Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Major Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives
One of the linchpins of the Bush presidency, especially during the first term (and well into the second, until he became a major political liability), was the lock-step uncritical reverence - often bordering on cult-like glorification - which the "conservative" movement devoted to the "Commander-in-Chief." An entire creepy cottage industry arose - led not by fringe elements but by right-wing opinion-making leaders - with cringe-inducing products paying homage to Bush as "The First Great Leader of the 21st Century" (John Podhoretz); our "Rebel-in-Chief" (Fred Barnes); "The Right Man" (David Frum); the New Reagan (Jonah Goldberg); "a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" who is our "Big Brother" (John Hinderaker); and "the triumph of the seemingly average American man," the supremely "responsible" leader who, when there's a fire, will "help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, 'Where's Sally'?" (Peggy Noonan).
Even as Bush implemented one massive expansion of government power after the next -- the very "un-conservative" policies they long claimed to oppose -- there was nothing but (at best) the most token and muted objections from them. The handful of conservatives who did object were cast aside as traitors to the cause, and criticisms of the President became equated with an overt lack of patriotism. Uncritical support for the Leader was the overarching, defining attribute of conservatism, so much so that even Bill Kristol, in The New York Times, acknowledged: "Bush was the movement and the cause."
Whenever I would speak at events over the last couple of years and criticize the Bush administration's expansions of government power, extreme secrecy and other forms of corruption, one of the most frequent questions I would be asked was whether "the Left" -- meaning liberals and progressives -- would continue to embrace these principles with a Democrat in the White House, or whether they would instead replicate the behavior of the Right and uncritically support whatever the Democratic President decided. Though I could only speculate, I always answered -- because I believed -- that the events of the last eight years had so powerfully demonstrated and ingrained the dangers of uncritical support for political leaders that most liberals would be critical of and oppositional to a Democratic President when that President undertook actions in tension with progressive views.
Two months into Obama's presidency, one can clearly conclude that this is true. Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the "conservative movement" and many progressives.
Over the last month, the Obama administration has made numerous decisions in the civil liberties area that are replicas of some of the most controversial and radical actions taken by the Bush administration, and the most vocal critics of those decisions by far were the very same people - ostensibly on "the Left" -- who spent the last several years objecting to the same policies as part of the Bush administration's radicalism. Identically, many of Obama's most consequential foreign policy decisions -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan -- have been criticized by many on the Left. Opposition to Obama's bank bailout plan is clearly being driven by liberal economists, pundits and bloggers, and much of the criticism over the AIG debacle came from liberals as well. There was pervasive liberal criticism over some of Obama's key appointments, including Tom Daschle, John Brennan and Tim Geithner. That's more independent progressive thinking in two months than the "conservative movement" exhibited with regard to Bush in six years.
It's certainly true that one has no difficulty finding cult-like liberal veneration for Obama - those who invoke Bible-like "he's-a-master-of-11-dimensional-chess" clichés to justify whatever he does (the Lord works in mysterious ways but even when we don't understand what He does, we Trust that He is Supremely Good and more Wise than us and knows best); who declare, in Bush-like "with-me-or-against-me" fashion, all critics of Obama to be the Enemy; who pay homage to Kim Jong Il-like imagery such as this and this; who believe that "trust" -- a sentiment appropriate for family and friends but not political leaders -- should be vested in Obama and thus negate any concerns over how he exercises power. Some overly-eager journalists and bloggers are devoted to carrying forth the administration's message (usually delivered anonymously) in exchange for favorable treatment and/our due to a painfully excessive sense of devotion, and there's a Democratic establishment with a built-in machinery to defend Obama no matter what he does.
But outside of those anonymity-granting blogger/journalists and Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes. With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists. Many -- arguably most -- of the most vocal liberal Bush critics have kept their critical faculties engaged and have been unwilling to sacrifice their political values and principles at the altar of partisan loyalty.
It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue. Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation.
A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders only when they do the right thing (regardless of motive), and criticizes and opposes them when they don't. It's just that simple. Cheerleading for someone because they're on "your team" is appropriate for a sporting event, not for political matters. Political leaders deserve support only to the extent that their actions, on a case-by-case basis, merit that support, and that has largely been the behavior of progressives towards Obama.
Hence: civil libertarian critics of Bush have vehemently criticized the Obama administration for embracing Bush's secrecy theories, shielding government policies (including torture) from judicial review, denying all rights to Bagram detainees, and retaining some of Bush's extreme detention powers, but have praised him -- often lavishly -- for restricting FOIA secrecy, banning waterboarding and CIA black sites, disclosing key Bush-era OLC memos, bringing charges against the last "enemy combatant" in America, and guaranteeing International Red Cross access to all detainees. Foreign policy critics have objected to Obama's escalation of our military presence in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan while praising him for preliminary changes in our tone (if not policy) towards Israel and his diplomatic overtures to Iran. Economic critics have attacked his bank rescue plan as a sleazy give-away to Wall Street and his excessive stimulus compromises, while praising his ambitious domestic budget and his core stimulus approach. In most areas, his record has been mixed, and thus progressive reaction to it has been as well.
