it. All the talks I went to never did a thing to change how my community operated. I would read Chomsky et al, and feel like I had an insight that the majority of my fellow citizens lacked. But all that reading and listening never spurred me to action. Because the corollary to being in a state of perpetual outrage is that, often, one is in a state of feeling perpetually powerless. The lights of the Left might say that the power is with us; but more often than not they spend the majority of the time expounding on the vast forces arrayed against us, and little on what concrete actions we can take to fight those forces.
And outrage is exhausting. Eventually, the combination of anger and helplessness is enough to drive most people to eschew politics, and just turn inward. I know I did. (I had other things going on in my life to drive me inward as well, but that's an essay for my other blog.) For most of my thirties I just resigned myself to the fact that the world was an unjust place, and I merely tried to get along as best I could in it. I went to grad school, became a librarian, and things were looking up personally. Yes, I loathed Bush Jr., and still followed politics, with a bit of that outrage simmering in me. But, again, aside from discovering the liberal blogosphere and communing with like-minded souls, I wasn't spurred to take any action.
I'm not going to claim that Barack Obama's first run for President was an instant Damscene conversion for me. I supported him, voted for him, but I didn't take an active part in the campaign. But a seed was planted, and as I followed the struggles he faced to, more or less, undo thirty years of conservative misgovernment, I sensed for the first time that this is what one should do when operating from a sense of injustice.
He knew that it was unjust that millions of people were being thrown out of work due to the malfeasance of the Lords of the Universe; so he shepherded the country's biggest ever stimulus package to stanch the bleeding. He knew that it was unjust that millions of people couldn't afford basic health care; so he got passed the biggest social insurance program since Johnson's Great Society. He turned the outrage he felt towards the unjust aspects of our commonwealth into tangible, revolutionary actions.
As I said, Jesus didn't stun me with power on the road to Damascus. I'd been on the road my entire life, more often loafing by the side. It merely took Obama to show me—slowly, painstakingly—there there was a destination. I finally realized that if you want change, you have to work for it; it won't drop into your lap as manna. I learned to stop whining and love being an adult.
Which brings us to our current politics.
I believe that the broad middle of the country realizes that change is not easy, and doesn't come quickly. We live that truth in our daily lives. And Obama's job approval numbers indicate that we realize that he is the one trying to look out for our interests, in the face of powerful opposition.
But the political culture as lived out on cable news and in our legislative process has devolved to a state which is perilous to democracy. Both the Right and the Left thrive on outrage, as I did in my callow twenties. And much like my immature anger, it is an end in itself. It serves no larger purpose. It certainly offers no achievable prescriptions. It's an outrage which posits that if we merely believe enough, as in Tinkerbell, then the country will magically shift one way or the other. It is politics as "Snow White": the Prince will come, the curse will be lifted, and not much work will need to be done, all wrapped up in the time it takes to screen a movie.
Why doesn't the Left direct its outrage at those who truly do want to gut the social compact, the House Republicans? Because Congress, despite its unpopularity, provides an amorphous target. It requires work to focus on 230 or so individual GOP representatives. Much easier to aim at the big red target of President Obama for perceived sins, regardless of his actions.
The major media organs of Left and Right don't exist to inform, but to stoke outrage. The Right has an obvious target in Obama. But, oddly enough, the Left's target is Obama as well. Having one big bogeyman to focus rage upon is easier for their followers to understand than to try and come to grips with the complexities of the real world. In my own life, the easy analyses which I had fed myself eventually didn't jibe with how I observed the world to actually work. At some point I left Plato's cave, and realized that human reality didn't quite fall neatly into ideological constructs. But these constructs are all that the screechers on both sides offer; it's all they know how to offer, because it's what keeps the world's messiness at bay.
There are many things to be outraged about in this country and the world. Righteously outraged. The careers of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Cesar Chavez were driven by outrage at injustice. But outrage without precise focus is less than useful; it's counterproductive to effect the change you claim to want. Focus requires patient work, diligence, a clear analysis of the drivers of injustice, and a formulation of the best way to combat it, so that the change sought is permanent and doesn't create more problems.
The loudest voices in our political culture are the peacocks, jerks, and whiners of whom President Obama spoke. But they also have feet of clay; they operate in a bubble in which their truths are self-evident, their solutions the only possibilities. And then they're shocked when they're ignored.
Outrage without an understanding about the complexities of injustice, and a plan of action, is mere, yes, whining. Complexity frightens those who trade in indignation. Complexity is the realm we have to inhabit and embrace, if we are to have any hope of shaping it.
at some point, the question needs to be confronted head-on: given their long track record of consistent Obama-outrage, and relative lack of republican-outrage, whether the emos' goal is REALLY a more progressive state, or something else rather.
ReplyDelete"Why doesn't the Left direct its outrage at those who truly do want to gut the social compact, the House Republicans?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a question that the Professional Left and emoprogs just don't want to answer.
Thanks for this, LL. You've pretty much summed up my own political journey as well.
In the immortal words of Billy Joel:
ReplyDeleteAnd there's always a place for the angry young manWith his fist in the air and his head in the sandHe's never been able to learn from mistakesHe can't understand why his heart always breaksHis honor is pure, and his courage as wellhe's fair and he's true, and he's boring as hellAnd he'll go to his grave as an angry old man.Thanks for this. You echoed my sentiments to the letter.
Fantastic piece. Emoprogs and those I call Whiny Obama Supporters need to step back from the ledge and take a look at what they’re doing wrong and for crying out loud, grow a damned backbone. They prefer to whine and attack the one person who is fighting for them day and night. They attack the one person who is standing between hope and an abyss.
ReplyDeleteIt would be hell to live with emoprogs and Whiny Obama Supporters because they are only in it when everything’s rosy and hunky-dory but prefer to armchair quarterback, sling arrows, and degrade the person they claim to support when the going gets tough. Then when said person prevails in the end, they come back with ephemeral support.
It takes work to turn the House of Reps blue. It takes work to pass legislation. It takes work for change to occur. It would be wise for them to focus on the GOP and help the president in making sure gun safety legislation, immigration reform, job growth, climate change and clean energy and the like are achieved but the above mentioned characters are too spineless to get in the trenches and fight for progress.
The Bard of Long Island!! I'd forgotten that song. One of his best.
ReplyDeleteWell, I sort of answered it for them. Much less work to gnash teeth at Obama than to do the real work of wresting control of the House from the GOP.
