Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America Is in Need of a Moral Bailout
In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.
We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities, turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous, as our economic collapse.
Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called "Education After Auschwitz." He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible remained "largely unchanged." He wrote that "the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds" must be made visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.
"All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that Auschwitz should never happen again," he wrote. "This would be possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms."
Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But unless we grasp the "societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms" we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.
I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.
"The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most feared," Giroux, who wrote "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex," told me. "Universities, in general, especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market fundamentalists for allegedly representing the weak link in the war on terrorism. Right-wing students were encouraged to spy on the classes of progressive professors, the corporate grip on the university was tightening as made clear not only in the emergence of business models of governance, but also in the money being pumped into research and programs that blatantly favored corporate interests. And at Penn State, where I was located at the time, the university had joined itself at the hip with corporate and military power. Put differently, corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research projects and increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service of developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened no one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere."
Frank Donoghue, the author of "The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities," details how liberal arts education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not strictly vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools has been abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad, disturbing questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite or an economic system that serves the corporate state. This has led many bright graduates into the arms of corporate entities they do not examine morally or ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate culture because they have never been taught to think.
Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor's degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent). Bachelor's degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major.
The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A university, as John Ralston Saul writes, now "actively seeks students who suffer from the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to exaggerate it. Imagination, creativity, moral balance, knowledge, common sense, a social view-all these things wither. Competitiveness, having an ever-ready answer, a talent for manipulating situations-all these things are encouraged to grow. As a result amorality also grows; as does extreme aggressivity when they are questioned by outsiders; as does a confusion between the nature of good versus having a ready answer to all questions. Above all, what is encouraged is the growth of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in which winning is what counts."
This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like "Survivor") and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of California.
"This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without reflecting about it, is utterly wrong," Adorno wrote. "The idea that virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns itself all too easily with sadism."
Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate culture. It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current through reality television and trash-talk programs and is at the core of the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion for the homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed and the sick.
"The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against humanity-whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts-are always mediated by educational forces," Giroux said. "Resistance to such acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and self-reflection. We have to name these acts and transform moral outrage into concrete attempts to prevent such human violations from taking place in the first place."
The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.
Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on liberal institutions and "leftist" professors, has really set out to destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called "the manipulative character." The manipulative character has superb organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager. He or she exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure, which is why our elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG. "He makes a cult of action, activity, of so-called efficiency as such which reappears in the advertising image of the active person," Adorno wrote of this personality type. These manipulative characters, people like Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, AIG's Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with most of our ruling class, have used corporate money and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted the country.
"It is especially difficult to fight against it," warned Adorno, "because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids."
- Posted in




203 Comments so far
Show All"This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like "Survivor") and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of California."
Echoing the immortal words of Pogo, I have seen the enemy and it is us.....There certainly are a number of factors involved in transforming the American public into a nation of docile sheep, and it has been and continues to be a long strange trip indeed. We have been trapped in a culture which believes that, should we speak out, should we stand against injustice and intolerance we will lose our cheap plastic toys and be unable to pay our massive credit card debts. We will be summarily excluded from the drip of a pittance that enables a false image of leisure and comfort while the usual sources continue to amass enormous piles of money and the power that comes along with such.
Ironic that this lifestyle is unsustainable and that our children, and their children certainly, will be unable to live as we ourselves have done. The United States of America is, in large part, a myth. This bastion of freedom and opportunity for all becomes, with each passing day, less free, provides less opportunity and sees more injustice and more poverty.
Pessimistic view, certainly, but realism carries no guarantees of optimism. If one wants optimism then take some solace in the fact that this all can be changed, but only by a sea change in attitude and an out of the box thinking that once was the hallmark of this nations peoples.
The Pogo line is a take-off on the old war expression, "We have met the enemy, and he is ours."
Walt Kelly tweeked it to, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Every time I see an attempt to quote it, it is clear that the allusion was lost long ago.
Are you familiar with the accompanying cartoon? It does rather explain the intent with great emphasis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics)
Thanks for that info. I never knew the Pogo line was a take-off on a military expression.