Critical analysis is how a political culture and even a political movement remains vibrant and worthwhile, and is the only way political leaders and a political class will remain responsive and accountable. Blind reverence and uncritical loyalty -- the need to see a political leader as one who embodies infallible truth and transformative justice and can deliver some form of personal or emotional elevation -- breeds ossification, intellectual death, and authoritarian corruption. Anyone who doubts that should look at the state of today's conservative movement to see what the fruits are of that cultish mentality.
Many conservatives typically use the excuse that a national crisis (9/11) is what led to such lock-step and uncritical support for the Leader, but many progressives are retaining their critical faculties despite the (at least equally threatening) economic crisis consuming not just America but the world. There are many legitimate criticisms one might make of liberals but, with some exceptions, replicating the Leader worship and blind reverence that dominated the Bush era doesn't appear to be one of them.
UPDATE: I'm well-aware, and explicitly stated, that there were some conservatives who dissented early on from the Bush movement as an assault on their ideological convictions -- I devoted an entire chapter of my first book to those individuals -- but they were a tiny minority (and were cast out of the movement). Even as Bush's popularity collapsed across the spectrum, self-identified "conservatives" continued to support him overwhelmingly and "movement conservatism" devoted itself blindly to Bush. Indeed, even as recently as December (three months ago), by which point the Bush disaster was undeniably apparent to everyone else, self-identified "conservatives" continued overwhelmingly to support their leader.
The point, though, isn't so much the lockstep devotion to Bush among the conservative rank-and-file as it is the uncritical, creepy, cult-like glorification of him by the Right's opinion-making leaders and their refusal to criticize what he did -- until they sought cynically to distance themselves from the stench of his failure late in his presidency (and anyone who doubts that should just click on the links in the first paragraph or read this). If one searches for it, one can find that devoted reverence towards Obama among some creepy cultists and overly eager supporters, but that has not been the predominant behavioral trait among progressives.
76 Comments so far
Show All"The handful of conservatives who did object were cast aside as traitors to the cause" - yeah, they kept calling me a 'liberal' or a 'lefty' - stupid is as stupid does. Fascists always condemn conservatives - because they use common sense and logic, instead of emotions, to make decisions. I always thought the left used emotions instead of logic and sense too - which is why I don't support them (and never will).
This isn't a 'team sport' - it's our lives we're talking about, and we have to get everybody on board (except the fascists, who are actually psychopaths, and should never be included in ANYTHING involving other living things. My dad always said "just line them up and mow them down - it's what we did with Nazis." I may not be as cynical as he was, but putting them in prison or asylums is a good second choice.)
Enough of the idiotic party identifcation already - doesn't anyone know the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' anymore?
Does anyone else remember testimony, I think from the fallout of the DoJ politicized hiring/firing decisions about a year ago, of a woman from Justice testifying she knew what she was doing violated regulations, was illegal etc, but thought she had to do what was right by the "Commander-in-Chief" no matter what? Glenn is not kidding about the cult-like thrall he held over so many people, (and only G-d knows why). I hope it won't happen under Obama too.
zmann
DOJ senior counsel to Alberto Gonzalez Monica Goodling. In on the politicized firings. When questioned she invoked the 5th and loyalty b4 the Law. A diseased DC street whore who turns a lot of unprotected tricks.
Thanks. Didn't she ask interviewees for DoJ positions about theor religious faith, what they thought about Iraq, Bush, etc.?
It already has.
here is something interesting!
From what I understand a citizen's initiative will be posted in all the progressive sites within the next few days.
I think it deals with the issues that were posted on this discussion page as well as others that have been recurring themes since Obama's election.
Anyway - should be interesting to see if the real progressive left in this country can finally get out of its own way and actually get behind something
again.
The last time I felt this way was in 1968.
I think we should be like the republican machine and suddenly have a thousand people reading from the same talking points page.Can you imagine the news media and Obama's people running around like crazy trying to find out whats going on
"PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL GROUPS TO PRESENT LAUNDRY LIST TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS,
TAKE THESE ACTIONS OR FACE IMMEDIATE RECALL"
I can't wait to see senators and congress people faces when they are actually
commanded by ordinary citizen's to enact specific legislation.
Just to see this scene of crazed citizens with pitchforks and broom handles
on the steps of the capital would let me leave this world with a smile tattooed on my face.Something I thought I would never see in my lifetime again public dissent.
In fact I think I will become a talking points guy for the next couple of days
I hope no one got to Rush yet, this is going to be fun
This is going to be fun.
How do you cook a banker?
Any recipe for politicians?
Regards
Jeffrey Dahmer
"How do you cook a banker?"
( 1. ) Use actual currency for wallpaper, cover the ceiling too.
( 2. ) Tie the bankster to a chair in the middle of the room
( 3. ) Tell him the money is his, if he can reach it
After a short while, self-immolation will occur.