ReplyDeleteNow, granted, the PL's outrage doesn't have the same power on Dems as the Right's does on the GOP. But the forces arrayed against us are serious and powerful. And dealing with anklebiting takes away resources from the real fight, which is undoing conservative ideology.
ReplyDeleteI know. And the sad thing is that Boehner sucks at his job. So, instead of taking advantage of this, the PL rather help him.
ReplyDeleteI've often regarded the outrage junkies as people who were spoiled as children and never had to work for anything. Seriously, every other sentence seems to talk about what someone else needs to do, never what they are going to do. As I pointed out to one of them, writing a pithy blog post is not political activism.
ReplyDeleteI didn't participate in 2008, as I said. But 2012? Volunteered. Donated. And will do so again as we gear up for 2014, which will be an even bigger battle than 2012. Sniping from the sidelines marks you out as not serious. Choose a side, and then for the love of God stop scoring own goals.
ReplyDeleteNicely done, LL. It is a psychology; that much is certain. Playing the victim in a political arena is safe. It's easy to rail at the President because he's not going to rail back. People act out their fears and personal injustices by flinging poo at the easy target. That's easier and safer than flinging poo at a significant other or boss, or a neighbor, or anyone else who is perceived to have the power to fling poo back or create consequences in retaliation (getting fired, having your car keyed). This is a pressure valve for a lot of people. The more victimized they feel, the more virulent and intransigent they behave. Moving off that into adulthood is a journey few people manage to take. Adulthood is hard work. Being an angry adolescent is easy.
ReplyDeleteWhat else is certain is that they don't WANT these problems solved. If they're solved then they just create another problem to complain about. What I'm learning is that the outrage itself is toxic to me personally. I don't get as much work done if I listen to it. I don't think as clearly if I react to it. I don't solve my own problems if I focus on their perceived ills. I accomplish more by creating a database of people who might want to put up signs in their yards for local candidates this year than I ever could reading the comment sections filled with chronic victims. Community Organizing is the only thing that works: period.
LL, thank you for once again putting into words what I think and feel. I get so mad at the emoprogs. They never go after those who are the problem. Keep up the great work!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think we can safely rule out that they are at all interested in creating a more Progressive state of affairs. They'd just move the goal posts so that they always have a target at which to aim their anger.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing this piece. Hopefully it will find its way to chronic whiners & provide a nudge to move to activism. Since 2008, my activism has grown to a place I never imagined.
ReplyDeleteI know my work is making a difference.
I prefer not to ascribe darker motives to their actions since simple immaturity is a much simpler explanation (Occam's razor).
ReplyDeleteLL highlights this very well. He/She used to be a member of the perpetual outrage patrol, but eventually grew tired of it. Given a few years to distance him/herself from it, a political maturity evolved which allowed him/her to see that there was hope for a better future as long as you didn't presume that anything short of the ideal was a betrayal of your ideals.
Great Essay!!! I've always contested that like you, I was an Emo-Progressive Mau-Mau in my twenties, like you. And like you, LL, I had enough - eventually whining about the world and offering nothing but empty sloganeering gets tiresome.
ReplyDeleteThe Activist Left has been singing the same songs and running the same plays on the field since Nixon got elected. Scream about how unjust and corrupt the world is, tell people they have the power to change the world - but that power is useless since the world is so corrupt and unjust. Its easier to believe the government is out to get you than to realize the government is only a reflection of the greater society, particularly in a democracy.
I look at politics the way the artist Yasin Bey (aka Mos Def) looks at hip-hop music in the song 'Fear Not of Man':
Listen.. people be askin me all the time,
"Yo Mos, what's gettin ready to happen with Hip-Hop?"
(Where do you think Hip-Hop is goin?)
I tell em, "You know what's gonna happen with Hip-Hop?
Whatever's happening with us"
If we smoked out, Hip-Hop is gonna be smoked out
If we doin alright, Hip-Hop is gonna be doin alright
People talk about Hip-Hop like it's some giant livin in the hillside
comin down to visit the townspeople
We (are) Hip-Hop
Me, you, everybody, we are Hip-Hop
Replace 'Hip-Hop' with Politics and you sum my worldview and my view of Americans - power concedes only to those who demand it & moves according to those who control it.
Also I like how you make a distinction between the Activist Left (aka Emo-Progs) and Professional Left (the professional pundits and media personalities)
Why doesn't the Left direct its outrage at those who truly do want to gut the social compact, the House Republicans? Because Congress, despite its unpopularity, provides an amorphous target. It requires work to focus on 230 or so individual GOP representatives. Much easier to aim at the big red target of President Obama for perceived sins, regardless of his actions.....
..... <\snip\>. Having one big bogeyman to focus rage upon is easier for their followers to understand than to try and come to grips with the complexities of the real world. In my own life, the easy analyses which I had fed myself eventually didn't jibe with how I observed the world to actually work. At some point I left Plato's cave, and realized that human reality didn't quite fall neatly into ideological constructs. But these constructs are all that the screechers on both sides offer; it's all they know how to offer, because it's what keeps the world's messiness at bay.
The Professional Left hate Obama because he breaks through the sound barrier - you're not waiting on a great Messiah, the Power of Grayskull, the Guardians of OA, or Seven Samurai to chase away bandits and save the rice harvest. You don't need Ghandi or King to rise from the dead. And you're certainly not waiting for some academic or professional pundit to give up his cushy job of simply talking to get into the dirt and grit of public service. The change you're waiting for is ......YOU. Occupy Wall Street got close, but they got caught in their innate Emo-Progressive whining to truly grasp the fact they are the government.
If you're Ralph Nader, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore or Cornell West and you made your living pimping your next $30/per seat booking signing tour to tell Activist and Latte Liberals that the world sucks and there's little we can do about it - the last thing you want is a politician who proves through words and action "YES WE CAN!!"
it is certainly theoretically possible to never budge from that hypothesis, no matter how long progressives fling poo at Obama, or how consistently wrong they are.
ReplyDeletesimilarly, it was theoretically possible to maintain the ptolemaic model. (shrug)
I think some people really do thrive in a state of perpetual outrage. It's what gives their lives meaning.
ReplyDeleteI to was outraged during the Bush years (and during the Lewinsky crap before that). But I eventually just grew tired of it. Outrage drained my energy. In fact, 4 years on and I think my reserves have still not recovered (and may never recover).
But for some people, outrage is the only thing that keeps them going.
Those people are a threat to any effort to create real change. Because if the purpose of real change is to reduce the things that cause outrage, then those who are addicted to outrage will not like it.
Wow, LL, this may be one of the best articles you've ever written.
