EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liberals Are Useless
Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.
I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.
“You have a tug of war with one side pulling,” Ralph Nader told me when we met Saturday afternoon. “The corporate interests pull on the Democratic Party the way they pull on the Republican Party. If you are a ‘least-worst’ voter you don’t want to disturb John Kerry on the war, so you call off the anti-war demonstrations in 2004. You don’t want to disturb Obama because McCain is worse. And every four years both parties get worse. There is no pull. That is the dilemma of The Nation and The Progressive and other similar publications. There is no breaking point. What is the breaking point? The criminal war of aggression in Iraq? The escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Forty-five thousand people dying a year because they can’t afford health insurance? The hollowing out of communities and sending the jobs to fascist and communist regimes overseas that know how to put the workers in their place? There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.”
I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.
Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.
I learned to dislike liberals when I lived in Roxbury, the inner-city in Boston, as a seminary student at Harvard Divinity School. I commuted into Cambridge to hear professors and students talk about empowering people they never met. It was the time of the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Spending two weeks picking coffee in that country and then coming back and talking about it for the rest of the semester was the best way to “credentialize” yourself as a revolutionary. But few of these “revolutionaries” found the time to spend 20 minutes on the Green Line to see where human beings in their own city were being warehoused little better than animals. They liked the poor, but they did not like the smell of the poor. It was a lesson I never forgot.
I was also at the time a member of the Greater Boston YMCA boxing team. We fought on Saturday nights for $25 in arenas in working-class neighborhoods like Charlestown. My closest friends were construction workers and pot washers. They worked hard. They believed in unions. They wanted a better life, which few of them ever got. We used to run five miles after our nightly training, passing through the Mission Main and Mission Extension Housing Projects, and they would joke, “I hope we get mugged.” They knew precisely what to do with people who abused them. They may not have been liberal, they may not have finished high school, but they were far more grounded than most of those I studied with across the Charles River. They would have felt awkward, and would have been made to feel awkward, at the little gatherings of progressive and liberal intellectuals at Harvard, but you could trust and rely on them.
I went on to spend two decades as a war correspondent. The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, like the qualities I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire—self-sacrifice, courage, the ability to make decisions under stress, the capacity to endure physical discomfort, and a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger. If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


762 Comments so far
Show AllI have always respected the views of Chris Hedges, but I can no longer read one of his screeds to the end.
He has become just one more voice expressing what has become the only note left in the national songbook: INDIGNATION.
If that's all you got, I ain't interested. I've been too indignant myself for a very long time.
I sympathize wholeheartedly with your sentiment. But something needs to change.
Hedges has identified the problem correctly:
"[Nader]There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass."
"...a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses."
I found it distasteful when liberals wanted to refer to themselves as "progressives" implicitly agreeing with conservatives that liberalism should be defeated, banished.
I don't see this writing simply as indignation but a call to develop a moral compass.
Its an intelligence dictatorship, man of intelligence.
So there's virtue in being stupid? Reading some of your other remarks, you seem to be conflating intelligence with class. Recall the demands of the Lowell textile workers - bread (food and shelter) and roses (culture and leisure) too!
There is only "pull" from the right because the left has allowed the right to set the terms of the debate, foremost of which are these:
1. The US is special because we allow individuals to 'succeed' by becoming obscenely rich.
2. Every US citizen has a chance to become obscenely rich as long as the gov'mint leaves them alone and does not regulate.
3. Obscene profits taken by corporations do not hurt average US citizens.
4. Taxes are oppressively high for average US citizens.
Unless and until the left finds a voice capable of effectively conveying to mass audiences (viewers, not readers) what causes the average US citizen to suffer, the pull from the right will continue to win, and even intelligent voters will be offered only 'best of the worst' options.
Obscene profit is created by many things, but it is often confused with creating value.
When a logger clear-cuts the forest and says he is creating value because of the logs, he isn't considering the value of the damage he has created (watersheds being destroyed, the unsustainability of the process). He spouts the fact that he is getting a million dollars worth of logs but denies he is creating environmental destruction in the hundreds of millions. He is a good businessman.