( 4. ) find another bankster …
LeeAnnG
I think it's quite amusing that so many bloggers here are decrying the lack of criticism of Obama, all the while spouting criticism of Obama. Check out the comments, people! The vast majority are rants about what Obama and his so-called supporters are doing wrong.
I read a number of left-leaning and progressive sites, and every one of them is full of criticism for the current administration, its policies, its appointments, its experiments in economic recovery, and every other issue that has taken place in the nine weeks (!) since Obama took office. There wasn't this much outcry from Republicans and regressives in eight years while Bush was Resident in Chief. (I will never concede that he was a duly elected president.)
Many people on CommonDreams have commented about George Lakoff in the past, and (like all good progressives) some agree with him and like him, while others express disdain. I happen to really appreciate his views, so - at the risk of derision by the Lakoff scoffers (and even welcoming it because dissent is a GOOD thing) - I believe Greenwald's article supports Lakoff's contention that conservatives and regressives tend to support patriarchal family style politics while liberals and progressives tend to support nurturing family style politics. Patriarchal values generally include a chain of command that ends with the final decision of the father figure. Nurturing family values generally include a lot room for different opinions and arguments about how to procede.
Mindless worship of the patriarch was never more evident than during the Bush years, although it was certainly apparent during the Reagan Administration. Of course, it is true that some Democrats are conservative by nature and will lean toward a worshipful attitude concerning the President. And it's also true that we have been so beaten down during Bushco that some of us might simply ignore what we don't like about Obama and mindlessly go along. But it's obvious to me, and perhaps to anyone who is listening, reading, and talking to people, that there is a whole lot of arguing, analysis, contradiction, and even anger concerning the economic, foreign, and domestic policies being initiated and promoted by the Obama administration.
LeeAnnG, Thought-Full.
The last 3 sentences in your 3rd paragraph ring so true. cool.
I've read quite a few of the post, and as usual, people here seem to forget that the majority of this country's political IQ is in the dumpster. Obama's huge approval numbers include many of the same folks who for too long thought Bush was doing a good job. Until the people of the US can identify at least 3 supreme court justices and both Senators from their own state, our government will do what it wants.
Also, these bones that the Dems are tossing our way taste like the same ones I still have from the Clinton ad.
THere are always exceptions to any rule, but here two distinct differences:
A progressive employer will normally view you as a human being and treat you accordingly.
A conservative employer will view you as a liability, throw you, your children and your grandma on the street with no food, shelter, health care, severance or welfare, outsource your job to the lowest bidder, then tell you it's your fault that you are poor.
A progressive cares about things like art, culture, quality of life, diversity, fairness and equality.
A conservative cares about the bottom like on a balance sheet, period.
Very well put. Obama qualifies as the conservative employer that you describe, while pretending to be the opposite, that's his genius.
Any liberal or 'Progressive' who voted for Obama and is now bemoaning 'cult-like' devotion to Bush is utterly, utterly laughable. You all got what you wanted: the most liberal, least experienced president in the history of the United States of America. How's that working out for you, folks?
Obama is as liberal in practice on foreign policy re warmongering as GW Bush. He's as liberal in practice on corporatism as GW Bush. He's slightly more liberal on domestic issues.
So how did GW work out for you? Liberal enough for you?
We do know that GW was more experienced in eating pretzels than political leadership, and it nearly cost him his life.
Fox News could not have said it better, well said.
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
Funny how it's only the people with their panties in a wad about liberals who think Obama is so liberal. ;)
Mr. Logan's Magic Book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diSdwgtYBRc
The old Hamiltonian line of thought still exists, maintained by so-called U.S. "conservatives" (today, proto-fascists). It essentially views the U.S. presidency as equivalent to a kingship. The American Revolution rejected kings, but these folks haven't a clue. When you marry that idea with our current corporate state, plus unconstitutional ideas such as "unitary executive" powers, you get a Bush presidency. He appeals to people who want to follow "tough" totalitarian-type leaders. U.S. citizens in this camp are fairly non-reflective folks. Rather hopeless and savage toward others.
On the other hand, you have loyalist Dems. They don't have bad instincts, but they're also followers. They suffer from Orwell's concept of "double-think," the ability to hold two contradictory ideas, and entertain either one as true. Loyalist Dems can support Obama as he sends Predator drones to blow up people in Pakistan. They don't bat an eye about troop escalations (they think Obama is deescalating the wars). They trust Obama when he talks about a troop withdrawal in Iraq even when that will leave 50,000 troops plus uncounted numbers of mercenaries there. It's the essence of double-think. They ride off emotions. The problem with loyalist Dems is they will listen to criticism, but then go off waving the pom-poms for their side. They enabled Bill Clinton to be the best right-wing Republican the Democratic Party ever had. To this day, loyal Dems are clueless about the destruction wreaked by Clinton.