ReplyDelete"Having one big bogeyman to focus rage upon is easier for their followers to understand than to try and come to grips with the complexities of the real world." So, so true.
The essence of Barack Obama's motivation to enter politics has always been to break these bad habits of ineffectiveness. He and his team have worked HARD to build a movement of EFFECTIVE political activists. This will be his greatest legacy I think.
Last year, Arianna Huffington said in New York Magazine she was probably going to vote for Mitt Romney. Maybe this is a sign of immaturity. However, others may be led to other, more sinister conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be things to be outraged about. However, this emoprog outrage is 40 years old.
ReplyDeleteI hate to exclude certain ideas. But, when they are the same ideas that failed before why should I or anybody else who wants change listen? Why listen to something that's not useful and doesn't help?
Just like the Tea Party, these lefties want failed policies. Sorry, but I want something a lot different. And this is the real reason behind their outrage. More and more people want something different.
LL, like yourself, I did all the things you described: Chomsky, 'teach-ins, etc. Only diff. is I participated in alot of left activist groups during the '80, and what turned me off was the ineffectual nature of alot of our actions in really changing things. People seemed to be content in just being outraged about how things were but never proposed any real world solutions. Voting was poo-poohed as 'reinforcing the corrupt 'system'. What did it for me is noticing that alot of the sit-ins, etc would only get folks pissed off at us from keeping them from earning a living(just like OWS stopping longshoremen and truckers from earning a living thru idiotic blockades). Thanks again for your personal story.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Liberal Librarian. Nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteGreat essay, LL.
ReplyDeleteI also was full of self righteous anger when I was younger. Emphasis on self righteous. It wasn't until a girlfriend, when referring to her BF, not me, said these infamous words that will live forever in my conscience: Oh, he LOVES mankind, it's people he hates."
It was an a-ha moment.
WE are a good group here, BTW. I'm proud to be a part.
I would be happy to ascibe darker motives, Occam be damned, but my instincts tell me it is immturity and neurosis. Sure their "leaders" Kos and Huff have ulterior motives, but IMO, their followers are just sheep. It feels good to be in (what they believe to be)the Cool Gang.
ReplyDeleteHere's a part of my awakening as an adult.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in grad school, I had NO intention of being a public librarian. At most I'd be an academic librarian, but really I wanted to work behind the scenes designing systems, and NOT work with the public. There was one job that I longed for which I pursued with vigor. I interviewed, they liked me, they wanted to hire me; but the problem was that the project depended on government funding, and it was soon evident that it wasn't forthcoming.
In the meantime, I interviewed for the library. Again, they liked me, and gave me a job offer. Seeing no other option, I grudgingly accepted the job.
And here's the funny thing: I used to fit quite neatly into the loving mankind, hating people category. But once I started working at the library, I discovered that I actually loved helping people. It gave me a satisfaction that no other job ever had. Receiving immediate gratitude is a hell of a drug. And when I switched to being a children's librarian—something else I swore I'd never do while I was in grad school—that satisfaction just got turned up to 11. So it took being thrown into the trenches to learn that I actually liked people. I'm definitely not the same person I was before 2008. Thank goodness for that.
I went through an career trajectory something like that. I had been a Rehab Counseor/Social Worker before I had my son. I KNEW I'd get back to it. I did not like working with kids. I didn't even LIKE kids, except my own. I volunteered in his school, teachers asked me to Sub. I said "Hell no." But I tried it and here I am twenty years later, happily subbing. I feel as though I am contributing, although I'm "only a Sub." I did, however find volunteer work in Rehab, so it is a win-win.
ReplyDeleteI like my old body better, but character - I NEVER want to regress.
In OWS' defense, some of the remnants of that movement are now getting wise. Especially when you look at what's going on in Steubenville, OH right now. I commend Anonymous for what they are doing there. This is clearly a case where they can say that even if the outcome there is less than ideal, they have accomplished something. I just hope that if things don't turn out the way they want them to, they don't give it up and they explore other methods that maybe more effective. Political change is a work in progress. So, even as many from OWS are still in whining, others are trying to figure out other ways of solving problems.
ReplyDeleteBut, I like that quote from Mos-Def. Your comment about the cushy jobs of pundits reminds me of an recent episode of "Family Guy" that featured none other than Rush Limbaugh. In that episode, Rush admitted two key things that the left needs to understand:
1. His job is to get people to join his side, but even he has a problem with people who are trying to be something they are not.
2. Now that the Democrats have more control in DC than they've had in a long time, it's to be expected than some liberals and progressives fight against it because they need something to complain about. Some lefties just need to fight the establishment even if people who share their similar political views are running it.
I will end this with a quote by Lois when she criticized Brian for his sudden conversion to conservatism. "You've just got to be in the out-group. Whoever's on top, whoever's successful, you've got to be on the other side or else you don't feel like the smartest guy in the room. All you are my dear is a contrarian." Lois then proceeds to prove her point by asking for Brian's opinion on the films, "Titanic," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "Cocktail." Brian hated "Titanic" and "Slumdog Millionaire" because they were blockbuster films. Yet, he describes "Cocktail" as a prime example of excellent cinema. Hey, I don't know about you, but that's not the response I remembered when this film was released in 1988. It won 2 Razzie awards and was nominated for another two. I could relate to this, because I'm also somebody who's immediately suspicious of anything that's part of the establishment (including popular movies). However, "Titanic" wasn't that bad of a film (especially when the ship hit the iceberg) and I loved "Slumdog Millionaire." As for "Cocktail," I don't like Tom Cruise. The only film he was in that I ever liked was "Interview with a Vampire." Also, if I was such a contrarian like Brian, I would have missed out on both "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter." Yeah, sometimes, the general public does pick great movies to see. Other times, movie critics clearly have better times. Then, there are times when the critics are just a bunch of pretentous assholes because they pick movies that nobody that they can understand. But, there are times when both the critics and general public agree. Believe it or not, politics can be similar. The PL/emoprogs fail to grasp this complexity. The GOP understood it (even if it was on a basic level) for decades. That's how they were able to keep beating us election after election at the national level.
If someone as lame as Rush Limbaugh can see through the Brian's phoniness, why should the PL believe that many liberals can't see through theirs? Regardless of what their intentions are, what the PL/emoprogs are pushing for simply doesn't work. It's been proven not to work just like trickle down economics!