By the way, the logging company knows that they are destroying a whole forest. They just don't care. Just like most people who rationalize their actions. Until all actions are measured by a moral compass, nothing will change.
unrepentant Nader voter against the war and for single payer health care (medicare for all).
www.NotOneMore.US
mad kitty "the left has allowed the right to set the terms of the debate"
Are you refering to the Congress? The media? Perhaps the common wisdom? The left isn't represented in the congress, the media, or the common wisdom. In which debate are you refering? Debate? What debate? A debate is defined as - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. The left is arrested on their way or just not invited to the debate. About the only place I see a debate of the issues of importance is on this news blog.
What about those of us out there rallying and fighting the fight, Mr Hedges? Are we impotent? Are we indulging in self pity?
I agree with Hedges 100% on this one.
You can place The Nation, at the top of this stinking heap-O-trash of self absorbed cowards and fakes.
Despite their disdain for Palin, you can be damn sure they and their "elite circle", are all hoping for her to run in 2012. It'll be very, very good for business.
If you wonder why, just ask yourself--who benefits?
***
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding.” –Upton Sinclair
Yup, and they were one of the prime promoters of Obama to the "progressives", shutting out any voices who opposed him. They're complicit in Obama's ascent.
I'm with you, friend.
Indignation only works for the good when it is backed with some kind of personal action. Otherwise, it's a smokescreen.
So, what does it take to back indignation with action? I guess it's an individual thing. I have organized a local permaculture group. We're now 90 strong. I'm working with the local Transition Towns group to reorient our town toward a more sustainable future. I'm part of a local time bank system and working to tie it in with the above-mentioned groups to start an alternative local economy. I'm working to make my own back yard (literally and figuratively) more sustainable. I'm working with others to rely on each other, consume less, and subsequently lower our carbon footprint.
And yet, some "liberals" will run me down because it won't change the world, because I voted for Obama and not Nader. Well, yes it will. It's the only thing that will change the world. What won't change the world is purist indignation backed by hot air and more of the same inaction.
I ain't interested either.
In total agreement. Liberals are useless liars. Leftists however are serious and mean what they say.
Having said that, Chris Hedges is no leftist if he thinks soldiers and Marines have qualities one should admire. There's nothing to admire about contract killers. These derelicts volunteer to mass-murder innocent civilians overseas in name of the Empire. They're as loathsome and contemptible as Obama and Bush in my book.
Uncle Charlie
Well said. Your comments echo these other thoughts:
"War is always attractive to young men who know nothing about it."-Philip Caputo [1941-], American author and journalist
"The blood of the soldier makes the glory of the general."-Henry G. Bohn [1796-1884], British publisher
I agree as well. I don't think that soldiers are noble by nature. Our soldiers are committing war crimes. Of course, some of them are economic serfs, but nevertheless, are still committing horrendous crimes.
Why do you think they come back and go crazy? Because in spite of their rationalization of their actions in the cloud of war, some part of them knew that what they were doing was wrong.
But even so, most are still are more honest than Obama and the rest of the ruling crew. Maybe even Bin Ladin is more honest that Obama.
We had the name chickenhawks for the bush supporters of the war who never served themselves. Now it is time to come up with a name for the current crop of democrats who support the idea of war, while maintaining an outward appearance of someone who cares.
How about Vulturehawks?
Since this war is not really about bringing peace and justice to the middle east, you cannot argue in a logical manner what purpose it serves.
What crap! A lot of leftists are also useless liars, and I know a few liberals who are quite sincere. Your generalizations do not help anyone.
Chris is merely saying the qualities of courage and sacrifice are admirable. He is right-on.
As someone who has been involved a bit in some protest organizing, and have tried to get my liberal friends to attend protests, I find the biggest barrier to getting an effectie critical mass of attendees is the inability of these liberal to even sacrifice a single day off to go to a protest. And the lack the "courage" to go, for fear of an employer, or even just friends finding out they were there. And I'm talking about a legal, permitted event! I'm not making this up, either!