-TIA
Thoughts_Into_Action, Hi, Obama is deescalating the war in Iraq, but leaving ANY troops there sucks. Totally. But McCain wanted to stay there until Noble Victory was achieved if it took 1000 years. Clearly BO is better. AfPak, BO is dead wrong there but somewhat constrained by the potential for militant Islam to sweep from Khandahar to Kabaul to Natanz. Evidence Swat. He is already talking about an exit strategy which is a good sign , but he's wrong to be there. McCain though would have us in a 4-5 front war by Fall, Iran & Israel too. The Firestorm Obama is trying to prevent. But he has an Imperialist Bull by the horns and should let go.
Obama, will do and fail to do much good. The haters that chime like crows that BO & the GOP "they are the same" are insane-executive asssasination squad, start there, "Hey Joe, send the hit team to Mexico this week." It just does not ring true.....
Obama will do much good. Obama will fail to do much good,His election did not transform a Ship of War to one of Peace. But Obama's election ended a nightmare, a rape unparalleled in our history. To say things are 'better' now is like saying it was 'better' when WW2 ended. To say it is not is the province of those Glenn spoke of, the anti-Obama crowd who will acknowledge nothing in him.Obama will do much good. He will fail to do much good.
I don't normally paraphrase, but it seems Glenn is saying...
Under Bush, America walked 3 steps to the "right" and most of his followers cheered. Under Obama, so far, America has walked a half step in the opposite direction, while some leftists are demanding a 4 step leap.
In my opinion, conservatives had such party unity not only because the Republican Party delivered more to its base (compared to the Democrats), but also because most of the base, like its leaders, are hierarchial (often inflexible) thinkers. The Democratic Party leaders, on the other hand, don't usually even match the thinking patterns of their base. The demands of liberals (and Leftists), thus, are rarely fully embraced by the supposedly more sympathethic Democratic party, much less by the Republicans. Why else would we criticize (and join 3rd parties)?
Lord forbid Obama not get the REPUBLICANS' economic mess cleaned up, if the populus are going to lose their minds and think we have a choice to put the REPUBLICANS back in office to completely finish the country off. It would be better, no matter what, to stay with the Democratic Party, but it is time to have a third democratic legislated political party in Congress, so the populus will actually have a choice, to not put the 10% elite corporate REPUBLICANS back in to tear the country up again, as they always do.
Since the separation of the Democratic Party's New Class, which is the conservative upper 20% of the common populous, that have chosen to separate from the common populous, times have changed in our country to the point that only two parties --- one representing the left's conservative 20% New Class and one representing the right's 10% conservative corporate elite, are no longer satisfactory. REPUBLICANS are NEVER a choice for the 70% majority common populous.
There needs to be a third party representing the 70% majority common populous, so that our good President Obama will not have to represent the 70% majority common populous alone, although Obama is doing better than any president has ever done, he needs help from the party. No president has ever been concerned about his campaign promises to the majority populous, but Obama has and is the same person as president that he was on the campaign. In my lifetime I have never seen a better leader that we currently have in President Barack Obama.
Of course, the conservatives whine because it is Obama's intention to represent all the United States, not just the conservatives who have gotten used to being the only ones represented and getting their way with everything all the time, and that has changed with the Obama administration.
For a complete revelation and understanding of this topic please read George Lakoff's superb "The Political Mind".
Hands down the best analysis I've every read.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
duplicate deleted
"From what I can see, America has mostly uber-nationalists, ultra-patriots and theocratic-fascists.
I'm afraid the American left could fit in a phone box."
Are you kidding me? C'mon. If that were the case, McCain would have gotten elected, not Obama. Not that Obama is an uberlefty by any stretch of the imagination. However, polls show that most Americans want socialist reform and an end to war.
I think the right-wing cranks are just more vocal and are able to bully the majority into staying silent.
Methinks you progs are forgetting history. Remember the Clinton era, when the Republicans went full assault on the President? Did the Left rally to his defense? Heck no. It joined in. The Left thought Clinton's problems were an opportunity for them. How did that work out? Turns out, American politics are decided BY THE PEOPLE to accept the two party system. When Democrats fail, they bring in Republicans. When Republicans fail, they bring in Democrats. ad infinitum.
“Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the "conservative movement" and many progressives. Over the last month, the Obama administration has made numerous decisions in the civil liberties area that are replicas of some of the most controversial and radical actions taken by the Bush administration, and the most vocal critics of those decisions by far were the very same people…who spent the last several years objecting to the same policies as part of the Bush administration's radicalism…Most vocal liberal Bush critics have kept their critical faculties engaged and have been unwilling to sacrifice their political values and principles at the altar of partisan loyalty.”
Duh!
Sounds almost you suggest that democracy is working.
Democracy, in it’s current form, is the tyranny of a few cunning circles with controlling and omnipotent lobbies and mass media propaganda, that use the ignorant majority ‘mandate’ of the voting masses for their treacherous agenda. Most pivotal parts of this machine are made out of the elite’s cronies and benefactors of this abominable theft and fraud. Their lobby established a system that played tennis with the citizens’ votes, draining all chance for a desperately needed radical change of ways. If you deny that a radical change of ways is desperately needed, you are part of this morose parasitic machine.
