Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLiberals and Civility: Why Democrats Should Welcome a Rough Debate
Now that their summer of bluster is over, conservatives may congratulate themselves on a job well done. The stout-hearted defenders of freedom declared that government could never work, sometimes citing examples of misgovernment drawn from periods of conservative rule to make their case.
They deplored the prospect of government intrusion into the economy, ignoring the fact that our current troubles are the consequence of government's withdrawal from the economy. They insisted that every government action, due to some mysterious law of freedom physics, produces an equal and opposite diminution of personal liberty.
Although these accusations were often crudely posed, conservatives deserve credit for showing up to the debate. The same cannot be said of the Democrats.
In truth, there has been no better time for a vindication of activist, Rooseveltian government since the 1930s. The laissez-faire faith lies in pieces around us. Conservative dogmatism lay behind many of the Bush administration's worst blunders, including some of the monumental screw-ups to which conservative pundits point when denouncing government generally.
But that is not how the Democrats have chosen to respond. Instead, they pine for civility, pretending that the argument comes down to the scary rhetoric issuing from the right. "I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place."
I have concerns about the rhetoric being used as well, and about the louts and the bullies who use it. But it seems clear that Mrs. Pelosi's aim is to avoid debate when she ought to be wading into the thick of it. Her team has the arguments; it has the facts; it has gale-force historical winds at its back: Why not give back as good as you get? Why not simply beat the other side instead of complaining tearfully that they play too rough?
Besides, retreating into some imagined genteel tradition offers little safety. For one thing, it goes against the old rough-and-tumble image of the Democratic Party and confirms instead the effete latte-and-sushi stereotype of recent years. For another, thanks to the 1960s and the Clinton presidency, morality and civility are concepts the right believes it owns. Republican legislators can heckle the president during a speech to a joint session of Congress and this will not change. No contradiction is stark enough to budge conservatives from the point: In fact, during the nation's last civility panic, even Ann Coulter was able to get in on the deploring.
President Obama, talking about his own civility concerns in an interview with CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday, said he understands that the health-care debate is a "proxy for a broader set of issues about how much government should be involved in our economy." What's strange is that he apparently doesn't believe he needs to take a side on those broader issues. Instead, he used his many interviews on Sunday to dodge those issues altogether, to insist that he isn't really proposing a grand scheme of government involvement at all, that those who worry about such things needn't be concerned.
Mr. Obama is probably the greatest orator my generation has produced; he swept into office last year with more of a mandate than any president since Ronald Reagan. Mrs. Pelosi commands a large majority in the House of Representatives. Both are talented politicians at the zenith of their careers. Facts and stories that make the liberal case are conveniently at hand-in every paper's headlines, in every voter's personal experiences.
Their opponents, meanwhile, have responded to the economic crisis by doubling down on the bad ideas that got us here in the first place. Their most prominent representative is the conspiracy-minded TV weeper Glenn Beck.
The health-care showdown should have been a one-sided blowout. And yet it is the Democrats who are running to the playground monitor and watching their support drain away.
Why? Because from the beginning they have understood the problem primarily as a technical consumer issue, not a bid for social justice in a manifestly unjust time. In their criticism of the insurance industry they have largely avoided terms like "profiteering" in favor of dry talk about lower costs and more competition-hardly an ideal platform from which to launch a crusade.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have been crusading nonstop since the days of Barry Goldwater. Every economic issue is a grand moral issue for them-this particular one, even in its lukewarm Senate Finance Committee version, is "a stunning assault on liberty," according to Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.)-and until liberals are prepared to contest those terms, they will have to live with a little incivility.
63 Comments so far
Show AllEh.
The Dems have to talk reform for their constituencies, who do want reform.
They have to walk in step with corporations, who fund their campaigns.
These circumstances make for a debate style:
waffling.
"I believe it was a republican member of congress who insisted that government Census Takers were sent out into our communities to get information on Americans to use it against us."
To those that for get history are doomed to repeat it. People have forgotten that FDR set up concentration camps for the Japanese, Germans and Italians during WWII. The data that was used to round up these people came from the Census data.