Agreeing with everyone, LL. Great work. What was MY epiphiny? I grew up. I realized that marching around foaming at the mouth and screaming obscenities did nothing to change things. It was organizing, actually TALKING TO PEOPLE instead of screaming at them and actually trying to emphasize with other folks instead of looking down your nose at them that does. That's the difference between us and the Far Left. WE grew up. They never have.
ReplyDeleteArianna Huffington is a self-serving opportunist. That's all.
ReplyDeletehmmmm...............
ReplyDeleteTed Kennedy Liberal Lion would be called a sell out. Progressives LOVE Ted kennedy so much. What would they say to this.
ReplyDeletehttp://links.org.au/node/1223
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/28/kennedy-s-sins-against-labor/
I think the ALEC organization and it's founders understood this message long before I did. They have been at work for many years moving us towards what I consider a new form of fascism behind the scenes and with great patience. (I see Mitch Daniels as the first governor to push their agenda and he did it all while dissembling). It has only been since the not so patient (Scott Walker, and others) began implementing things in a way that defies the law of patient change, that we have been made aware of what is moving our country in ways we don't like.
ReplyDeleteEven so their's is a system of buying what they want and with the President's understanding of community organizing it is becoming much harder to push through behind the scenes legislation and purchased elections without the millions of volunteers coming out to stand up to them.
I felt very emotional when left leaning people verbally attacked me for my support of the President. They suggested I was ill informed or a groupie. They didn't just undermine the President's efforts, they were trying to undermine my community organizing in so many words.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson I learned over time was that my instincts to support the President were spot on and nothing would deter me from helping him in any way I could to make progress for the common good. Now these same people who have observed me never waver while attempting to "respect, empower and include" them have begun congratulating me for my efforts. For some this is as far as they will go. They are the self centered ones who don't help, they are above that in their minds. There may be others that will eventually have the desire to do something beyond criticize and complain. I am keeping the door open for them and willing them inside this amazing circle of "doers".
Community organizing is amazingly purposeful and teaches one the right kind of humility and stamina.
ReplyDeleteNever imagined is right. I can't imagine not doing it now though.
ReplyDeleteI love your use of the term "anklebiting". That is perfect.
ReplyDelete"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long as I'm the dictator."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, many of them agree wholeheartedly Bush's sentiment here. They don't want a democracy. They want a dictatorship in which they are the dictators. But, of course, they would do it right. They have pure intentions. (...said every king and dictator who ever lived)
Thank you, LL! I used to be a very on-the-streets activist, and I still am especially around women's access to reproductive care. I also worked with union people, sometimes making soup in cold weather to feed strikers who ate while I stood the line. I soon figured out that the thing that bored me to tears - policy - was crucial since so much of what we gained on the streets could be enhanced or obliterated by one stroke of a pen. When I turned to doing policy work, I thought I'd shrivel up and die without contact with other people doing the activist thing. Then I started training people to do grassroots advocacy - teaching them how to make sense of the convolutions we call laws - and found new energies. It is the MOST rewarding thing I've done because seeing us all supplementing the activism with legal changes that protect what we want is incredibly empowering!
ReplyDeleteThe Poutrage is not just lack of understanding - it is mental laziness. I ask angry Lefties what would have been accomplished if all the brave and powerful demonstrations, all the work of the Freedom Riders, all the sit ins and marches had NOT culminated in the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act? We'd STILL be marching over the Edmund Pettus bridge. Activism and anger have no end if it is not in laws that solidify the gain. They also have to be laws that are not foolish and over-reach - they have to be acts that make real change even if it's not perfect in the first step.
I SERIOUSLY blame TV and films for making generations think that what you get can be ratified in two hours - six with a mini-series. I'm really not joking or doing an NRA "blame" but pointing out tha lack of realism so many people have. If it's not a quick fix, it's a fail. If it's not perfect, it's a sell out. If it's not triumphant - it's not worth doing. I suspect if it doesn't have background music, it's not emotionally gratifying, but I MAY be overstating that!
But it takes the long view, the maturity of adulthood, to understand both the trascendent moments (I've had them when I reflect on what just happened) and the long slog - and achieving good policy IS a slog though it is also fascinating and often empowering. Deaniac knows that what we did in achieving the ACA - and that was a triumph of PEOPLE's ADVOCACY not backroom deals with Pharma - took over a year, required millions to be focused on its creation and its passage, and it was painful along the way as we wresteled with both the uptick of the paranoid Right and the fury of the irrational Left. I have spent years now writing my organization's members, on my feet talking, talking, talking with groups, debating with those who dislike it - all of it meaningful and just as challenging as marching for "health care reform" and getting nowhere.
I see in my angry Left friends a refusal to do the heavy lifting of understanding policy, knowing how to get it, and even delivering on promises they made to legislators about providing the factual background information needed to make convincing arguments. Since I and my members have successfully moved Blue Dogs to do the right things OFTEN because we take the time and provide the information they need, I see no excuse for the frustrati NOT to do the same. They use any excuse not to do the work. And when they fail to get what they want - they always have someone else to blame.
Activism and advocacy are essential partners. One does not have to be an exclusive policy wonk or wonk at all to understand that critical pairing. (One DOES have the need to understand at least basic U.S. Civics 101 about how our system works.) Without those two things, we will live as constant victims losing forever to the Right who are organized, disciplined, focused, and powerful. But we have seen their vulnerability - it's up to us to seize the moment and do the same. Or resign ourselves to just being whiners. Our choice.
At the bottom of it all I think there are a lot of people on the left who love Obama but they live in constant fear of abandonment. We have all been taught that no politicians are truly trustworthy and
ReplyDeleteObama has to be the first one in decades we have taken the risk of
trusting. He inspires these feelings of hope, love and trust but these feelings bring with them the fear of being let down, sold out or tricked. So any compromises that the Administration makes (a necessary part of governing) are interpreted by some as betrayal. I think of it as the "Oh No! Daddy is going to walk out on us!" moment that happens after any deal is made. As your article illustrates, the only remedy for this is maturity and the realization that compromise is what grown ups do.
I agree Chris. Most on the left have a short freak out at certain points and then come back into the fold. They are slowly learning to trust.
ReplyDeleteThis is a brilliant essay, LL! I forgot who said this, but it has always been my guiding light as I go about trying to make a difference in the world:
ReplyDelete"Thought without action is empty, and action without thought is blind!"
Hi friend, Happy New Year! I hope all is well with you, your family and your students.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you about the differences between the leaders and their groupie followers!
"As I pointed out to one of them, writing a pithy blog post is not political activism."
ReplyDeleteNorbrook, I truly value your no nonsense common sense!