If you live in the Mid-Atlantic or NE, will you be in DC. Forget "courage and sacrifice" all we would need is "motivation" equal to those who attended a football or hockey game over the past month, within a 500 mile radius of DC, and we would have a crowd so large that we would se change.
pjd412: Forget "courage and sacrifice" all we would need is "motivation" equal to those who attended a football or hockey game over the past month, within a 500 mile radius of DC.
* * *
I'm afraid that those who attend football or hockey games (professional ones especially) have something a lot more important than "motivation." They have MONEY to spare. It's 20 years since I went to a professional ball game; I just got priced out. I suspect the cost of traveling 500 miles (each way) in the NE in mid-winter would strike most people as prohibitive.
It's rather sad to find such sentiments coming from the left. I could understand Republicans not understanding how the other half lives but disheartening to find progressives similarly myopic about their bothers and sisters.
Please WHAT courage, WHAT sacrifice? These are brain-dead contract killers, robotic zombies following their superiors' orders. They enable the mass-murder that's going on in the world today. Nothing to admire about soldiers or marines. AT ALL.
Uncle Charlie
Very well said. I think we need more of the robots who are in the military today to start thinking of what former Green Beret Donald Duncan said in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!:
"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
I view this rant by Hedges as a goad,a stick in the ass,a slap in the face to any who will pay attention as it seems the only way to get any one to commit to anything besides the dems or repugs.What Hedges admires about the soldiers and marines is not their skill at killing but that they will,to the death,take care of each other and how many libs or progressives will do that?As for the greens and others how come they dont come together and unite?Till then we are all whistling in the wind because any of a third or forth or whatever party will push their own agenda and the result will as ever-nothing.If I'm right this is an excellent piece.Tony
Mustbefree admires the fact that the soldiers and marines "will, to the death, take care of each other..." This is the same tired argument that liberals, of all people, used against people like Lt. Ehren Watada who had the courage and common sense to say that he would not deploy to Iraq while liberals as well as neoconservatives claimed that the soldiers over there would supposedly resent the fact that Watada was not beside them in Iraq. Soldiers like Watada and those in the IVAW are worth a hundred of those robots who automatically and blindly obey the orders that they are given without even attempting to engage in any critical thinking regarding those illegal and immoral orders that are handed to them by their superior officers. Soldiers of conscience are much more to be admired than those who simply go along with the program.
Reading comprehension coursework recommmended.
-mustbefree- actually stated that that is what HEDGES admires about soldiers, not what they themselves admire.
Also, who said anything about "soldiers of conscious" vs. "those who simply go along with the program"?
-mustbefree- was simply clarifying Hedges statement and then lamenting protesters' failures to show similar "courage".
Hedges was admiring soldiers and marines not in a vacuum, but rather within the context of his admiration for the spirit and "qualities" of members of the "working class" that he has been familiar with:
"The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, LIKE THE QUALITIES I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire..."
He also goes to the trouble to say "GOOD soldiers or Marines..." implying that there is another kind just as you are saying.
Are you sure you posted in the right place? It seems as if your argument has nothing to do with this article or the resultant discussion.
-matti.
matti;Thank you.Tony
No prob.
In fact I do it as much for my own sanity as for anyone else's benefit.
For whatever reason, Hedges' articles seem to attract crazy, inane, shill-filled, and LONG comment threads. Whenever I try to "dip my toes in" I can only seem to get half a dozen or so posts in before one like -Errol-'s kills my enjoyment.
Have Fun,
-matti.
Matti
Here is a thought. Instead of being so quick in launching ad hominem attacks by claiming that I am "crazy, inane and shrill" why not actually take your advice by engaging in a little reading comprehension yourself. You say that mustbefree was merely stating what Hedges was saying while it appeared to me that he was also in agreement with what Hedges had said. You inquire: "Who said anything about "soldiers of conscious [sic]..."? It certainly was not I as I mentioned about soldiers of conscience which, it seemed to me, was in direct contrast to the statement by Chris Hedges about soldiers and marines who "will, to the death, take care of each other..."
