Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pundit Sloth: Blaming the Left
Ten minutes was the absolute maximum I could endure of any one television news outlet last night without having to switch channels in the futile search for something more bearable, but almost every time I had MNSBC on, there was Lawrence O'Donnell trying to blame "the Left" and "liberalism" for the Democrats' political woes. Alan Grayson's loss was proof that outspoken liberalism fails. Blanche Lincoln's loss was the fault of the Left for mounting a serious primary challenge against her. Russ Feingold's defeat proved that voters reject liberalism in favor of conservatism, etc. etc. It sounded as though he was reading from some crusty script jointly prepared in 1995 by The New Republic, Lanny Davis and the DLC.
There are so many obvious reasons why this "analysis" is false: Grayson represents a highly conservative district that hadn't been Democratic for decades before he won in 2008 and he made serious mistakes during the campaign; Lincoln was behind the GOP challenger by more than 20 points back in January, before Bill Halter even announced his candidacy; Feingold was far from a conventional liberal, having repeatedly opposed his own party on multiple issues, and he ran in a state saddled with a Democratic governor who was unpopular in the extreme. Beyond that, numerous liberals who were alleged to be in serious electoral trouble kept their seats: Barney Frank, John Dingell, Rush Holt, Raul Grijalva, and many others. But there's one glaring, steadfastly ignored fact destroying O'Donnell's attempt -- which is merely the standard pundit storyline that has been baking for months and will now be served en masse -- to blame The Left and declare liberalism dead. It's this little inconvenient fact: Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election.
Read this entire article at Salon.com
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...
55 Comments so far
Show Allwhat's telling is,
feingold received a lot of support of the party and the left and lost by a narrow margin,
while grayson didn't.
discuss why.
Have you ever lived in Florida?
Most Yankees who come down here see the difference.
i know the political difference between wisconsin and florida, without visiting the places physically.
but why were those two "progressive" candidates treated differently by their party and the so-called "progressives"?
see if the line that the "fake progresives" will NOT cross can be illuminated.
"Pragmatic" corporate hacks doomed the Dems, not liberals.
I couldn't agree more w/ Glenn...this paragraph sums up what happened last night that corporate hacks like Bayh (who's now cashing in on his corporate serving actions while in office) are trying to deny.
"Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them".
We need candidates who aren't "pragmatic" corporate sellouts who throw average working people under the bus and aren't shamed by Republicans into being afraid of calling themselves liberal.
CRAZY: Your post has merit.
I had to deal with a local electrician today. The guy was something straight out of Hollywood's central (stereotypical) casting. He said, "I did my part. I voted against the Black guy and his socialist ways."
Although I generally don't try to educate the Bible belt bigots that reside in my area, I did give THIS one a try. He said, "You're a democrat, aren't you?" As if he had met the enemy. I countered that I was an independent, and that BOTH teams work for the same sponsors: big money.
He wouldn't have it. He needed an ideological playing field exactly modeled after the sports events that many (particularly men) nearly worship in our society. He could only conceptualize party A or party B, and that these were BY NATURE diametrically opposed.
I tried to remind him of Obama's giveaway to the banks, same as Bush. Or about the health "care" plan, a giveaway to insurance companies; and that these types of choices are not in any way, shape, or form socialism... at least not for the benefit of civilians.
Useless waste of my breath.
It's quite likely that the continued worsening of conditions will lead more and more people to the realization that BOTH parties have sold them out. Only then can the necessary groundswell emerge to begin the much needed processes of collective catharsis... and healing.
Meanwhile, hold on for a wild ride, conserve your resources where possible; and if you believe in a Divine Order/Justice, pray!
" Both parties have sold them out ". True Sioux Rose. You have to ask: how long before the vast majority of the politically, dumbed down American sheeple wake up to this fact?
PAUL: The next 3-5 years are critical; and in my view, apart from the Civil War will reflect the greatest nadir in the country's history. The stars ARE my guide on this one, and they are quite clear in their portents.
Thank you for your reply. I do not need the stars to tell me you are correct!
Sioux, are you referring to pluto in capricorn? I think it may be squaring uranus now, but i'm not certain.
I need to check the ephemeris.
rita
Yeah, "the next (blank to blank) years are critical" Its always something.
I've seen the stars too, and to me, they all indicate a slow, steady and deliberate manifestation of an ever-evolving, planetary-wide police state... with lots of slaves. Meanwhile we argue over who gets to run the guillotine.