Great comment! In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong with outrage so long as your outrage motivates you to engage in constructive action. In addition, the action you take has to be realistic/practical. For example: if you want political change in the United States you just can't simply focus on the President and expect him to do everything. Unless, of course, you are totally ignorant about the nature of the U.S. political system, which is based on the division of powers among the three branches of government. You also have to focus on local and State governments where a great deal of governmental policies that affect individuals take place.
ReplyDeleteI will never get over the stupidity of the PL/Emoprogs who were angry with President Obama and urged people not to vote in the 2010 elections. Guess what, It's not President Obama who was punished. Instead, it was the workers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and other states taken over by teabag Republicans. It was the women, the middle class and the poor who are now paying the price of that idiocy because now the right wingers control one house of Congress and have substantial numbers in the other house where they are able to use the filibuster to block progress.
Not only Ted Kennedy but also FDR, JFK, and LBJ! Or even Paul Wellstone! I always lol when these so called purity progressives trot out their names, as the icons of liberalism, when they are attacking President Obama. But you are absolutely right about Teddy Kennedy. Yes he was a fierce liberal, but he was also one of the great compromisers (without ever giving up his principles) for the sake of advancing the liberal agenda.
ReplyDeleteThis is what most people call propaganda. I tend to belive my eyes, not what I'm told to believe. I wish more critical thinking occured in America.
ReplyDelete"I believe that the broad middle of the country realizes that change is not easy"; especially when the people with the money and power are changing the rules for their financial benefit.
Isn't this piece just another whine asking Americans to move further to the right? It's either Chamberlain-type thinking or propaganda. I sincerely hope it's just Chamberlain.
Left punching, so very, very Republican of you. Keep moving to the right - it's where poverty awaits all but the 1%. Nixon looks liberal against the likes of these neo-liberals.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't like Social Security?
ReplyDeleteSo... are you asking us to vote for the Republicans or Republican-lites (neo-liberals who offer to evicerate Social Security so we can afford more outsourcing of the wars?
ReplyDelete" the left who love Obama but they live in constant fear of abandonment" It's not FEAR of abandonment; Obama was the first to offer up Social Security for cuts when it has NOTHING to do with our national debt: it's in surplus for 20+ years!
ReplyDeleteI had change also; I was employeed in 2008. I've experienced what the neo-cons and neo-liberals are doing to our nation. We've had a 13 year labor depression - time we stop listening to the 1% and believe what we see with our eyes.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever think that Bush was just a player - not the cause. If you owned both sides of the pretend election, you are a more powerful dictator. I hope that helps open your eyes to the reality of the situation. One step forward, two steps back - allows you to believe you are occasionally moving forward - and not consistently back.
ReplyDeleteWho was it that first suggested cuts to Social Security? Trust is earned, not a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteNo. Bush was a big part of the cause, and was a key part of why we're in the mess we're in today. But if you want to swallow the right-wing propaganda that Bush was just a poor, innocent bystander who got "played"...you're welcome to it.
ReplyDeleteMuch like google maps, you can adjust your views to see the bigger picture. Bush is much to smart to be just a cooperative and willing pawn?
ReplyDeleteYou jest!
And your point is?
ReplyDeleteYour last sentence is BS.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take a hike, ronbo?
ReplyDeleteExactly where did Obama cut Social Security?
More emoprog nonsense, ronbo.
ReplyDeleteExactly where was Social Security cut?
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how predictable you are, ronbo.
More emprog rants. Thanks, but no thanks.
Exactly where was Social Security cut?
ReplyDeleteExactly where was Social Security cut?
ReplyDeleteI realized this about Democrats a couple of years back. They had gotten so used to being betrayed that they assumed that betrayal was par for the course from any politician and thus were constantly on the lookout for the first sign of it so they could jump on and say, "See, I told you so!"
ReplyDeleteIf you seriously believe that Democrats are anything like Republicans then you are just embarrassing yourself.
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, Obama increased, not cut, Social Security benefits.
ReplyDeleteNope, Nixon is solidly to the right of Obama and the Democrats: http://voteview.com/is_john_kerry_a_liberal.htm
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love the "Nixon was a liberal" meme?
ReplyDeleteNixon would get along perfectly with the worst of today's right-wingers and tea baggers. Racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic. He also stated, openly and freely, that he believed the president was above the law. He also said the ONLY reason people wouldn't remember him as a saint and a great president was because liberals and Jews wrote the history books.
Yeah the right wing asked for it not the president or any other Dems. Also people who have no idea about political games/ negotiations should not talk. There were never going to be any SS cuts.
ReplyDeleteYeah yeah yeah. America is not as bad as you make it seem. Also we are not in a depression and anyone who understands economics wold know that. But the far left like the right loves to bitch, complain, and lie.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your argument is that you have no clue about policy or history. Nixon ran as a centrist on domestic issues but he was no liberal and the "neo liberals" (whatever the hell that is) are not to the right of him.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to check DW nominate scores and political scales which rank politicians when it comes to being liberal, moderate, or conservative because you clearly have no clue. The Democratic party is a Center-left party not a far left party. Just because it's not hard left does not make it something terrible.
I will give Nixon his due on some things. He cared about health care issues and was pragmatic when it came to a number of domestic issues. He was not the best human being but he was never really a conservative especially by today's standards. Just a troubled paranoid man.
ReplyDeleteSee that's the thing. It's not that Nixon was any kind of "liberal". He was, like you say, pragmatic. He signed the environmental laws he did, for example, because they were a compromise with some of the tougher laws that environmentalists wanted.
ReplyDeleteHe can't answer because he knows there have been no cuts. I love how the left never acknowledge Obama and the Dems expanding children's health insurance, or medicaid, or benefits in Medicare. Nope can't do that because that would go against wanting to destroy the safety net hysteria.
ReplyDeleteExactly ! And even some of his closets aides said the same thing. He was willing to compromise especially if the idea made sense. Healthcare was personal to him because of the death of his older brother and the fact that his family grew up with little money. Like you said he was not the best human being but he was pragmatic on a number of issues.
ReplyDeleteYeah, a lot of people point to all the progressive stuff passed under him, but he was a President with a solidly Democratic Congress. All that stuff passed without him pushing for it, and in some cases (like the Clean Water Act) it passed over his veto.
ReplyDeleteSo, I see I missed the ronbo show.
ReplyDeleteI won't belabor the point much, but he encapsulates the problem I was discussing.