You wish to emphasize the fact that Hedges emphasized that he was referring to " GOOD soldiers or marines..." which supposedly was referring to those soldiers, as I had mentioned, who have spoken out against American militarism such as Lt. Watada and others in the IVAW. But if you actually apply your reading skills, you will find that he was referring to those soldiers and marines who exhibit " a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger." Now Chris Hedges may very well be supportive of those soldiers and marines who have spoken out against American militarism. But it seems to me, in spite of my alleged lack of reading comprehension, that he was referring to those soldiers and marines who, when they are in a field of combat, have a "fierce loyalty to those around you even if it puts you in greater danger." Those are his words, not mine. I had seen that type of "fierce loyalty" when I had the misfortune of ending up in a place called Vietnam and saw my fellow military comrades perform their mission without question.
Again, that is my interpretation of what Chris Hedges had written. But according to you, I should not be allowed to interpret it that way because if I do I will be interrogated as to whether I am "post[ing] in the right place?". This may come as a shock to you but I happen to have three of Chris Hedges' books and probably agree with him about 98 per cent of the time. I would like to believe that, despite your protestations, I have the right, especially on what is supposed to be a liberal site, to disagree with him about the 1 or 2 per cent of the things that he has written. Try practicing a little tolerance as it may perhaps help you to understand another person's point of view which might then prevent you from reaching such hasty and erroneous judgments.
For someone criticizing another with terms like: "Reading comprehension coursework recommmended"...
It would be a good idea to proof read your own posts for obvious spelling errors, and misquotes...
Erroll wrote "Soldiers of conscience".... not your claim of "soldiers of conscious"... whatever that is...
If you don't know the difference between Conscious & Conscience, or are too lazy to notice...
Then you are the last person to criticize another about their reading or writing comprehension...
Stick to forming an original thought rather than criticizing other people's thoughts, and you wont sound like a hypocrite...
GoldenMean
Thank you for your kind words.
Register in the Green Party ...
Yes, all you Dems out there and those of you choosing to be "Independents". In either case you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What does it matter anymore except that now both the Democrats and Republicans are immoral choices. More war, more bankster largess from tax payers, more domestic spying while millions of our children lack food, clothing, healthcare and shelter.
Feel better about yourself. Join the Green Party. It is the only way to get the attention of the powers that be. It is a way to build an alternative narrative about our country. It is a way to escape the duopoly of corporatism that are the Republican and Democratic Parties.
It is past time to do the right thing, the moral and ethical thing and the only thing that will make a dimes worth of difference for our futures and our children's futures. Join the Green Party. What have you got to lose except the shame of doing absolutely nothing about a situation you know can only end in fascism and ruin for the middle class, liberals and progressives.
Either your recruiting skills leave much to be desired or you're just another right-wing drone.
q
Please explain.
Promoting Greens or any other third party is no panacea because they have no power. If they attain power, then they will be indistinguishable from the current parties in power. It's a Catch 22 as long as the US constitution allows unlimited wealth. Good luck changing that...
If you think that the U.S. Constitution will ever set a limit to wealth you are dreaming Bolshevik dreams.
For starters, even if such egalitarian legal structures were somehow to prevail in this country they would have to be preceeded by a political Revolution so penetrating and thorough that it would almost certainly no longer be named "The United States of America".
Hopefully you meant something more along the lines of a skewed tax system. Though even with this idea there are two problems with your statement:
1. Codifying taxes in a Constitution would be at the least extreemly rare, if not unprecedented in history. Typically Constitutions assign merely the power to tax and perhaps some broad limits or guidlines. What you suggest comes close to a sort of Tyrannical Constitution that I doubt could be democratically enacted.
2. Even the most egalitarian of progressive taxation would shy away from a 100% tax above a certain income level. Though in practice this would likely yeild similar results to other high taxes for high incomes, i.e. reinvestment in order to avoid onorous payments to the Treasury, I would contend that there is a underlying principle in such a total tax that would bother many if not most. The idea that the Government can just take "all" of what you have is likely to be repulsive to most people (even if it doesn't really work out that way ever). Just imagine what the "conservatives" would make of such an idea!
But more to the point, I believe they were promoting Green Party registration not as a "panacea" but as small and realistic step toward mitigating the power of the Dems and Repubs. Whether one votes Green or not, and whether the Greens win or not, removing one's party membership from the Dems or Repubs has an effect.