The cult of personality that has set its self up in the White House should be compared to Germany in the early 30's. When an oath of loyalty to BHO is required its to late to stop it.
Dafoe
Face the truth, there is little difference between the Democrat and Repugnant Parties, only a matter of degree, they both feed off the same trough, the corporate one , which they serve very well, they haven't served the citizens of this nation for some half a century. Private enterprise and corporate socialism is now the under pinning of this nation, the Constitution serves them not you.
O'bama can't buck the system because the democrats in Congress with few exceptions kow tow to the source of their election funds.
200 odd years later after the "most perfect" constitution, you can still get arrested for "drivng while black" that perfect document has no human rights enshrined in it, it is all about property rights, so what do you expect, this nation is hewing close to the dreams of the signators of the Constitution, what you are witnessing is that in its extreme.
It is not so much a call for civility--or even cowardice so much. It is complicity which compromises the Democrats and prevents them from standing from their cowering stance.
That is the essential basic fact that must be recognized before any "activism" can be instigated. The problem is that all these articles lecturing inaction on the Left, so often, at the same time, are coddling and excusing Obama, hoping that with just more time, he will do the right thing on a variety of issues that, thus far, he has consistantly reinforced Bush policy.
Nothing will change until more finally face the unthinkable:
The Democrats are not on our side.
Not only do they not fight, they apologize and try to mollify their opponents. After dancing around and saying that he wanted a public option to be available as a last resort for those who could not get insurance any other way, Senator Casey said to those who were jeering him on the other side, "Look, I'm just as afraid of government run health care as you are." I as a Democrat sat quietly on the other side and felt betrayed. Is this what we worked so hard to elect--an individual who is really on the other side ideologically? Demoocrats don't fight because they don't really believe that government can be a force for the common good, for the average man. They should know, they're a part of it.
"How can one reason with frightened, hate filled, racist, misogynist, homophobic, greedy, superstitious, lying, murdering, egomaniacs?–(ezeflyer)
–You can't "reason" with them. An advanced or fully developed left politics realizes that you shouldn't "reason with them;" it moves to a point where you stop trying to reason with them. There is no 'reasoning' compromise with fascism. It is a question of their morals and ours. That moment, where fascism can be reconciled into a spurious normalcy, has passed. Only like deer transfixed in the headlights–it all seems frozen and permanent.
That bourgeois electoral democracy institutionalizes allowances for the irrational under the rubric of liberal 'tolerance,' is the crack at the fault line. One either breaches the crack and moves out into the light, or remains fixated in darkness. The politics of the old cave. Evolve or devolve.
Save the 'reason' for ourselves, but use it on them. As they cannot be 'convinced' of anything let reason acknowledge that, and reconcile itself accordingly. For now, simply holding that thought as a received truth and thinking about what it is to mean in the future, will have to be enough.
Is Thomas telling us to become Stalinesque left wing conservatives to counter the conservative Hitlerian right?"
–(ezeflyer)
No, but perhaps he should be telling us something similar to that but via other means– short of utter and systemic barbarism. Radical suppression of fascism is an imperative. How that bridge is crossed remains opaque and theoretical. But it must be crossed. All one can do now is keep learning and think through into preparation.
The inherent weakness of Liberal ideology allows it to be co-opted by and grafted into fascism. That is what is happening in America now; the reverse, where the fascist demiurge is modulated and transformed through liberalism is not possible.
For as you must know, failure to do so will have the bridge crossed for you, but in reverse. By elections and "understanding" our differences with fascism? By allowing fascism a voice? I don't think so. You will be betting your lives on that. –(Jill Bains)
I believe it was a republican member of congress who insisted that government Census Takers were sent out into our communities to get information on Americans to use it against us.