But the general political comprehension and activism have changed. Can’t you see that people have been rattled awake by reality? Do you not realize that we have a different ball game now?
Up to now the two party oligarchy that manages the profit and wealth flow for a small elite have been able to keep the voting masses in a state of acquiescence and convenient ambivalism. Common lifestyle was provided by loan, education is geared around producing useful subjects rather than freethinking, the masses were kept occupied with inane entertainment, silenced by welfare payments and manipulated by corporate controlled mass media. And preoccupied by hope-inducing wishful hogwash that we have a choice under this system.
Now that even the most vacuous voter feels reality biting, things have changed. Suddenly it’s not only the “left and progressives” who criticize but the whole populace. Now more and more people wake up, take note and form an opinion. Now THAT is democracy.
Historically a collapse of a system, as logical consequence of its abuse, was mostly beneficial for the parasites of such a system. This round however, the top-shots and cronies of finance, banking, politics, lobbyism and corporatism have, in their obscene greed and treacherous ruthlessness, underestimated the self-propelled dynamic their deeds have developed. Things have gotten out of hand. They also have underestimated the wrath of what they see as underclass. And almost everybody is “underclass” in this colossal swindle.
Up to now, actually up to the last election, millions of gullible ignorami, appeaseable with banal consumerism and manipulated by corporate media filth, have given their vote only to be instantly rendered voiceless by this system. They slowly but surely realize that they had been duped. Again!
“…mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue”. The masses are angry. And rightly so. What else can they do than criticise? The system had a mandate and it failed its responsibility hideously. The machine has not changed and will need to be dismantled sooner or later, not because of ideological differences, but because people will be hungry. And they will be more informed than ever before in history. Thanks to the power of the Internet! Information is everything!
Remembering the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a good way to start. In Benjamin Franklin’s times scalawags were tarred and feathered. Some of the 'clique' would have formed chain gangs.
’History repeats itself’. Maybe a bit different as it used to.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
where is the coverage of this progressive outrage and dissent. Besides here on CommonDreams? NBC? CBS? MSNBC? CNN? NYT? LATimes? It was on the front page the last 8 years. The media does not report on the war anymore. And yes it is still going on no matter what MoveOn says. Our heroes are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. And civilians are still dying in both places. The war is not covered anymore. Neither is the anti-war movement, if it even exists. Dissent only is front page news when it hurts the so-called right. Obama can give 3 trillion to Wall Street Bankers and the only "dissent" you will find is on websites and newspapers/magazines that cater to the "choir." So before you get all excited that we speak against power, why isn't it front page news anymore?
I think Glenn Greenwald is making a very valid, broad observation about the comparative difference between Bush worship by the conservative right, and Obama worship by the progressive left. I don't attribute this difference in "lock step and uncritical support for the Leader" as much to ideology as Glenn appears to, however.
I suspect the relative willingness of progressives to speak out publicly against certain Obama policies (when contrasted to the reticence of the overwhelming majority of conservative opinion shapers to even whisper bad things about Bush or Cheney) stems mostly from the fact that the Republicans deliver to their base constituencies when they wield political power, while the Democratic leadership in Washington delivers half a loaf at best to the left wing of their party's grassroots when they are in charge. Progressives, in my view, tend to be more outspoken and critical of their own leadership not because they are feistier or more lacking in internal loyalty than their right wing counterparts, but because lefties have more legitimate reasons to harbor disillusionment.
The conservatives got their tax cuts, wars, unfettered corporate expansionism, and injection of religious intolerance into the ordinary affairs of state. When do I get my single payer national health insurance, progressive tax code reform, scale back of the Pentagon, and respect for the Bill of Rights?
Bill from Saginaw
Yes,
subjugation and bowing to power and authoritarianism ( $hrubish )
vs.
respectful appeal to authorities in power ( Obama ), as fellow humans.
Namaste
Deepa
Lables such as "conservative", "progressive", "evangelical", "radical", "fundamentalist"... are deceptive in the sense that instead of evaluating a person as he/she is, these lables try to fix the person in the general framework of these lables.
A person may be "progressive" in certain matters and "conservative/fundamentalist" in others. Take the example of Israel. Some "progressives" unquestioningly support Israel's violence against Palestinians, Lebanese... and others don't.
"It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue."
Of course. We're not "rebels without a cause". Our cause is the people's self-rule, and the public interests, which happen to equal our individual interests about 90% of the time.
"A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders only when they do the right thing."
Which translates to: A rational citizen praises and supports "the right thing" and others who share this value. Which will encourage others to adopt the value. But values must not be coerced but adopted by free will. This is why we on the left denounce advertising, marketing, "public relations" and propaganda. Free will is lost to influence games. The left believes in equity, the right believes in hierarchy. Hierarchy is oppression, and equity comes with some chaos. The left would do well to work on the chaos issue. This is why we on the far left advocate for the people's enlightenment/empowerment. The big split on the left seems to be that the center left wants to retain "benevolent" class hierarchies while the far left wants to replace them with universal enlightenment/empowerment.