FYI
“We have met the enemy and they are ours - two ships, two brigs, one schooner and a sloop”
Oliver Hazard Perry's immortal dispatch to Major General William Henry Harrison after the Battle of Lake Erie, 10 September 1813
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Walt Kelly (1913 - 1973)
John Lennon said that if we wanted peace as much as our television, we'd have peace.
Definitely the first problem is the lying by the corporate elite as they try to distort the narrative to their advantage (patriot act is for our protection, what is good for general motors is good for us, etc).
But the other problem is society's willingness to accept the lies because we think it is less troublesome, and the elite use that against us. They know we won't object when they push another war for profit down our throat.
I may be jaded but I'm not cynical. Things are messed up, probably to the point of not being repairable, and even if no one listens, I'm glad someone like Mr. Hedges speaks to it.
If don't we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything.
www.NotOneMore.US
And Jennifer Stone said (quoting someone?) we will have peace when we love our children more than we hate our enemies. "Stand for something"?... yes, but it's not about thoughts and ideas--it's about emotional health. When we are psychologically healthy we will ignore and ridicule ridiculous ideas. Until then they will rule, no matter gets taught in schools or put on television.
Sioux Rose
J$Z: You speak of "being psychologically healthy," but the nation as a whole owns a dark pathology. Just as the premise of AA is that the alcoholic's process of coming clean means owning past offenses, the U.S. and its citizens would have to do a fearless moral inventory of their past aggressive history, along with how similar self-righteous aggressive instruments work in present foreign policy, inclusive of trade deals with 3rd world often impoverished nations. There can be no real healing at depth without these facts faced. I suspect major grieving would be necessary, too. It's clear to me living in the deep south that a lot of current racism is based on psychological walls built to cut off the empathy that would mean owning a legacy of inhuman and inhumane actions on the part of one's family members. Much easier to just keep hating another person due to their color or religion, than taking ownership of that displaced aggression. HOLISM, or the capacity to be whole inside, is the challenge of our times. I recognize this necessity as the need (on the part of both individuals and the collective state) to reconcile the expressions and value of VENUS with those (over-rated and over-emphasized in our "civilization") of Mars.
Yes.
I was absolutely with you up to the last line. I'm looking for more than Venus and Mars from a pop book--for a deeper look at politics try George Lakoff with some (Jungian) depth psychology and developmental, Reichian somatic and attachment theory and a little systems/family theory added. We've got what Buddhism calls 'the illusion of separateness', especially conservatives, and what you said we need to do IS needed but is only a small part of it. No time left now; it will all be decided one way or another very soon--maybe our lifetime (although we might not get the test scores back right away) maybe another lifetime or 2. So maybe we should get going on that, eh?
Oh, my God! I can't believe there are no responses to this article yet... I should have read it earlier....if only I'd known...
No wonder I gave up on the Survivor show after just a few weeks of "giving it a shot" The only reason I did is because I love the out doors. But I was wary, because I saw that there was the competitive element to it... This of course was when it first came upon the scene and I was just beginning to understand more aspects of our culture that I had not understood before. Rejecting the concept of the survivor show and then all the other reality shows and then T.V. in general, (yeah I do watch some things, mostly news, but with a much different eye than before.
But what ever I'm saying here, is dwarfed by what Mr. Hedges is describing. He really helps me to frame what I have been experiencing since about 2000 - and especially after 2001. Then when I found NPR that helped. For many years I studied a particular subject which kept me from sinking totally into our 'me' culture, enabled me to view life from many perspectives. Maybe this understanding could only come through a certain set of circumstances or at a particular age...(42) But over the last few years I realized how much more I should have been learning about the societal play of forces that operate beneath the surface of political forms. Yes, I understand his ideas of education becoming sociology.
This is good stuff...
With regards to reality shows, I prefer the Ultimate Fighting Championship, where they beat each other bloody in a much less devious fashion.
Yes, much preferable as a model for society: brutal violence without intelligence or strategy. Hmmm... I wonder if the bush administration watched it?