When Nancy Pelosi said :" This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place" it may not have been about the comment on the census, per say. However, recently a Government employed Census Taker was found dead from a hanging. This is a terrible tragedy and we need to know more about what happened. But it is very frightening to think that government workers may need protection like that of abortion clinics workers. Death panel, lies may be influencing mentally challenged, Americans to respond to the lies of opponents of the health care bill with violence against all government workers.
Before it even happened , the republicans blamed Rep. Pelosi for bringing up the possibility that it could happen if history repeats itself.
Good argument and one long overdue.
Progressives see a conservative mob of fear driven reactionaries. As cons reveal their true colors, maybe we're hoping the people will notice.
In the Information Age, if the public can't sift through the right's lies and MSM propaganda, they have no one to blame for their plight but themselves.
How can one reason with frightened, hate filled, racist, mysoginist, homophobic, greedy, superstitious, lying, murdering, egomaniacs?
Is Thomas telling us to become Stalinesque left wing conservatives to counter the conservative Hitlerian right?
You forgot to mention that the "frightened, hate filled, racist, mysoginist, homophobic, greedy, superstitious, lying, murdering, egomaniacs" are the discredited minority.
Our question should be: Why are the Democrats - with their triple majority that could pass just about any legislation - be coddling and representing the rabid minority?
Take a look at the polls. We are the majority! and it's time to exercise our power. Any ideas?
"Is Thomas telling us to become Stalinesque left wing conservatives to counter the conservative Hitlerian right?"
????????
No, he's telling us to read Dr. Seuss books to our grandmothers so the Democrats don't come and steal them for torture practice.
This comment climbs to the top of the heap! –(Jill Bains)
Um, ever since the Wall $treet bailout, it actually appears that the conservatives and liberals have been trading some sides. Again, another reason why I am sick and tired of these labels.
As Molly Ivins would have said, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired." The Democrats have lost all their excuses. The minority, 25%, Glen Beck and Rush, they have already been discredited ... Obama won! People voted for him because they thought he would be different, that he would find a solution to our most pressing problems.
Take a look at the polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
A majority supports a lot of what we progressives support, yet you'd never know it by looking at TV, MSM and all.
The majority wants the wars on the Middle East to end. They thought Obama would do it. He won't.
During the first bailouts, when Obama was calling on individual members of Congress to change their vote to approve the bailouts, Congress received calls - 100 to 1 - against the bailouts. Thanks to Obama and Bush, the crooks were bailed out anyway!
70% of Americans say global warming is a threat, 4 out of 10 say it is a major threat!
About 9-11: A majority of Americans are not satisfied with the "official" report, especially Democrats, yet Van Jones gets resigned for holding that opinion. Nonsense! This is theater of the absurd.
The majority of Americans prefer government involvement in health care, and 85% of Democrats prefer a Canadian style system, yet they pretend to be swayed by Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, as if these people were speaking for the majority.
This is all theater, it's nonsense. Dems have a triple majority for heaven's sake. Yet to continue the empire's agenda they grasp at straws, pretending that Glen Beck speaks for America and hoping that no one will notice that it's utter Nonsense!
Democrats are bait and switchers, betrayers. It's long past time to bail from that sold out party.
I agree, labels are really bad and I hate them alot. I've always felt this way but I was never able to articulate it as well as you do in so many of your posts. I even wish they would take the labels off the stores on Broadway, because then we could all just judge them by their contents.
"I even wish they would take the labels off the stores on Broadway, because then we could all just judge them by their contents."
That's somewhat different from labels on pols. Ok, I see where I wrote my earlier sentence a bit too loosely. What I meant to say was that I don't care what labels the pols want to parade around as but I'm just sick and tired of misusing them only to betray us in the end. Let's take one example. I'm choosing between Dennis Kucinich and some Libertarian. Based on the positions, I would most likely choose Kucinich. Now if I had to decide between Nader and Kucinich, boy would I really be finding myself doing even more looking up and thinking.
The Corporatist Ruling Party has two wings: the RepubliKKKlans and the Democrats.
"Reform" means streamlining how our taxes get sucked into the Great Corporate Maw.
The Empire exists to protect the Corporate Ruling Class, and "our" soldiers are expendable cannon fodder for the Empire.