For instance, voter turnout for their "primary" (intra-party candidate nomination) elections will shrink, opening up the possibility that these private affairs will cease to be presented as public ones.
An increase in Green registration would also have benefits on the positive side of "third party" chances, of course. Also, I believe that in some States total party registration effects electoral status for the ballot and such.
-matti.
There are no panaceas.
The Greens have no power, at least nationally, because people like you (and you, and you) won't vote for them. It's called a Catch-22, but it's a poor excuse for principled politics.
Initially, you'd be electing people who have chosen a difficult path because they believe in the party's principles (which the Big 2 don't have). Once in power, of course, you're right: it's vital to keep tabs on your representatives and keep them honest - if necessary, by diselecting them. It's called democracy, and it's what Democrats have failed to do.
mmkinl, however, is advocating an immediate tactic: by REGISTERING Green, you send a clear message to your politicians. Registering independent doesn't do that - in fact, pols will assume you're moving to the right or just don't care. And in some states, like Oregon, registering Green has a practical effect, helping the party to maintain its ballot access.
More broadly: principles or values you refuse to ACT on, for whatever excuse, are illusory - in fact, hypocritical.
I've registered green, in small part to show my dissatisfaction with the democrats, but more because it is the political party that comes closest to representing my positions.
I know, they have no power, and all you registered democrats have real power, which is obvious by Obama's policies and decisions (continue the war, not consider single payer health care, war crimes against B...well never mind)
What people should be more worried about, rather than which party is more powerful, is which party is doing the right thing. Voting your conscience might not greatly effect the vote, but at least you won't feel the sense of betrayal that a growing number of Obama voters feel. Isn't that real power, when you feel validated by your vote rather then being sold out?
mad kitty "Promoting Greens or any other third party is no panacea"
Hey! I'm a Green! Third parties do not have much power partly because of the false universalism you use here which is essentially, "We can't win. So why try?" I take exception to your defeatism. This is the second time I've posted a response to one of your comments. It is coincidence, I assure you.
You know what I like about being a Green? They're the wave of the future. It won't take long for disenfranchised dems to switch. Many are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Many movements took a great deal more time to effect change. The Suffragists, the Emancipationists, the Conservationists, all were inspired by ideals, tripped up by hegemony, and reborn out of indignation.
No offense intended to Greens. Just my feeling that the powerful always seem to find a way to crush beneficial change by taking it over and corrupting it. Sorry, I am rather depressed by recent events.
(and in my other comment, I meant debate in a metaphysical sense)
but, but, but, tom hayden is going to take his obama bumper sticker off his car! what more can a fella do?
become a Green Party Member ... there is solace in taking a moral stand ...
sorry, if the GPUSA becomes anything like its counterparts in other parts of the world when in power, not interested in the least.
Could you please provide some specifics?
For the most part, Iceland went Green after their financial meltdown. The liberals let them down, literally!
ps, there will be much Green bashing. The elite are terrified of a united front!
Isn't there some cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously believing the Green Party's chances for comming to "power" to be almost nothing and being unsatisfied with their likely actions when they do come to "power"?
(Assumming you find their chances as unlikely as most do of course).
Isn't this a bit like "I hate this restaurant. The food is terrible -and the portions are too small."?
So, are you saying that if Green Supporters could employ a time machine and show you what their party would be like IF it was in "power", and it was not like its European counterparts, you WOULD be interested?
Ya heard it Greens! Your Party will never attract members until you can regularly bend space-time! Drop those platform pamphlets and get to the physics lab right away!
Seriously, if you think I'm being uncool to you, please reread your post and tell me how it is supposed to be a logical or even rational argument.
I'll help. Did you mean to write:
-Sorry. We've seen what European Green Parties are like when they acheive Parlimentary power or form Governments. Unless you can convince me that the GPUSA will be any different from them in such cases, I'm am not interested in joining in the least.-?
-matti.
sorry. one shouldn't assume that readers of CD actually know what their favored party is doing in other parts of the world (europe) when in power. waaaaaay too much to ask.
i think some of ron paul's position are nuts, but as far as having an immediate positive impact upon millions of lives (ending the drug war, wars abroad, e.g.), why not support him?