His one direct response to me indicated that he'd been unemployed since 2008. Of course, that's before Obama was elected. Then he goes on to blame "neo-liberals" for the country's economic decline. Again, what this has to do with Obama is not clear. But it must be his fault, regardless of the fact that he passed a stimulus which prevented another Depression, and has a jobs bill that the GOP House refuses to act on. One would think that targeting his ire at the GOP House and the Senate Republicans—and the GOP governors and state houses which are slashing public employment—would be more logical.
And again, what is the plan for implementing his grand visions? Not much that I can tell.
Ok, now I return to my Sunday chores.
I don't post much, but I enjoy reading every single one of your diaries.
ReplyDeleteAlso public pressure. By the time Nixon was in office, environmentalism was quite popular. He just jumped on the bandwagon as it was an easy "popularity booster"...especially amidst all the public anger over Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteI count 5 hackneyed #uppers/Firebagger talking points:
ReplyDelete1. Democrats love to "Punch" the "Left"
2. Obama supporters are actually Republicans
3. People that believe in objective reality are actually moving to the Right.
4. Claiming that a bunch of self entitled bloggers speak for 99% of the population.
5. And of course, Obama is to the right of Nixon (I guess the commenter realized that a Hitler comparison was not going to appear correct to the pure and true lurkers).
How do they reconcile Kent State then?
ReplyDeleteQED. By the way, emoprogs, if anyone correctly starts a rebuttal of your position with "The problem with your argument is that you have no clue about policy or history," you are not winning the argument.
ReplyDeleteHaving dealt with quite a few of the folks on the far-Left who constantly whine about how President Obama is a "sellout", I can say from my own personal observations that such anti-Obama sentiments seem to be rooted in one thing: Envy. For all their endless grumbling and moral outrage, many of these far-Left agitators realize that President Obama has accomplished more in four years by being sensible, pragmatic and level-headed than they have with decades of self-righteous yelling, fist-shaking, and street-marching. When it comes right down to it, the emoprog lefties are jealous of the president.
ReplyDeleteNixon was President during a time when liberalism was losing its influence nationally, but was still prominent. As so many comments here have indicated, there were times where he went along due to pragmatism. And other times, liberal laws and proposals passed despite his opposition.
ReplyDeleteThose who use the "Obama is right of Nixon" meme fail to see this. Just like they think Obama should be unilateral in his authority today, they thought Nixon was unilateral in his. If that were the case, Nixon would have been able to serve out his second term as President without that pesky Watergate scandal causing so many problems.
For me, a big indication that Nixon was no liberal was his beginning of the Drug War. The Drug War is the epitome of conservative politics in the fact that the theory behind it is supply-side oriented. And this theory, just like supply-side economics, has proven to be a failure. It's, in fact, a much bigger failure than supply-side economics because the exact opposite happened than what was predicted in just about every way. At least supply-side economics devotees can point to some success (in a much bigger sea of failure). Drug War advocates don't have this luxury.
Finally, the biggest indication of Nixon's lack of liberalism is his use of the "Southern Strategy." Sorry, emoprogs, but this alone makes your "Nixon is left of Obama" meme the most ridiculous ever. Nixon deliberately courted conservative, racist, and close-minded Democrats angry over integration. Why do you think the majority of these "Dixiecrats" became Republican in the first place? Why do you think the South, which had been overwhelmingly Democrat for decades, became solid Republican after the late '60s? Nixon was the one who began this while future GOP politicians (e.g. Reagan) continued the trend.
Yet, at the end of the day, even Nixon practiced pragmatism. It's a shame that his pragmatism took a back seat when he decided to commission that third rate burglary into DNC Headquarters.
Was the Drug War progressive? Was implementing the "Southern Strategy" progressive?
ReplyDeleteMany emoprogs who are angry with Obama for not waving his "magic wand" and ending the Drug War sooner, yet they forget that it was Richard "who somehow is left of Obama" Nixon who started it.
This is why I've lost my patience with emoprogressives. Even when I was one of them, I knew about these contradictions. I just didn't understand what was behind them and why they existed.
In regards to #3, I prefer the term "shared reality" over "objective reality." Human beings will never be 100% objective nor will they ever be fully capable of seeing reality as it truly is. Quantum physics has discovered these human limitations. "Shared reality" refers to perceptions of reality by more than one person, especially on a national or international level.
ReplyDeleteOur "shared reality" clearly indicates that Obama didn't cut Social Security. Emoprogs simply can't dispute this. They fail to see the difference between negotiating proposals and the passing of actual laws. The vast majority of what floats around DC are proposals. Only a fraction of those proposals actually become laws and policies.
Besides, #3 is yet another indication that emoprogs are clueless. The GOP doesn't believe in objective reality either. They never have Oh, sure, we had a whole bunch of conservatives portraying themselves "the realists" while we liberals were the daydreamers. However, we all know that's a crock. There are too many examples of the right being the furtherest thing from objectivity or realism.
quote:
ReplyDeleteHaving dealt with quite a few of the folks on the far-Left who constantly whine about how President Obama is a "sellout", I can say from my own personal observations that such anti-Obama sentiments seem to be rooted in one thing: Envy. For all their endless grumbling and moral outrage, many of these far-Left agitators realize that President Obama has accomplished more in four years by being sensible, pragmatic and level-headed than they have with decades of self-righteous yelling, fist-shaking, and street-marching. When it comes right down to it, the Emo-prog lefties are jealous of the president.
Exactly, Steve - this is particularly the case for the Professional Left. If you're Michael Moore, you make a pretty penny running your mouth. You can make silly citizen's arrests in your mockumentaries - while corporate titans wonder why liberals listen to such a daft and useless man.
If you're Cornell West, Tavis Smiley or all the second-rate "Ivy Tower Dashiki" crowd, you can pimp the legacy of Malcolm X and MLK without actually taking remotely the kind of sacrifices either of those men made. So what the closest you've ever come to a protest since the 80's is bitching with your publisher or fighting with the university board over raises - you're fighting for the people dammit!!
And if you're a do-nothing liberal messiah in Congress like Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kuicinich - you can be lauded as a "People's Champion" while wasting as much oxygen as any Tea Party clown. Since the 70's, you can talk a good liberal game without having to do anything.That changes once Obama gets into town. He's not connected to the 'old boys network' of the Professional Left. Obama got to office without kissing Jessie Jackson's ring, getting his head anointed with oil by Ralph Nader or seeking Bill Clinton's council. He's not worried about political theatrics to impress a bunch of pundits and bloggers who really didn't like his (black) ass anyway. He wants to get the job done - and he's more concerned about solving problems than being scared of Right Wing oligarchs or kowtowing to Left Wing motormouths.