Mainstream (corporate) media are the semi-official propaganda ministry (Orwell's Ministry of Truth) for the Empire.
That is all you need to realize.
As One Marxist points out in his comment below, the Progressive Caucus numbers only 83 out of 435. This does not give the Democratic Party "gale-force winds at it back". The rightward dynamic within the Democratic Party, which the above article ignores, has put severe limits on Obama's power.
In the 1920s, 2% of the population owned stock. By the mid 1980s, that rose to 25%. By 2007, 50%. The corporations are not the problem, the problem is that stockholders are voters. And as fortunes rise conservatism rises. This because conservatism is essentially about protecting the status quo. Collective self-interest is predictable within the dynamics of a democracy. Significant change is not likely unless things get considerably worse.
"In the 1920s, 2% of the population owned stock. By the mid 1980s, that rose to 25%. By 2007, 50%."
What a load of horse puckey. In the early 90's, big business went about the business of dismantling pension funds and substituting 401k in their place. Then the right wing cites the 50% number as the "all inclusiveness" of Wall Street wealth. All the while, Joe worker lost his shirt. Somehow that 401k doesn't quite measure up to a guaranteed pension fund. Who could have seen that coming?
Lefty,
Your reply distorts my point to such a degree that I am compelled to give you a short lesson in civil discourse, which you obviously need. First though, read my comment below (attached to gimmeshelters)...
Now take half of the 2007 percentage away (= 25% ["Joe Workers"]). Then, notice how my point still stands, and then consider how difficult it must be to explain complex ideas to people who don't understand simple trends, and if still the fact that the trend rose from 2% to 25% before "big business went about the business of dismantling pension funds and substituting 401k in their place", is not enough to expose your error, civil discourse may not be for you, which leaves you on the "fringe Left", just below the "teabaggers" in regards to influence, but about level with "them" in regards to sophistication. Distorting someone's point and then refuting that distortion is essentially lying.
While it is reasonable to assume that members of the Progressive Caucus are the most ardent supporters of government regulation in private markets, I'm guessing there's a significant number of non-PC Democratic Congressmembers who aren't psychologically wedded to anti-government free-market ideology.
On your 'ownership society' argument: Yes, that's been the GOP strategy for quite a while now, and they are always reminding us how many Americans are now themselves direct stakeholders in capitalism. However, I have doubts that asset ownership itself has led many small investors into the church of unregulated capitalism. The last 11 years haven't been exactly kind to a lot of mutual fund and 401k holders.
In one of your other posts here, you quite accurately point out that the treatment for the disease of speculative bubbles is ensuring that the productivity of the economy is distributed more equitably: higher wages. It's no accident IMO that Obama decided to take up the health care reform banner rather than talk about fair wages, living wages, and unions where it's a lot harder to fudge the notion of reform.
gimmeshelter,
An interesting aspect of the health-care debate, that relates to your comment, is that little if any consideration has been given to the fact that the rise of health-care costs have outpaced wages for more than 30 years. In 1973 for example, I eaned $7.00 per hour as a hot-roofing apprentice, in real wages now that is $36.00; but a commensurable job now pays about $12.00 per hour so there is obviously an arguement, at the very least, that falling wages are the problem as opposed to rising health-care costs. Not to suggest that the health-care system does not need improvements, but instead that, much can be learned from this absence of debate.
As for your other contentions, there are some problems. Let me say first though that I appreciate an intelligent response and your mistakes are intelligent ones. Most importantly, your ASSUMPTION that the "the last 11 years haven't been kind to a lot mutual fund and 401k holders" assumes that current values tell the whole story. The truth is that aggregate stocks are nominally worth slightly more than they were 11 years ago but until they are cashed in the current values are only speculative because of course the future is always uncertain. Then too my "ownership society" contention is broader than what I may have implied but I typically use the term "investment class", but that too falls a little short of including all of those who are franchised (real estate etc.). Put simply, Conservatism existed before stock markets did and history provides a clear pattern of empires gradually becoming more conservative as wealth accrues, Rome, Britain etc.. Owning shares of the empire does however give a much larger number of people a vested interest as oppposed to a stake and this cleary affects the dynamics of democracies. At no point in history though has a nation had such a large percentage of shareholders and it is not so much the number of votes that are affected as it is a matter of how much influence shareholders possess. An easy way to understand this is to consider how much influence the investment class had at 2% of the population (1920s), and then consideer what happens to the influence factor at 25% or 50%.