The problem is that the congressives are not proservative.
Many liberals are starting to question Obama's bailout plan. Obama has take an hard turn towards the loony right, at a time in history when the right is discredited and disgraced. Why would he do that? Here is David Michael Green calling him a criminal and an idiot.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Barack_Obama_and_the_Altar_of_Greed.html
There is some of this at CommonDreams and CounterPunch etc, but rest of the Liberals are acting like sheep. Where are the voices calling Obama a criminal?
It has been my conviction that America's only reason for existence will have been to serve as a horrible negative example for history.
America and (with the exception of the 12 decent Americans I speak of often), the Americans have never lived up to its creed. Has never made amends for or been called to make amends for its many many crimes against humanity, nature, and the environment. Not just in its own territorial realm, but every where on the planet Americans have traveled and done business. They have meddled and interfered with countless hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly innocent lives since the Americans usually kill of their collaborators, or send them on luxury vacations---long ones.
America and the Americans with the exception of that "12"* I mentioned earlier, is a rogue nation populated with a majority of criminally prone people, who if they are not "professional criminals' are "apprentices" or at best "negligent bystander/observers/passive participants". They have found it impossible to keep their collective word, and live up to the dictum stated by the Roman, Tacitus, "the more corrupt a people the more numerous their laws". They pride themselves on the state of "justice" in their society and nation, but will willingly it seems, abide the bidding process for 'justice' ; making it a commodity.
They think themselves invincible from foreighn attack and they are almost correct.
What nation would attack such a criminal society that is the most well armed civilian population on the planet. To do so would require nuclear arms but then the radio activity would prevent occupation for at least 10 thousand years, and they would run the risk of retaliation. However, like the Giant that terrorized the country side, they have a weakness that will destroy them. Like that Giant, they must sleep. They have shown the world that they cannot be trust with the worlds "money", which the world has been very freely allowing the Americans to handle; while ignoring the American well noted history. For the second time in less than a century the Americans have allowed the mistakes of the past to be repeated, and the economic collapse should cause the world to cut off the funds. The money will "go away". The Americans, being creatures of their own nature, will be forced to turn upon themselves, and they will fulfill their purpose.
They have had the most notable chance in history to form a beautiful and honorable and prosperous Democracy which serves all of its members equally; with justice and liberty for all.-----------and they pissed it away----------
They have very little time now to make the needed changes---they see that they need to make the needed changes-----but they may not be able to have enough time left now the best just maybe--- A horrible negative example to the world and history.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
He's a criminal for enforcing legislation passed by Congress? Lose the rhetoric please, just say you don't like what he's doing. I don't either, but it's technically not criminal.
No.
Under the U.S. War Crimes Act, if you are a person with the power to prosecute torturers and fail to do so, you are yourself guilty of a war crime. If someone died due to torture (or other war crime) you qualify for one of the few federally administered Death Penalties.
There is no question here.
So the systemic torture, allowing rendition to continue, defending Yoo, etc.: criminal.
(The Hague, ironically, has no death penalty. These criminals who eschewed the international criminal courts may yet be saved by them, albeit imprisoned for life.)
Regardless, obeying/colluding with Congress to transfer even more trillions to the uber-wealthy? Not criminal, technically, but still action-provoking.
The Brits tried it once. Look what happened to them.
The President is not responsible for prosecuting anyone. It's not his job. Holder at Justice maybe, but not Obama.
Has he completely disavowed prosecuting Bush? I was just under the impression he was avoiding the subject right now...to be honest, there's a shitload happening. DoJ is busy with finance and mortgage-related cases right now...thousands of cases have just started this year. I suppose that is an argument for a special prosecutor, but I think it would be better if DoJ just does it itself, it's what it's there for after all. Again, it's only been two months and a week or so, and Bush isn't going anywhere except to Texas. And if Cheney keeps talking shit about Obama, it may happen even sooner :-)
Obama is criminal for not encouraging the prosecution of Bush etc. or the IDF
Congress is (slowly) moving to at the very least investigations of Bush. And uhh I don't think the IDF is legally answerable to Obama, but he should support the ICC's and UNSC's efforts there.
Check out the "Arms Export Control Act of 1976"
I makes it illegal for the US gov and US firms to transfer weapons to countries that use them for purposes other than self defence.
Now I know that those 400 dead children in Gaza would have surely grown up and eventualy attacked Israel, which means I'm sure John Yoo would say that was a case of self defence...
and I know that US laws are for show only (the real laws are called signing statements and are kept secret)
But perhaps Americans should follow the example of law abiding nations and start getting serious about crime.
If only the US govt would admit Israel isn't acting in self-defense, then I guess the law would apply. Hopefully the recent revelations of IDF actions in Gaza will cause enough of an uproar here to have an effect.
This:
"It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue. Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation.
A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders only when they do the right thing (regardless of motive), and criticizes and opposes them when they don't."
should be read again, and again---until it sinks in. Especially here at CD.