Interesting thing I've wondered about: Why hasn't Michael Moore come out with a movie since the Bush administration? If Obama is so awful, why not expose him with a documentary? Maybe because he knows that it would bomb at the box office?
ReplyDeleteHell, you don't have to even go that far back. Just look at Bernie Sanders two weeks ago. He voted for the Senate Bill that all of the frustratti are calling a "sellout." So next time some emo prog gives you shit, just point that out to them.
ReplyDelete"Left punching, so very, very Republican of you. Keep moving to the right - it's where poverty awaits all but the 1%. Nixon looks liberal against the likes of these neo-liberals."
ReplyDeleteBullshit for $1,000, Alex . . .
"One would think that targeting his ire at the GOP House and the Senate Republicans—and the GOP governors and state houses which are slashing public employment—would be more logical."
ReplyDeleteRonbo's too busy helping enable the GOP. Many "true progressives" are GOP enablers and they don't even know it.
If Obama is so awful, why not expose him with a documentary? Maybe because he knows that it would bomb at the box office?
ReplyDeleteMore likely, Moore doesn't make the movie about Obama scandals, because well, there's no scandal to see. Obama isn't really trying to hide anything (we all know about the drone attacks and the hacks on Iran nukes, not exactly a secretive government) and for the most, he's not doing anything unethical or illegal. He also sped up our Afghanistan withdrawal. Despite the purity left clamoring, Obama is a clean a as politicians get and still be considered competent.
Since there really are no scandal, Michael Moore would have to really pull things out of his ass to stick to Obama. Michael Moore would have to morph into Alex Jones overnight and to go to 9/11 Truther Level of nonsense and pure bullshit that only the most crazed Right Wing nut (or really cynical foreign producer) would ever fund such a project. Micheal Moore is a Emo-prog bullhorn, but he's also a savvy businessman. And placating to the nutjobs who think 'Loose Change' is gospel isn't good business.
Michael Moore likes being "the acceptable liberal", OTOH, he can book a gig on CNN or Fox News and not be laughed off the set for really talking crazy. He doesn't want to become Mumia Abdul Jamal, Ward Churchill, or Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, people so far out of the mainstream that other liberals troll them.
Same goes for Matt Taibi, Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader and rest of the Pro-Left whiners. They're annoying and self-important, but they're not stupid.
I'm a flat earther myself...
ReplyDeleteHer partnership (monetary and personal) with Andrew Breitbart and deep huggy friendships with Newt and Issa all add up to a reasonable suspicion she is both an opportunist (as MaikeH says below) AND the concern she's a Fifth Columnist a la Spain. One simply cannot shrug off her constant headline lies - lies that often are in opposition to the content of the STORY - and perverse discussions of Obama's 'failures' that prove to be untrue.
ReplyDeleteSo there is more here than just immaturity I think, nabsentia.
From day one the willingness of PBO to listen to ideas - and yes that most certainly includes progressive ones or VT would not readily have obtained single payer as their state option - has been under attack.
ReplyDeleteHe heard out those wishing a chained CPI (which has almost NOTHING to do with whether or not COLAs materialize, increase, decrease but simply slightly alter the way you MIGHT calculate percentages). Because he listened - LISTENED - it was assumed by highstrung types that he was ADOPTING the Chained CPI. Nope. Just discussed it.
So no one said anything about CUTS until some decided that CCPI was a cut. How it can be a cut when Congress has the power to deny COLAs at ALL as they did 2009-2011 or give it as a stinking 1.7% as it is this year? Deciding this is "policy" and a "sellout" is absolutely nuts.
You can't "cut" something that is in the future and is never sure year to year anyway. There is no inviolate existing formula - it's ALL political. There is a freaking possibility that CCPI MIGHT have taken the wind out of the RW windbags' sails and made COLAs somewhat more likely, not less.
So PBO did not raise the specter of "cuts to Social Security" at all. We did that, thanks, and we split a gut getting outraged over NOTHING that was actually happening.
How dumb are we to keep falling for this every single time?
See above, nabsentia...
ReplyDeleteDeaniac - wish I'd read down to this BEFORE wasting my time responding above!!! LOL!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you - did not know this one.
ReplyDeleteShould have added one more line "...he'll live with acid and anguish and pain and he'll go to his grave..."
And he is MANDATED to wear white shoes, too.
Hi Nerdy Wonka - love this, and thank you. I am a lobbyist for a progressive organization, and I could NOT AGREE MORE. Getting people to put their work where their mouths are is very hard. Whining is just easier.
ReplyDeleteA very nice man gave me a button once that should become universal"
DON'T WHINE! ORGANIZE!
I understand that, tcatherine. I am a wonk, do deep policy analysis, and MY word is never as reliable as Arianna's or even that of anonymous posters. Outrage is always considered more reliable and true than reason, celebrity more reliable than knowledge.
ReplyDeleteFor those who wish Revolution? All I remember is that in France it was followed by The Terror that beheaded ANYONE those in charge did not like including those who'd been the backbone of the revolution itself.
Zealots are always dangerous. Always. No major social revolution - France, Russia, China - and even some political ones in England and Nazi Germany - has lasted more than about 12-15 years before violent oppression set in. We really should remember that. Each has spawned a NEW elite with repressive policies and outstandingly scary propaganda.
I'll take the US, warts and all, making incremental and NON-violent change where we elect those who lead.
A friend who does community organizing wryly noted to me that a good hunk of her work was stopping and petting and caressing and assuring the egos around her that they were special. "We're the 'Free to Be You and Me' generation," she laughed.
ReplyDeleteI asked - "You mean this is all MARLO THOMAS' FAULT?"
Well I don't blame Marlo. I do blame those who think they ARE the center of the universe! So I am TOTALLY in agreement with you Norbrook!
(Have we just crossed into 'old fogey' territory? Well - if we have, so be it.)
With one proviso - you have to learn from those you seek to "organize' and no, you are NOT their Messiah!
ReplyDeleteHmmm - I know people who hear what others think of (film, book, restaurant, politician) and then say the opposite or find something OUTRAGEOUS to support. Yup - always contrarian, and always possessed of the belief they lead the rational way.
ReplyDeleteWell you CAN be so far behind that you think you're in the lead...
And we ALL think we're better than average drivers, too.
YES!!! Thank you for saying that! I have been haunted by the "I've heard this all before" sensation. And you just reassured me I'm not just misremembering that!