"The next 3-5 years are critical; and in my view, apart from the Civil War will reflect the greatest nadir in the country's history." That makes sense even without the stars.
Economic conditions will cause the masses to demand change. A decade of spending over a trillion per year on war while cutting taxes for the rich has given us a debt of 12 trillion. This, combined with peak oil and the shunning of alternative energy will prevent any return to the economic conditions of the 1990s. This will be exacerbated by the massive wealth disparity. The masses will latch onto whatever they perceive to be their salvation.
But the corporations and their media have locked the parliament into more of the same for at least a few more election cycles. There cannot be change via our parliamentary system. Therefore, there will be conflict.
So far, the right have successfully channeled the demand for change into a movement to destroy the left (i.e. the tea party). But can they continue to do this indefinitely? If some genuine catalyst for change arrives on the scene (e.g. bitter fruits of climate change) and alters the landscape then the rich and their corporate media may not be able to control the inferno, even with the help of Blackwater (Falluja #2 ?). It does not take a visionary to see that there is most definitely going to be either a wild ride or else some bitter suffering stasis.
We desperately needed someone to deliver hope and change in 2004/2008, and we got Pelosi and Obama instead, thus paving the road for the hard right in Washington and locking in corporate political hegemony for the next couple of election cycles at least. Fate was set well before this election. Had we pushed for the D's at this election we would have only extended the betrayal period and lengthened the time that it may take for real change. There was simply nothing the left could have done here.
I have to speak a little more carefully when I address you, coz you probably know. So I will follow the example of Roy, and add that when I use the words "we" and "our" I speak not as a citizen of the USA, but as a citizen of the American Empire.
Empires don't have citizens; they have subjects.
Correct. Thanks.
You're welcome.
Other than the obvious fact that liberalism is no more dead than conservatism was two years ago...gee, Glenn, lets blame George W. Bush. It must be his fault.
It was the right that achieved the stupidity of this administration and party?
Perhaps you should realize that when people speak of the left, they are speaking of everyone left of center. They do not parse as you do to break progressives (the far left) from liberals or the center left. Its just the left as far as people are concerned.
This election simply proved that you cannot defy the will of the majority. It puzzles me why people of obvious intelligernce have a problem with elemental politics.
Did you go to Salon.com and read the whole article???
If you did, you would know that Democrats DO "parse" such distinctions, and in spite of all evidence, the Democrats themselves are blaming the "left" of their own party for the defeat.
The move of the Democrats to the hard-right will now acclelerate.
I predict that Obama will use his veto pen very little over the next two years.
"Democrats themselves are blaming the "left" of their own party for the defeat."
This is what we want. If they blame us then they acknowledge that without us they are not going to win. Now is the time to push them hard to the left, not let them wander to the right.
Huh???
They blame our ideology, and the supposed public perception of their party with our ideology - not our voting or lack of voting.
So, by their thinking, to win, they most renounce us and embrace the right even more strongly - if that's possible. Of course, the media-induced ignorant public will simply vote for Republicans anyway, becasue they are the real, not conterfeit article. The end-state will be effectviely a single-party oligharchy, like much of central Amercia was until fairly recently, and in the case of Honduras, still is.
It is not an ideology they oppose. They operate in their own material self-interest, and oppose ours. The political battle in the country is not over ideologies, it is over who gets what - power and wealth. It is not between conservative and liberal (or "progressive"), it is between the haves and the have nots. The liberals represent one group of haves, the conservatives another. Both hate the rest of us more than they hate each other.
Correction, we are not the "Left" but either "Independent" or "Progressive" and lastly, they need us to win.
Many of us are on the Left.
I agree with you that many here are not on the Left, but rather are "Independent" or "Progressive."
The veto pen ---- I was thinking that too. Maybe the centrist Democratic Senators, convinced they have to be even more Republican, will make it easy for him by endorsing whatever comes out of the House.
Health care is going to be a big problem for them. If they repeal the bill, then that means states can pursue single-payer, a fact that won't please their corporate bosses at all. The two states that have passed single-payer legislation only to be vetoed by their governors, Vermont and California, elected new governors yesterday, who appear to be willing to sign. Things could get interesting.
I've been thinking that maybe we should dump the democrats and go with the greens or do like the tea party and try to kick some sense into the democrats but not let them take over like the repubs did with the tea party.
If we could get a few greens or independant liberals in congress, maybe that will start the ball rolling.