Seems like a statement of the obvious. Critisism ought to be constructive. Blind hero worship is self defeating and destructive. Obushma is only human. Fine.
"...these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes."...
And, of course, every other HuffPost writer/blogger/whatever... from today:
"The chorus of criticism of President Obama's economic plan has been almost deafening, and it isn't coming from Republicans but Democrats.... They should lay off."
That's right - there's no reason anyone should criticize a plan that hands the world's most notorious thieves billions and billions of OUR money so that said thieves can turn around and lend us OUR money back at 30%, with a guarantee that if any of US can't pay back OUR money WE will cover their losses.
Gimme an O, gimme a B, gimme a A-M-A...
Americans are basically mindless sheep. They will blindly follow a garbage truck if told to by their equally moronic leaders. Just tell them that stink they smell is money, and they will follow that truck anywhere.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Sioux Rose
Gotta love Greenwald's opening paragraph. Do these court jesters REALLY believe these things about Bush? But then they made a 'god' of Reagan, too; and for the most part this group doesn't believe in evolution, probably expects Jesus to show up for End Times any day now... so we are not talking persons with probing intellects, rather as KANE related, EXACTLY the species of individual exposed for his incapacity to think for himself as explained in John Dean's very important book, "Conservatives Without Conscience."
I thought this was a good article, focusing on the ideologically defining camps, and their differences and inherent limitations...
It felt like Glenn wrote it after reading the endless arguments on comment boards like CD, as he alluded to...
I definitely think he pegged certain archetypes personified by the likes of JoeHope, although I am still not certain that JoeHope is even for real...
Please!! Uttering the name, "*** ****", will only bring forth his PRESENCE!
Mr CHIPS
You say it like it's a bad thing, "bring forth his PRESENCE!"
Perhaps the spiritual aspects of BEING PRESENT, or BEING in the PRESENCE of -- are entirely foreign to you ( being the heart of hearts, and deepest connection to the source of ALL that is ).
I would humbly suggest, that if even 5% of Americans were present to reality ( the eternal NOW ), for even very brief periods of each day -- this world would be transformed through that grace and profound energy.
If we could only bring forth our presence so easily, by naming it !
Namaste
I have an unrelated question. How do you manage to put italics & boldface in your posts? (I've tried the standard HTML bracket tags -- they don't seem to work.)
Using the convention that
a "left parenthesis" [ ( ] replaces the HTML escape character "less than" [ < ],
and
a "right parenthesis" [ ) ] replaces the HTML escape character "greater than" [ > ],
B O L D _____ is (strong) B O L D (/strong)
I t a l i c _____ is (em) I t a l i c (/em)
Namaste
Oh no, Joe is real! I'm sure Greenwald was talking about joehope himself! It was where he wrote of the
"...Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments ... largely confined to the fringes. With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists..."
Drooling apparatchiks, worshipful, subservient -- Come on, that was our joe!
I really don't think there is any "hope" for old Joe.
G O L D E N M E A N
Well said, and certainly many kudos to G L E N N _ G R E E N W A L D for his renown perspicacity and clarity.
We've certainly seen much divisiveness and fragmentation of critical thinking, and this is a tremendous aid in that required healing process to empower cordial discussion and assertiveness.
With so many problems intersecting on so many, we ALL must learn better the lessons of patience, kindness, and compassion. Who else is there to support us, but ourselves working together ?
Namaste
Greenwald talks about "progressive" and "conservative" as though they have real meaning in today's Washington. Unless you're talking Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, the two terms are practically meaningless.
Any truth to the labels "progressive" or "conservative" is totally annihilated when co-opted by the current leadership of either major party. The name of their game is "empire," and there's nothing conservative or progressive about it.
I personally found the video for Obama (made in 08) to be not scary but hilariosly stupid. Blindly putting our faith in leaders whomever they may be is not only stupid but simply missing the point and that is the power to change things resides within us. Bottom-up, grassroots movements have always been what makes governments respond to the needs of the people -- not leaders! Remember Bob Dylan's song in 1965 SUBTERANEAN HOMESICK BLUES where he so correctly sings "don't follow leaders - watch the parking meters." Incidentally, that same song also gave birth to the name of the militant wing of SDS (Students For a Democratic Society) the Weathermen, later known as the Weatherunderground. In the song Dylan simply sings "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Speaking of the Weatherunderground, you'll recall how the McCain/Palin campaign tried in vain to destroy the Obama campaign's credibilty by involking the name of Bill Ayers -- a founding member of the Weatherunderground along with his wife Bernadine Dorhn. Paradoxically, everytime they brought up his (Ayers) name their own campaign ratings fell in the polls. Democracynow did a great interview with Ayers and wife Dorhn in Nov. 08 just after the election. You can view the entire 2-part interview by visiting "demcocracynow.org" and scrolling down the left side of the page till you come to I believe, what states "EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Bill Ayers and Berandine Dorhn". A great interview for anyone wishing to gain a better perspective on that period of our recent history.
The title should read: A Major Difference Between Reactionaries and Progressives.