Apparently Mr. Hedges sees a great divide between the "liberals", presumably consisting of those who identify themselves as "middle class", and the working class folk that he has idealized above. Being solidly of the latter group, I would suggest that their politics are equally as screwed up as those Mr Hedges has such great comtempt. Sure, they like unions but only their own, with little solidarity for the struggles of other fellow workers. Any taxation that doesn't fill their own pork barrel is resented, especially when it is perceived as supporting other races. Patriotism takes the form of violence oriented jingoism and seldom as entusiasm for health reform, support for education or building infrastructure. From my agnostic point of view, most are superstitious to a degree that mars their perception of the reality around them. Most are as easily led around by the nose by their televisions as are the "middle class". One could go on but, in short, the collapse of what little welfare state we had from the FDR era was made inevitable when our working classes, in their prosperous years, became as selfish, venal and unconnected to reality as our political elites.
Tony Vodvarka
P.S. Give Michae Moore a break, he made a mistake, but he has done more for this country than most.
"One could go on but, in short, the collapse of what little welfare state we had from the FDR era was made inevitable when our working classes, in their prosperous years, became as selfish, venal and unconnected to reality as our political elites."
True for many but now there is a growing discontent over politics as usual ... Someone will capture their anger and channel it ... Might as well be the left as in the Green Party. This is especially true of the debt serfed youth graduating from high school and college with no future in sight ...
The moment is ripening for a shift in politics as usual ... There is a ground swell of opinion that needs direction for answers ...
"Someone will capture their anger and channel it..." True, but it would be miracle if it could be channeled to the Green Party. For instance, doubts about the official version of 9-11 are increasing and circulating daily. This issue has the potential to erase the credibility of our government and bring about a paradigm shift in political perception. However, given the paranoia, racism, the long-propigated dislike of government and xenophobia that dominate our political landscape, that shift is likely to be toward blatently authoritative fascism.
Tony: "Doubts about the official version of 9-11 are increasing and circulating daily. This issue has the potential to erase the credibility of our government and bring about a paradigm shift in political perception."
This is an issue which Hedges, whom I admire, refuses to touch, and more's the pity. Like so many, he refuses to see that the exact same perverse logic that he has successfully isolated within the system extends to the events of 9/11. He stops several steps short of going to the heart of the current problems.
Likewise, he stops short of giving a meaningful structural critique of the liberal position. And by this I mean, while claiming to be a socialist, he fails to point out the inherent contradiction of the liberal support for the system that undermines the very same human and humanitarian values they claim to embrace. I perceived this lacuna in American liberalism decades ago, as did many others of the left. It's amazing that even Hedges seems afraid to articulate it.
Dear Clovis, Clearly, and for obvious reasons, the question of why WTC Tower 7 crimps in the middle and falls into its basement directly at the speed of gravity with amazing uniformity, is a third rail for anyone expecting to join in the public discourse. I, for one, who have no stake in that arena, cannot judge the risks that people who wish to must take. I have been following Mr. Hedges articles for some time, I understand that his perspective is not mine, but I look forward to his opinion and assume that, in the matter of the preservation of our Constitution, we are in the same fight. Exclusionism is not the answer to our plight.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Tony, but surely the issue of 9/11 must be pushed into the general public arena, if at all possible, by force of numbers.
Awaiting this, however, far be it from me to exclude anyone with whom I might make common cause, and Hedges is better than most.
Well said, citizen. Our present purpose must be to restore the rule of law. We must not underestimate the peril of the present day. As far as 9-11 is concerned, the truth will out because it is in plain sight
Tony Vodvarka
Sure, they like unions but only their own, with little solidarity for the struggles of other fellow workers. Any taxation that doesn't fill their own pork barrel is resented, especially when it is perceived as supporting other races. Patriotism takes the form of violence oriented jingoism and seldom as entusiasm for health reform, support for education or building infrastructure. From my agnostic point of view, most are superstitious to a degree that mars their perception of the reality around them. Most are as easily led around by the nose by their televisions as are the "middle class".
=========================================
I know what my explanation for that is, Tony. What's yours?