For Gaia's sake read a book. Read 2. I recommend Sun Tzu and Lao Tzu.
"But what ever I'm saying here, is dwarfed by what Mr. Hedges is describing."
Theinitiate, it was a pleasure to read your thoughtful remarks. With peope like you there is still hope. I am sure you follow links provided by Chris Hedges that wil lead you to more links outside of this intellectuel ghetto a.k.a. the US. The wildest firestorm comes from the single sparc.
v.purto
Yeah, this old Indian never hears anything about returning all the land stolen from the Tribes. Oh, you didn't mean you actually wanted to get that "Moral." History does go a long way back in time.
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.
OK, I'll bite, what would you do with it if you did get it back?
"Do with it"? Think for a moment about what you're asking.
Yes, I have thought about this in great detail. I can refer you to other posts where I have gone into a long discussion.
Every time I hear about giving something back to somebody, I want to know about the nuts and bolts: the logistics.
So following that line, if the Indians were given back all their land, what would they do with it? Would it include land where the historic Indians in question thought they were paid adequately, or just the ones who sold cheap or were invaded? And which Indians get it? Current full-blooded Indians or all their descendants no matter what small genetic component? What about the people already on it? What type of government would it have?
Would this set a precedent for me getting back that car I undersold five years ago? Or for someone else to reclaim that yard-sale plate that turned out to be worth $500 on eBay?
I'm all for a good plan. If giving America back to the Indians would help us to be better humans I'm all for it. So far, I remain unconvinced.
Giving the so-called Holy Land "back" to Israel has been an unmitigated disaster for all except the blood sucking war machine. Given that standard, the Indians have no money to buy white phosphorus or smart missiles so that is not on the MIC agenda.
What do you think I'm asking? I welcome a discussion in detail.
I don't believe you now--and I didn't believe you the last time you laid this trip on us.
If all the whites leave, I have a teeny weeny inkling that wqe natives will have no problem at all deciding what to do with OUR land.
Try us--and find out.
Try what, exactly? Show me what ya got.
Learn to read, elaine: IF whites leave was the phrase--try THAT. I will send someone to help you pack, even.
And if you are gone, you won't see what we've got, now, will you?
That's your whole plan: get whites to leave?
Since this will never happen, even with you being so polite about it, you should get a new plan.
This idea is really holding you back. If you've got some secret formula to save the world, now's the time.
The earth will shake us off like fleas.
At my age, it's not an issue--and I am happy to see our species go.
I believe I have told you before: I don't need a plan.
I simply no longer give a fuck.
I think the questions you ask are legitimate, but I don't think they are accurately summarized by the question "What would you do with [the land]?" The latter question has the flavor (to me, at least) of the exploitative view of the land so common in Western culture.
There are some theories that state that the Indian nations were exploitative of the land as well. Obviously not through industrial pollution but they were wiping out game and denuding forests as well, just at a rather slower pace.
Hi John, it's true that my question was pretty vague, and it is interesting to read what it meant to you.
The original poster had a comment about morals and Indians and getting back stolen land. This is not a grievance unique to the natives of the North American continent. There have been immoral land stealers forever, everywhere.
We are all the descendants of the conquerors and those who survive the conquest.
If we go far enough back in our history, everyone on earth will be able to claim some cause for apology or redress.
So say the Indians here in the USA were given back whatever land was stolen from them. That's just a can of shit that I personally would NOT want to be handed. Right now there are a few hundred million people living on it and they're getting really testy.
So that's why I ask: what would you do with it?
The point I am trying to make is this: If there's some great idea floating around the Indian community (or any community) that would help all the people living on their stolen land I'd like to hear it.
The great idea seems to involve building yet another casino....
Interesting stats on university enrollments. I wonder if similar stats exist for other western countries like Canada and in Europe. I think the corporate bubble is not finished its collapse, and that regardless of Obama's optimistic pep talks, the U.S. economy will continue to implode. American culture is too corrupted by greed and selfishness to check its insatiable appetite for more and more. That's why Obama wants to bail out the banks, to allow them to continue lending money so people can keep buying stuff they don't need. I refuse to trade in my 2000 Echo for a new VW, regardless of advertising and peer pressure. The thing keeps working great, and its cheap. Too bad most people will spend to their dept carrying capacity rather than by what is in their savings account.