It is also a mistake to assert that this empire building strategy is the exclusive brainchild of the GOP. This is Capitalism as it evolves and at some point in the not to distant future things very well could begin to improve more fluidly because there is a weakness in the model. (I explained this a couple of days ago on one of these threads (CD) but I don't remember which one, I'll go find it and add it later).
One other minor thing is that you are confusing shareholders and stockholders. For example, an employee of a company is a stakeholder but he must own stock to be a stockholder.
The "weakness" comment I referred to above is near the middle of the thread with the article: Weapons of Mass Democracy, posted here on CD, (Tuesday). It essentially addresses the negitive externality issue in a global context. I should also add that it is not that Capatalism has a weakness, but that hegemonic Capitalism does. Capitalism solves the "vile insect" problem and until some alternative solution is discovered (incentives), Socialism will not work in the forseeable future. So I am trying to be positive about Capitalism even though the prospect is disheartening. I have however seen Socialist Revolution with my own eyes(Nicaragua)and basically, humanity is not civilized enough for Socialism, yet.
Oh no, they have an EXCUSE. So it's not a circus, ha? The clowns are fighting for real? ... Even the blind know better...
Stock, crock, most people are just trying to get out of this silly game, while minimizing their loses...
Arktig,
I stand corrected. ( Your arguement is just too powerful and compelling for me)
When did at least half the posters here decide that argument is really spelled "arguement"? I see the subliterate "arguement" CONSTANTLY here. Get a clue, people.
Is this the correct spelling for PETTY ?
Are you certain that some of those who you have insulted are not British?
You being the PETTY one, and the insults are all from your origin. If you don't give a damn about petty triflings like spelling, punctuating and schoolmarmish dreck like that, just say so. While you're at it, throw in ridicule for freewheeling mathematics. Two plus two can equal any favorite number. What the fuck, anything goes. And we're still expected to care about what you have to say?
Ephraim,
Even with math you are unable to make a valid point, why should I, or anyone, care what you care about?
The ARGUMENT version is American.
The Queens English spells it ARGUEMENT.
Only Americans spell it argument. Given that Americans Speak ENGLISH , it is they that mispell it.
We also use Colour and Honour. It seems Americans are in such a hurry to get to the next word, they have taken to dropping letters from those words in the interests of saving time. How long before we are told LOL is the correct spelling?
We could also go back to Chaucerian English, or at least Shakespearian. American English changed many spellings from "the Queens" for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the desire to break from its binding political tethers. Also for more efficiency in spelling. Judgement became judgment, for the same reason arguement became argument. The extra "e" brings nothing but needless baggage to the table. "Colour" and "honour" are in no sense superior to color and honor. Both are pronounced the same. It's all more complicated than a forum like this can manage, but your assumption that British English is "correct" and American English is its untutored cousin is simply fatuous. LOL notwithstanding.
I found it more then a little odd that you would condemn others for not bothering to spell a word correctly, then in the next breath defend spelling a word incorrectly because it more "American" and or more "Efficient".
Arguement is spelled arguement and it was you who took others to task for daring to use the proper spelling of the word.
Forgive me if I decide not to follow your lead in that endless pursuit of "American Efficiency" given the mess the world has gotten itself into pursuing that same mantra.
Judgement is still spelled Judgement and Colour is spelled Colour.
As to being foolish, I doubt anyone can appear as foolish as a person condemning anothers spelling of the word in one breath then in the very next defending the changing of the spelling of a word for the sake of efficiency.