ReplyDelete40 years ago it was illogical. At least it was newer...
I think he actually did NOT care - there is a really creepy tape of him mocking out those who actually BELIEVED him on health reform that he knew - and probably assured - was going to fail. It was one of the most cynical things I ever heard. So our buying into the form ought to be dampened a whole lot by the substance of who and what he really was on health reform.
ReplyDeleteACA lays the ground for the "blessed single payer" at least in German, Swiss, and other forms, and to acknowledge that would mean eating crow. Ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDelete" I get so mad at the emoprogs. They never go after those who are the problem. "
ReplyDeleteThey (the firebaggers) are the problem. If you complain about real world issues while prentending to that you live in a fake world that does not exist you might be a large part of the problem.
I'm going to keep it real. I hate those motherfuckers. I hate people who bitch and whine about problems and then do nothing. I hate assholes who cant see progress because they didnt get everything they wanted. They fucked us in 2001, 2010 and they even tried to fuck us in the last election and that is the reason why Obama v Romney was closer than Obama v McCain.
A huge part of the reason why the superlefties are pissed is because of the " Drone Strikes", not getting a Public Option in the ACA and various other things.
Obama told those motherfuckers up front that he would ram his foot up Bin Ladens ass but the firebaggers are still mad at Obama for this. They didnt believe Obama when he said he was going to ram his foot up the ass of terrorist. They didnt believe Obama when he said he was going to bend over backwards to work with the Rethugs.
Now because they cant control Obama they want to pretend like they didnt know where he was comming from
Oh, to brighten everyone's day, here is the king of Professional Left Prognosticators, Noam Chomsky, calling Obama a soulless hatchling. According to the world of Noam Chomsky, Obama basically keeping us out of Isreal and Palestine's collective bullshit is equivalent to Obama signing off on what ever Netanyehu decide. Uhm, hmm, err, what? You'd rather Obama drag us into another protracted war? Should he start using drones on Israel?
ReplyDeleteSo, basically the hardcore Left and the Zionist Right of the Jewish expatriate community want this Negro to start a war in Palestine. I'm lost now.You know, I love to hear some old white guy, who despite his brilliance, never held a job of any kind in government, tell this Black man, who has defeated money and odds most of us can possibly imagine, how to do his job - especially when said old man signs off on dictators like Chavez. This is an example of exactly what LL is talking about - a bunch of well paid white pundits thinking they make demand on Obama, despite the the fact they've been wrong for decades. Wasn't Chomsky claiming that Reagan was going get us into a nuclear war by the end of the 80's? I love Noam, but that old geezer jumped the shark years ago. He should stick to computer science & leave politics to the pros.
" I will never get over the stupidity of the PL/Emoprogs who were angry with President Obama and urged people not to vote in the 2010 elections. "
ReplyDeleteI am trully amazed at how stupid and childish the super lefties are. Like someone said up thread they have been using the same playbook since the 60's and they think that free sex, banging on congo's and smoking weed while they "fight the power" is the shizzle. Any news about the phony, childish ass "revolution that is Occupy Wall Street compels all those who are super lefties to cream thier undergarments.
Just to clarify: Prof. Chomsky is a linguist, not a comp sci guy. He's also the most interviewed American dissident in Europe! (Didn't know we had dissidents, did you?)
ReplyDeleteSo true about violent revolution. The true heroes are the non violent leaders.
ReplyDeleteBy the way I am definitely aware of your reliable wisdom. Didn't take me long to figure that out reading your comments.
I told the TRUTH, but because you couldn't reasonably deal with it you ended up calling me a Republican. For your information, I've never, and I say never, voted or supported any Republican. At the same time, I am not going to sit around and let holier than thou, so called progressives, ( many of you recently born again progressives like Greenwald, Uygur, Markos and Arianna) trash a president who has accomplished so much and advanced the causes of liberalism. If you are stupid enough to prefer Richard Nixon over President Obama then you are the Republican and not me.
ReplyDeleteApparently you did not live under Richard Nixon. Some of us remember his "Law and Order" campaign, his "Southern Strategy," and his veiled racist policies "benign neglect" and the appeal to the so called "Silent Majority." Guess who was fronting for him: Patrick Buchanan!
ReplyDeleteI'm still reading "Nixonland." It's amazing how little this group of leftie has changed. Conservatives from this same era haven't changed much either. And there lies the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe free sex, banging on the congos and smoking weed served their purpose. The counter-culture contributed a great deal to the world. However, their track record on politics is not that great. This is because many of them believed that their own self-actualization and self-expression was all that was needed to change the political system for the better. Wrong! It takes a little more than that.
ReplyDelete" The counter-culture contributed a great deal to the world. However, their track record on politics is not that great. "
ReplyDeleteI agree but the issue was and is about signifant long term, positive change not exploring your narcotic, bohemian and sexual fantisies.
Having and expressing a counter culture is fine as long as folks realize that bills must be paid and that takes money, children (yours and others) must be put first and whatever things they believe in politically is going to take 60 votes in the Senate.
Having a counter culture is fine but is know subsitute for meat and potatoes political organizing.
Many people in the counter culture just didn't get the point of your first paragraph. They fully believed that whatever personal explorations they underwent would somehow benefit society overall.
ReplyDeleteI don't look upon what they did with any moral superiority because my generation (Generation X) didn't fair any better. I simply recognize the limits of their journey. I simply understand that when it came to the political realm, it wasn't enough. The Vietnam War Protests (which were the epicenter of counterculture political involvement) is a prime example of this. I also believe that politics is not the only way a contribution can be made to society. Art, music, culture, etc are also valuable. This is where the counterculture shined and yes, this did have an impact politically, but it was indirect.
Also, while some elements of the counterculture tried to get involved politically, other parts simply decided to disengage completely. To "tune out" as it were. Huge mistake because eventually whatever BS is coming out of the government will affect everyone at some point and in some way.
The counterculture raised awareness, but then what? Awareness is only one part of the equation. What about the "meat and potatoes" political organizing? What about reaching out to people different from yourself (on their terms - not yours) to try and convince them of your point of view?
In my view, basically what pragmatic liberals and progressives are saying is, "We need to take this to the next level." Pragmatists are also trying to reclaim the rich history of left-wing organizing. And unfortunately, the counterculture rejected this history. In doing so, they rendered themselves politically ineffective. Meanwhile, conservatives studied this history and warped it for their own purposes. Sorry, but future generations of liberals and progressives may actually want the opposite of this. So, it shouldn't surprise emoprogs that there is pushback against this from within the Left.