Unfortunately all too true.
Don't trade that 2000 Toyota Echo in for a new VW, freespeaker!
My independent mechanic friend loves VWs, the money he makes fixing them put his two kids through college. He hates Toyotas, says he would be living under a bridge if he had to depend on repairing them for income.
That 2000 Echo will be running at least as long as any 2009 VW, and you will spend far less money on it.
"The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate."
I was hoping he would bring some light to this tunnel of an article.
For quite a while I have felt that our institutions of learning, including public schools and universities, have been turning out cogs for the corporate wheel. The key piece that people need in order to reason and think critically has not been taught - on purpose. Simply put: the MIC doesn't want us to know how to think and question and reason. Nor do they want us to act.
I have suggested many times here that despite this, it is up to the people (even more so, the people here on Common Dreams) to think and reason and question AND act. Yet, this call has been poo-pooed and been called elitist and trite. Why should WE act when it is THEY who created the problem?
I stand my ground. We MUST practice moral autonomy or we are merely part of the problem. No matter how strong and pervasive the corporate meme is, if we cave because "it's too strong", then we have lost all. We must not cooperate - to the best of our abilities. Again, the beast needs its blood, and its blood is money. By looking to alternatives, such as cutting back our spending, spending locally and with non-corporate entities, by repairing and sharing and alternative economies, by building networks and communities, and a hundred other ways, we can starve this beast.
If people do nothing else, I suggest they join a local permaculture or Transition Towns meetup site. If one isn't available, start one and invite people (I have). It is one of the best ways of building community with people who are practicing moral autonomy.
It's up to us. It's always been so.
We are the elite and therefore by definition fewer in number.
Most of what is trite is also true. It is only trite because it is so often repeated.
Indeed.
I find my calling here in being an irritant. And, as we all know, the most annoying irritant is a mirror.
Great article and insightful and educational comments. Would Ted or anyone else elaborate on how to participate/initiate "local permaculture or Transition Towns meetup sites?"
My efforts to counter the MIC will be through a team in my Presbyterian church. Based on our rhetoric and (stated) theology, one would think that mainline denominations could offer a natural bulwark against the MIC. Anyone had success in organizing along these lines?
Thanks everyone...you've already improved my day.
Matt,
Start here: http://www.meetup.com/topics/
Permaculture and Transition Towns are not the end-all or be-all, but they are positive ways of building community working toward goals that are the antithesis of the corporate paradigm. And, if there is anything we will need in the post-carbon world, it is community.
Kudos to you for what you do in your church. If you can reach some young people, so much the better.
Let me know how that works out for you.
When I called local church leaders to try to bring together those who believe in peace, I was ignored, diverted by BS about gays, and told straight out that they "supported Pres. Bush's policies in Iraq". Members of the church I had attended since I was a child were busy enlisting and talking about fighting the good Christian fight.
Not all, but most, took this line. Now I admit that was 4-5 years ago and maybe they have seen the light. Good luck, but prepare for disappointment. And tell us how it goes.
Yes, the corporatists are winning, but I see little in the article that will help. How can progressives transform themselves and the progressive movement so that they can better resist the corporatists? Since I doubt many progressives prefer a violent solution, then the only way forward is with numbers. But far too many progressives, and particularly progressives in academic departments, preach a divisive, hateful progressivism, particularly with regard to the gender wars, that is guaranteed to never attract the numbers necessary to prevail over the corporatists.
I do believe in divisiveness. Compromise with the soulless machine is impossible.
I don't know what you mean about gender.
"Any man more right than his neighbours already constitutes a majority of one."--Thoreau
What is right does not depend on a popular vote. We cannot hope to prevail by violence; and even if we could we would be surrendering the moral high ground. We cannot hope to prevail through numbers. They are many. We are few.