If we had the grammatical zealots such as yourself 50 years ago, your American Colonials would never have dropped the "E" in Arguement.
Have a nice day . :)
Supposubly nobuddy goes to the libarry no more.
And they all COULD care less. (At least they have some interest in the matter.)
U need 2 chill, dood!
Your really loosing it!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Why not give back as good as you get? Why not simply beat the other side instead of complaining tearfully that they play too rough?"
Why? Because they're bought. They don't want to piss off their donors, who are the same donors that donate to the GOP. All of these guys, Dems/GOP are bought by the same people. They differ only in style and contituency.
As far as latte/sushi-Obama/Pelosi, this limosine/corporate liberal crap hasn't changed in at least the 40+ years I've been watching it.
This entire article is written using the same old worn-out and mythical stereotype of the Democrats as "the good guys, fighting for progressive American values," and the Republicans as the evil, fascist, dirty-fighting rascals out to keep the status quo - read: corporate profit to the exclusion of all else - firmly in place.
Wrong. When are these idiotic journalists going to start calling the Dems what they REALLY are: Republican-lite? there are NO differences between Democratic and Republican ideologies, except in how they are presented to the sheeple. Republicans are at least brutally honest, without any apologies, in their espousal of pro-Corporate, pro-wealthy, anti-labor, anti-American-people agenda. Democrats have the exact same agenda - as anyone who watches their voting records knows - but they sugar-coat and outright lie in their expositions to their constituents.
One party, 2 faces. Start calling it like it is, "journalists," or stop being read.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Kivals you are absolutely correct. The Democrats will continue to dissapoint everyone so long as people keep thinking they can deliver real change. Of course the Glen Beck types are going to win the debate everytime when mealy-mouthed people like Pelosi are running the show. What a joke, what a sad, cruel joke being played on all of us.
Who would expect the good cop to be blunt and uncivil? That's the job of the bad cop.
Arry: EXACTLY. Dems and Rethugs have been good-copping/bad-copping us for years. Excellent analogy.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
The Democratic leadership's strategy--crystallized in Obama himself--was to make huge amounts of preemptive concessions to the Republicans at the outset, in the apparent belief this would cause Republicans to stop being Republicans. Given this approach, it's no wonder the Dems didn't fight back when the strategy backfired.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. Obama figured the Repubs could be softened up if he, you know, sort of bought them off, sucked up to them, lay down and let them sh*t on him.
That's bipartisanship, Obama-style. That's three-dimensional chess, my friends!
Do they not have Republicans in Chicago, or has Obama never read a newspaper? Forget his birth certificate. Let's check what planet the guy's from.
Since the Democrats' whole strategy was guaranteed to fry their asses, it's small wonder they didn't fight back very vigorously when the Repubs went into overdrive. Apparently, they'd been expecting them to suddenly get all collegial.
Some of Frank's points are very good and worth repeating. But I think he misunderstood Pelosi's reference to earlier times in San Francisco. I think she was talking about the right wing flaming about Milk's sexual orientation and Moscone's support for him and gay rights. The subsequent assassinations of Milk and Moscone weren't good for anyone or anything; just a tragedy that might have been avoided if the level of vitriol had been less.
Civility is a tool of persuasion. The wild accusations of the right can be deflated by pin-pricks of factual elegance. There's a time and place to respond in kind to boorishness, but mainly because a little levity can make the truth shine brighter.
manning120, your take on "Pelosi's reference" is solid. Your points in your second paragraph are wise. As for Frank's article it is mostly partisan distortians based on a half-baked assumption that the current economic crises fits the democrat's model. Bubbles are only possible when there is too much investment capital in the economy. The democrats should therefore be making a case for higher wages but instead, they, because they too benefit from low wages, are distorting the truth. Progress is difficult enough without both parties taking our national debate to such dishonest lengths.
Liberalism is the Trojan Horse of conservatism.
Use of the Trojan? Now there's an apt term for a people getting screwed!
The health care reform "debate" started 60 years ago; Truman initiated health care for everyone.