The terrible truth is that this election reveals the desperate and sadistic nature of the majority of U.S. voters.
The majority of voters basically said "To Hell with the constitution, we want more money." That is why the ass-kissing corporate pundits are so willing to blame anyone remotely left-leaning and that is why many of the "blue dogs" lost. The majority of voters just want this nation to be more like a fascist "security" state.
Our minds work by association with words and image.
Left means weak at best, while over 90 percent of people are right handed which is why the weak connotation of the weaker hand.
So in the political contest world, which side has built in popularity?
If Framing the debate is important, the frame is set against the people because the ruling class holds the keys, money and power.... the "Right" in the mind's eye first association is strong and right as opposed to wrong to begin with.
Considering these fundamentals of the main spectrum of political science, would a supreme court judge or any average person tend to rule towards the Right or the Left?
Anyone else see a problem with this picture?
Yeah, forget this "Left" crap.
Think War is Wrong, Peace is Right and you won't even have to turn off the TV.
Your remark about left-handedness is prjudiced and off base. But you do have a point - in just the idiotic English language of course! We do face a disadvantage of the Englich word "right" meaning: the adjective "right handed", the noun meaning "a basic societal entitlement" and the adjective "correct" all at once!
In Spanish, it would be derecha/o, derecho, correcto.
It was obvious once you said it.
Another word for left is sinister.
We shake with our right hands.
Right is right.
Yet the origin of the term comes from the French Revolutionary Government.
The left were on the left of the room. Maybe that in itself was significant.
Anyway, it's good that we know the power of words to evoke imagery, positive and negative.
Let's use it. :D
There is no doubt that the corporate democrats and the corrupt media will be pushing this idea because the last thing they want to do is to examine and explain the overwhelming participation and domination of the older angry white voters in these elections and their gut hatred of Obama and what he represents.
Though, Rachel Maddow's battering of Bayh was entertaining.
Endless War
No Universal HealthCare
Bail outs for the Rich
Assault on Acorn
Van Jones
Rendition
State secrets
Treating Corporations as individuals
Threatening Iran
Turning our backs on Apartheid in Israel.
What "Left"?????
What left?
"The Phantom Left" by Chris Hedges
---snip---
The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.
---snip---
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_phantom_left_20101031/
I have wanted to read this piece. Now i must!
We know why they are so worried about 'terrorists' don't we? That term means anyone who 'sees' through it all.
Yeah, an important article for sure. Probably one of the most damaging to date to the causes of true Liberals and progressives.
Thanks Chris. You've helped the Rightist elite with one of their most nefarious plots.
–SS
Tom: Thanks!
I recommend the new Chris Hedges book, Death of the Liberal Class. If any of you have any doubts about what Chris Hedges means, the book will clear up any confusion. Here are links to one talk given by Chris at the Sanctuary for Independent Media at Troy, NY on October 15, 2010 -- if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igjh39lrzKs -- this is the introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s -- the actual talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPDp0jCT_U -- a lively Q&A
Of course the left is to blame, just like Jews were in the Third Reich. The Nazis were defeated, but fascism survived. We live under the Fourth Reich. The US government is a Big Money dominated engine of empire and corporate profiteering.
The corporate media cannot blame the influence of corporate money in elections. They cannot blame themselves. Who does that leave? The most visible disenfranchised minority of progressives is their only viable target for blame. They can be accused without appearing racist or openly guilty of class warfare.
How else could the millions of corporate media brainwashed voters who think Obama is a Muslim not a factor?
It will take some leg-work at a sampling of county election offices, but the data exists to determine the degree that Democrats (especially the blue dogs) were defeated simply becasue would be Democrat voters stayed home.
I'll see if I can get the info at my own county office.
Michael Moore's comments on today's Democracy Now, were pretty much right on.
I thought he was still being far too charitable toward Obama in his belief that he was simply trying to be "nice" to his Republican adversaries.
But, he was stammering, taling long pauses, stumbling and emotionally distraught. It appears that he might be going through a cognitive dissonance crisis, and hopefully he will exit this crisis with his "Obama is a nice guy" and other invalid cognitive notions left behind in the dustbin of his therapists office.
"I thought he was still being far too charitable toward Obama..." -- SaboCat
So did I!
Hi Kay. Me too.
Good post, Sabo!
I will have to take a more focused listen to moore on DN today. When i heard him ask who we (americans) are as a 'people'. Well. I thought that was really bizarre. I don't think of americans as a *people*. Maybe that is part of the underlying problem i have with him. Among other things.