We will win in the end because we refuse to surrender while they, having no center, no soul except ostentation, no God except material wealth, have only the appearance of reality.
I have no problem with division along class lines, but it is hopeless when one's class is so divided it has no chance of achieving its objectives.
You wrote:
"I don't know what you mean about gender."
That's the problem. I know people from all walks of life, and it is very clear to me why a large coalition such as that put together by FDR is impossible to form with today's progressives. They are completely blind to their faults and shortcomings and do not appear to have the capacity to build the bridges necessary for political success.
You are going to have to dumb it down for me some more.
Far too many individuals and subgroups in the progressive movement, many of whom find platforms in academic environments, act with arrogance or engage in exclusion when they must reach out to the broader population if they are to have any success politically. If they do not intend to achieve a majority, and if they do not expect to engage in violent revolution, then what is the point other than ego massaging? As an intellectual exercise, engaging in political theory is quite middle brow, and virtually anyone can construct political theories or provide historical analyses, not easily contradicted by the evidence, to suit themselves that others may or may not agree with.
This is exactly the case when enviromentalists protest Coal mining in Kentucky or the Hunting of Seals by Indingent populations.
They fly in from abroad in Helicopters and the like, often dressed in clothing the people they protest against cannot even afford, and then try to dictate a lifestyle to those people without ever considering how those people will then put food on the table.
Thanks for your examples. And there are far too many others.
I will again use the seal hunt as example, in particular the harp seal as that draws the most international attention.
The Total value of the hunt of Canada's East Coast is some 8 million dollars. The group of Fishermen that hunt the most tend to be from the maritimes, in particular Newfoundland.
The unemployment rate in Newfoundland is some 16 percent using official statistics. Some 6000 total fishermen hunt earning some 1400$$ bucks apiece from the hunt. Needless to say this an average . Some go out to hunt fewer while others take more.
(some get as much as 6000$ from the hunt)
This figure (6000) makes up around a fifth of their yearly income. It varies of course but it a significant amount of their yearly income.
So let us take one high profile protester Sir Paul Mcartney.
I have nothing against sir Paul but just examine the optics. He is worth over 1 billion dollars flies in and does photo ops demanding a stop to the hunt which will cost the hunters as much as a fifth of their income.
Now here is the kicker.
Sir Paul could go to these 6000 odd sealers and Say I will pay you 3000$$ a year NOT to hunt those seals and it wont even make a dent in his fortune. Paul is a very rich man, but is still just one man. Mayhaps these organizations that spend millions protesting the hunt with ads and the like might be better off using that money to pay the hunters NOT to hunt.
Great example, thank you.
It's like the Greenpeace model of environmental activism: exploit the locals for the purposes of one telling photo op, then you're outta there.
That is hardly a description of most protests I wager. Those who fly in in private helicopters may be the 'rock stars' of environmentalism bu they hardly represent the majority of those concerned with such issues.
I wonder if Kivals ( if reading this) would believe that the progressive of today is that much different from the ones of FDR's era?
I am afraid that the answer is "yes." Progressivism in the US has been poisoned by cultural elitism and the culture wars. If it were otherwise, progressives would be building bridges and forming a movement that would have the corporatists shaking in their Armani loafers.
Would you not agree that the left faces a much tougher road today than they did those fifty years earlier? Would you concur that the death of the free press and real investigative journalism makes both getting at the truth and building bridges much, much more difficult?
We are today a more polarized society than ever before, at least in both my memory and my studies of American history. There is , on both sides of the political coin, a great unwillingness to meet in the middle. I believe it is no coincidence, or even a reflection on the people themselves, but the result of a purposive effort to separate us all.
Well put, and agreed.
"But far too many progressives, and particularly progressives in academic departments, preach a divisive, hateful progressivism, particularly with regard to the gender wars"
I am far from academia and would appreciate a real-life example of this to help me understand.
Unless you are talking about the general mysogynistic tendencies of the entire globe. That I get.
You wrote:
"I am far from academia and would appreciate a real-life example of this to help me understand."
==> "Unless you are talking about the general mysogynistic tendencies of the entire globe."
There you go!