Podhoretz, Goldberg, Frum, Barnes, etc. . . . these are reactionaries, crypto fascists, not conservatives. Even the left wing press insists on the continued use of the word "conservative" when describing these jingo ass kickers and drug store assassins. Get with it, will you!
MORDECHAI: Correct definitions. You can carve them in stone!
This is a good point.
From what I can see, America has mostly uber-nationalists, ultra-patriots and theocratic-fascists.
I'm afraid the American left could fit in a phone box.
There are conservatives but they are pretty much against the massive spending-spying on everybody-foreign adventures of both Bush and Obama.
Obama is definitely a mixed bag and the article is right on target. In my book the glass is less than half full but at least it is not in shards as under bush.
You can read Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ on line, for free, download the PDF, or order a hard copy. I recommend that highly.
Yes, you can have authoritarian leftists too, who just believe in a different god-king and different ideology that the conservatives do.
The writer fails to acknowledge that we've had a permanent one-government in charge since FDR left office. This conservative/liberal label is a charade for theatrics only, his examination is just theory. The American people does NOT choose who's president, and it would certainly NEVER have a chance to choose a real liberal candidate. When such a candidate does appear, like Nader or McKinney, they're ridiculed by the corporate media as "spoilers".
Obama remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike for now. This will change in 6 months when the average Joe sees him for the corporate fraud that he is.
I call nonsense. You would think that after eight years of Bush, instead of Gore, this myth would have been debunked enough for everyone. Granted, the moneyed power has a stranglehold on this country, but the vote of the people still hold force. The only reason the moneyed power still holds force in this country is because the people are largely unaware and unconvinced of its pervasive influence and control. It would be over in a few election cycles if the people could be enlightened.
Nader and McKinney, spoilers of elite privilege, ehh?
I couldn't agree more.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. -Abraham Lincoln-
We will see civil unrest. The makers are shaking in their boots. For good reason.
Nice article on one symptom of conservatism. For a good look at it's causes read John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience".
Hmmm, where Mr. Greenwald sees the glass half full because there is criticism of Obama, I see it half empty because that means the illegal/anti-civil liberty policies criticized by the left, begun by Bush, are continuing under Obama.
Which of those policies are continuing? Technically, the FISA warrants are legal since it is legislation passed by Congress, and it's not unconstitutional until the courts rule so, and that only happens if someone files suit against it. Are there others I'm not thinking of? I admit, I'm pretty damn tired right now.
OK, off the top of my head I can think of two things.
In one case Obama's lawyers threatened a UK court that if they revealed evidence of torture, the US would cease cooperation with the UK on intelligence matters.
Same as Bush did.
In another, In a recent speach, sorry don't have the link but it was widely reported, even in the US, Obama said that he would continue the "rendition" program. In the english speaking world "rendition" is called kidnapping.
Again Obama continues the Bush policy, if you can call kidnapping, tranporting victims across state lines for the purpose of torture, a policy.
Obama's rendition policy does not include torture.
Ok, good examples. For intel-sharing though, there's no way in hell that would end, UK and US intel is way too close to eachother. For rendition, yeah he needs to sign an EO to stop and ban it, pronto. And he should let that UK court reveal everything damnit, just let the truth fully come out and get it over with.
It's hard to deny that Obama enjoys the same "cult-like glorification" among some of his followers. Whether they're "progressives" or not, I couldn't say, but just as there were some who were willing to blindly support anything Bush did, the same is true for Obama. The "Update" at the end of this article seems to pretty much contradict what precedies it. 1-1/2 stars.
I agree with that. There is a large degree of opposition to criticism of Obama. There is some criticism, true, but that criticism is almost always hedged. For example, I've read the implication that the bonuses scandal is Geithner's fault, implying that it is not Obama's. Or that Obama better get his act together so that people don't get pissed at "our guy" (implying that there are teams and he is on ours). Then I think a fair number are arguing from the point of "how dare you criticize our guy." But in some ways, Obama has distinguished himself even from Bush in just how bad his policies are. I am not claiming that a Republican wouldn't do the same or worse, but rather that the economic crisis has put the President in a position of having to defend the capitalist elite even more than Bush did (as impossible as that sounds). Instead of starting off with tax cuts for the rich, like Bush, the government is simply handing them a ton of money (which Bush finished his term with) and this is impossible to defend. It is in this context that a fair number of progressives have to sort of criticize Obama. It is in this context that some are still adamantly opposed to any criticism, and that makes it just as absurd as the Republicans defending Bush.
"...the economic crisis has put the President in a position of having to defend the capitalist elite even more than Bush did (as impossible as that sounds). Instead of starting off with tax cuts for the rich, like Bush, the government is simply handing them a ton of money (which Bush finished his term with) and this is impossible to defend."
The biggest fraud and treason in US history carries on.
Do we really care who rips us off? Democrats, Republicans...how often does the flavor need to change before the voting cattle has comprehended that it's the same old soup of parasitic corporate oligarchic lobbyism which terrorizes our nation?