Funny thing. I'll post a comment on an article I read and it seems more appropriate for the next article I read. So here we go again and modified:
Now that we're rid of half the Blue Dogs, we might change our name to Progressive Democrats and let the progressive majority decide which candidates to run. A Feingold/Grayson ticket in 2012?.
Or will we let the DNC minority and its corporate bribes continue to run the show?
What sense does it make to join a third party minority when we already have a majority and when we consider that Big Money can buy ANY party if we let it?
Contact Progressive Democrats of America and demand we take back the Democratic Party, kick the Demcons out and install a progressive leadership:
http://pdamerica.org/index.php
What we are seeing today is the result of the "take back the party" and "work within the system" and "try to get more progressives elected" strategy.
As usual, too many people take the suffering of the working class people and see that as an opportunity to promote the interests of their own little organizations over the general welfare.
PDA is just as responsible as any other group for the failure to stop the extreme right wing.
On edit: I just went to the PDA site and I see that they are blaming the Left.
"On edit: I just went to the PDA site and I see that they are blaming the Left." -- Two Americas
I hadn't traveled that far yet -- and now, I won't bother.
I agree that PDA is "just as responsible as any other group for the failure to stop the extreme right wing."
People working on the inside, to effect change on the outside, is NOT a working proposition!
Thanks Glenn Greenwald. This is what we need to fight back those partisan idiots blaming us "far lefties" for the Democratic Party working so hard to fail itself.
Sometimes it troubles me to know that even the likes of Glenn Greenwald whose acumen and insight I greatly respect is still prone to get upset at the ravings and "analysis" of the messengers and gatekeepers on the MSM.
This shows you how thick and effective the miasma of propaganda we exist in truly is, how suffocating the tendrils of the duopoly truly are. One can finally see what billions upon billions of dollars buys - a propagandosphere unrivalled in world history.
How else to explain this phenomenon? Some points/questions.
Either everyone - including the likes of GG - is a liar, shill or dupe on some level or should we rather say that the propaganda system is so effective in this country that everyone is forced to be either a hypocrite or a fool on some level in our society. For example, the longer you spend in the public domain the chance of you becoming a hypocrite or fool approaches 1.
Is the seemingly lack of shame concerning hypocrisy displayed by both parties but perfected earlier and better on the right a hallmark of our politicians understanding of this trap as it has evolved over the last 20 years? I don't really know. Just thoughts.
Make no mistake, to come to "realistic" conclusions about the sheer fantastical nature of our present political system is very difficult for anyone - the cognitive dissonance is great, the anger can overwhelm, fear/isolation can take root and the propaganda is incessant and seemingly inescapable.
But to see even the politically erudite fall prey to exactly the same push-button tactics must give all here pause when considering the task of attempting to move forward towards some semblance of progress and the recruitment of others to the cause.
If you'll allow an observation.
There are numbers of posters here who indeed have accurate and helpful insights as to the true natures our present system, but I believe these posters need to realize how very rare their insights may actually be in today's world and how very difficult coming to similar realizations may be for others.
Congratulate yourselves on seeing things others may not. Realize how very small the minority you inhabit really is. Truly understand how gargantuan the responsibility is that you have just inherited as the new "teachers".
I have learned a lot here in lurking over the years and am grateful for the time people have spent in clearly explaining things to others and hope it continues. Thanks.
What can one expect from a population who's majority anchors thier morality in ancient myths and alien gods from an unknown demension. The comment was put forth that greater misery, man made or otherwise, might bring people to their senses. I fear the reaction will not be a sensible one. An armed citizenry, hungry and angry.
philiphoko;" An armed citizenry, hungry and angry". I heard Rush on the radio call democrats socialist, communist, and liberals are all evil. When presidents like Bush wanted to go to war he used the excuse that the leader of Iraq was evil. Remember the axis of evil Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Guess who the armed citizenry , hungry and angry will blame for their suffering, the same people the conservatives and so called moderate dems are blaming the liberals. We have been demonized since Ronald Reagan became president. The moderates and conservatives need to cowardly deflect the angry armed citizenry away from them because they know they are the people who cause the citizenry's hunger and misery. Too bad we can't get a class action law suit against those who have demonized us for libel and bankrupt them so they can experience poverty's hunger and misery. Their libelous statements are probably all on video tape. I know that is a dream not reality.