Today, for all we pay, World Health Organization ranks US at 37th for our health care. Several third world nations rank ahead of us.
Good essay by Thomas Frank, also good comments by CDers.
That's very true.
Liberalism suffers from fundamental contradictions that conservatism avoids. Liberalism pretends that a capitalist world power can abide by international law, while enjoying high standards of social justice at home. Conservatism on the other hand knows perfectly well that this combination of features is an impossible fantasy, but simply doesn't give a damn. It's for raw capitalism without restrictions -- without ifs, ands, or buts. It thus avoids making promises it can't keep.
Conservatives always have advantages in confronting liberals, since the former aren't handicapped by the same core contradictions that plague the latter. If liberals ever tried to rein in corporate power, for example, they could easily be defeated by accusations of being "anti-business." Since libs are capitalist, they can't afford to be seen as supporters of measures that business won't like. // Similarly, if libs ever really tried to oppose US imperialist wars, they could be accused of being "defeatists" or of "not supporting the troops." Again, they must back down, because liberalism is a nationalist perspective. It can't risk being seen as failing to aggressively pursue "the national interest."
Therefore, even though conservatives are vicious bastards who lie more or less constantly, they still don't lie as much as capitalist liberals, who are always hobbled by the self-contradictory & incompatible features of their perspective.
"Again, they must back down, because liberalism is a nationalist perspective. It can't risk being seen as failing to aggressively pursue "the national interest."
Yet, on this very forum, there are quite a few posters who certainly do not identify as liberal, who identify as socialists or similar, who have no problem taking a nationalist perspective when it comes to immigration, movement of goods and labour, tariffs on movement of goods, restrictions on movements of labour. Historically, there has always been part of the (socialist) left that is extremely anti-immigration. It isn't just liberalism that is afflicted with a nationalist perspective.
Not to mention that your analysis of liberalism and conservatism is ridiculously shallow.
The idea that liberalism is beset by fundamental contradictions, but other ideologies such as conservatism aren't, is ridiculous. On the one hand, conservatives love to prate about individual choice and that government should not trample on the liberties and rights of individuals to make choices and live their lives. On the other, many of those self same conservatives have no problems with forcing their religion(s), their views of gender roles on others. In fact therein lies a fundamental contradiction of conservatism. Conservatisim requires the defense of tradition gender roles, the defense of the status quo, it requires the opposition of transgressive views of gender. The resistance towards change, nay the fear of change, is a fundamental part of conservatism. At the same time, the liberty of individuals to make choices is also a fundamental part of modern conservative ideology.
I find the animus of some hard core leftists, towards liberals, or pretty much anyone who doesn't completely agree with a particular strain of leftism, pathetic. It does explain why the left is so fragmented and struggles so much to get anything done.
And no, I'm not a liberal; there are certain fundamental elements of liberalism that I disagree with vehemently.
Rich,
Well put. It is a complex subject and for so few words I think you said alot.
I thought your analysis was quite good until the last paragraph. Just because liberals have a more complex view of things than conservatives, I see no reason to call them liers. Liberals are probably most hobbled by both their variations of view, often subtle, sometimes not so much, and by an innate inability to compete with conservatives in the intimidation arena.
You probably didn't like the last paragraph because you yourself identify with the word "liberal."
If you'd really understood the other paragraphs, however, you'd recognize that liberals' problem is NOT merely that they have "a more complex" or nuanced view of things. Rather, it's that their view is riddled with self-contradiction. They want to have the pretty talk about "peace" and "social justice," WHILE AT THE SAME TIME firmly supporting capitalism & nationalism. Unfortunately, these things are incompatible.
Well, of course you know that you are really 'out there' a loooong ways if you feel no support for capitalism or nationalism. We both know these ism's have lots of problems, but get real, there what we've got. The best we can do in our lifetimes is to improve and modify them. I'm a liberal and a realist. I know you're very intelligent, but perhaps a little less than fully sane? On the other hand, anyone who's not a little insane is probably out of his mind.
Your rationale for some supposed notion of "sanity" is the acme of intellectual timidity. In other words, it's the definition of contemporary liberalism. What you apparently consider realism is actually a rejection of reality. Only, you need to be fairly sane to recognize it.
Ephraim, verbose and vague must be an impressive combination here on the underside of the fringe. So difficult to argue with when even reality is what YOU claim it is. You were the kid, or still are, who would only play buy your rules, a whiner no doubt. And now you must play here where you are allowed to define reality, a reality based on what fits your needs. Do you have any notion of how intellectually perverse that is, how vain and narrowminded. To own reality!
"...On the other hand, anyone who's not a little insane is probably out of his mind."
- That's a pretty good line. I like it!
I don't support or capitalism or nationalism, though.
On the issue of sanity & realism: in 1916, the people in Russia who believed tsarism would endure fancied themselves "realists." Those in France who believed in 1788 that the monarchy would endure, likewise thought themselves "realists." The Eastern Europeans in 1988 & the Soviets in 1990 thought their regimes would endure, as well. They were all wrong.
The Democratic Party has evolved into a totally corrupt corporatist organization. I am not sure how it could turn it around at this point.
Members of a truly left-of-center party would have no problem responding to the drivel from the right. It is quite easy to explain that an individual needs not only liberty or freedom from government oppression, but also freedom from oppression by powerful private interests. It was not the government that enslaved Africans, but instead powerful private interests that did so. The enslavement may have been with government support, or at the very least government acquiescence, but it was instigated by and designed to benefit private interests. And the abuse of labor generally by private interests is a timeless and universal phenomenon in capitalist systems. Certainly a government can be directly oppressive as in the old Soviet Union, but private interests can be just as oppressive in abusing, enslaving, and even murdering the vulnerable, the weak, and the needy, either directly or indirectly through the aid of a government that the private interests have great influence over.
This gigantic blind spot to the ability of private interests to limit the freedom of and to abuse individuals, which the corporatists work feverishly to preserve and expand, leaves most in the US with so little political awareness that they are easily bamboozled into supporting completely corrupt politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, who rarely deliver anything of value for the great majority of their constituents.
nice analysis kivals---thanks!
"The health-care showdown should have been a one-sided blowout. And yet it is the Democrats who are running to the playground monitor and watching their support drain away. "
If it isn't a blowout, perhaps it is because many of the elected Dems are squarely for a give-away to the insurers.
Maybe it is because the Dems have promised drug makers that Americans will be forced to continue paying more for drugs than citizens of other countries pay for the same prescriptions.
Or is it because the Dems are proposing a tangled plan that doesn't cover everyone?
Or is due to the fact that their plan will only slow the price increases?
It is a good question because the obvious solution found all around the world, universal single-payer cuts the price of healthcare in half and gives you womb to tomb coverage.
that darn ol' GOP, even way in the minority they still win. How can that be? Why do the election year campainging as progressive Democrats roll over? I can't wait for the promises of 2010 elections. Troops out now? UHC? tax the rich? redux 2006 and 2008. hey it worked those times.
Your question regarding why the GOP 'wins' while in extreme minority status ignores the reality of the preponderance of republicans wearing the 'Dem' label in Congress.
The true size of 'our' presence in Congress is reflected by the numbers in the Progressive Caucus, currently numbering 83 members out of a body of 435, hardly a majority, not even a plurality. The US Senate is even worse, with two (2) declared members, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) out of 100 members.
Oh no, they have an EXCUSE. So it's not a circus, ha? The clowns are fighting for real? ... Even the blind know better...
I'm not sure you comprehended my post.. I'm not excusing anything at all, merely recognizing the reality that the vast majority of Congress is corporate right wingers. It's important to have an appreciation of the political terrain regarding these endeavors.
The Democrats are completely full of "should." They "should" not only welcome a rough and tumble debate, but they "should" be able to win one. But they can't
They are opponents, there to give the appearance of putting up a good fight while being positioned to lose. The fix is in.